best roll film format

[kparratt]

<p>Don it's interesting you bring that up.<br>

Firstly 39x24 (<em>approximately</em> the golden section) is not that close to 36x24, and I had this so firmly pointed out to me in art classes, art history studies, from Classical Greek architecture up to the Renaissances and beyond, and in technical drawing classes, that I would never dare utter such a thing in the presence of a scholar, .. ever again. Once was enough. ;-)<br>

Prior to Oscar Barnac's invention, and it was his, of the 24x36 format, Kodak had already introduced roll film cameras using a rectangular proportion as close to but longer than the Golden section. Whereas Barnac's 24x36 falls short. The <a href="http://www.vintagephoto.tv/3afpk.shtml"><strong>Folding Pocket Camera</strong></a> produced the highly popular 3 1/4 x 5 1/2 inch, so called "Postcard" format, and these postcards were produced in vast numbers. <br /> <br /> The author of the text at <a href="http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle.html">fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com</a> fancies the idea that: "Perhaps Oskar Barnack had this (the Golden Section) in mind when he created the 3:2 aspect ratio." I doubt it. The first UR was a tool produced primarily to test batches of cine film emulsions. He was working on cine cameras. The film with Thomas Edison's sprocket hole size and spacing, and the 18x24 format, was the standard for 35 mm cinematography then. The coatings formulated for the 35mm cine film were of much higher quality than the emulsions on roll films, which were knocked out in their millions for the amateur market. There was no expectation of 'enlargement' from the roll film, because everything was contact printed. Whereas the 18x24 cine frame had to look good when projected onto a cinema screen. And yes, he had the idea, born out of his awareness of the vast difference in emulsion qualities between those of cinema and hobby films, that this was something to explore. Hence his mantra "Small film, large print" in stead of the contact print from film that could not withstand enlargement.<br /> <br /> The format: If you look at a strip of 35mm film and see how much longer the frame would have been had he extended it by one sprocket hole. Would it be closer to the Golden Section at 9 perforations long? .. in stead of the current 8?<br /> <br /> The sprocket holes (perforations) existed. Was it for convenience that he simply tried doubling the frame? Was there a mechanical consideration? I prefer the rectangle arrived at when stopped at 7 perforations, which more closely resembles the nominal 6x7, also known as the "Linhof ideal Format". He would certainly have been constrained by the perforations, and using the perforations to ensure precision was a given. but was there also a mechanical convenience in the selection of 4x2=8 ? Is it reasonable to assume that when fabricating the UR, he would have utilised the tooling on hand, together with known calculations? I would certainly imagine so. The need for a film testing camera was the mother of the original invention, and it needed to be created efficiently. If the The Golden section was such a guiding light, he would have achieved it precisely, ... absolutely spot on. Oscar Barnac was an precision engineer who enjoyed photography, not at artist.<br>

Certainly whilst working on it, designing components, modifying components, assembling it and loading the first film, processing it, I am sure thoughts of a production camera then began to ferment. The production camera was a UR with improved functionality. Prints from the 24x36 frame looked good, so they ran with it.</p>

 

[ivan_j._eberle1]

The best reason I can think of for roll backs is for architectural photography with longer focal length lenses. Relatively/effectively there's more rise and fall available for a given image circle. While I don't do much of that myself, I nevertheless thought I needed a roll back anyway. After the novelty wore off, I found I hardly ever used it. It was pain to focus on the GG and then have to remove it and stash it somewhere safe to mount the roll film back. Discovered that if I left the GG at home to use my Super Graphic as a big rangefinder it was difficult to guess at composition with the roll film back, and that a MF SLR was in just about all ways superior.

 

If the desire for roll film is to save money, consider that some of the roll film holders like the Sinar Vario are very spendy, selling for more than most entire 4x5 cameras, and (used) Nikon Coolscans are fetching more than most (used) Linhof Master Technikas these days. You well might be able to buy a PMT drum scanner for what you'd have into just the Vario!

 

Just to put things in perspective.