On Jan 13, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Bob Shell wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:33 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>
>>
>>> There have been quite a few obsolete formats. Remember APS film
>>> cameras? Soon be able to add th and the digital equivalent APS-C to
>>> the Wikipedia lists together with the DA lenses!!
It's most likely a masked down 4*4 frame, possibly from a Baby Rollei?
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message - >> [Original Message]
>> From: Mark Cassino
>
>> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which of course
>> is no problem. But I wasn't expecting 35
On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:33 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>
>> There have been quite a few obsolete formats. Remember APS film
>> cameras? Soon be able to add th and the digital equivalent APS-C to
>> the Wikipedia lists together with the DA lenses!!
>
> APS is the only film on show in the camera shop in t
127 roll film slide, a.k.a. "superslide". I had a gray Baby Rolleiflex
that took 127 size film. I loved the large slides you could get from
Ektachrome 127 film. You could load the 2X2 size mounts in a slide
projector and get the most amazing image on a screen. At some gift shops,
say, in nati
It's 127 format - don't know about other manufacturers, but Kodak made
slide film in that format for a period of time. When mounted, they
called them *superslides*. Image size is about 38mm x 38mm.
-P
Mark Cassino wrote:
> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which of cours
Peter Fairweather wrote:
> There have been quite a few obsolete formats. Remember APS film
> cameras? Soon be able to add th and the digital equivalent APS-C to
> the Wikipedia lists together with the DA lenses!!
APS is the only film on show in the camera shop in the biggest indoor
mall in the U
On 1/13/07, Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which of course
> is no problem. But I wasn't expecting 35 mm _square_ exposures:
>
> http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP2607.jpg
>
> That's a modern 35mm exposure on the right.
>
> She al
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Mark Cassino
>
> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which of
> course is no problem. But I wasn't expecting 35 mm _square_ exposures:
>
> http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP2607.jpg
>
> That's a modern 35mm exposure on the right.
I think it
Boris Liberman wrote:
> John Francis wrote:
>> Wikipedia is really getting to be useful nowadays.
>> It shows up in the top two or three sites on a lot
>> of my Google queries.
>>
>> Just stay away from socio-political commentary, though.
>
> I'd have to agree. Whenever a fact or explanation of te
In your dreams. Three new DA* lenses coming this year.
Paul
On Jan 13, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Peter Fairweather wrote:
> There have been quite a few obsolete formats. Remember APS film
> cameras? Soon be able to add th and the digital equivalent APS-C to
> the Wikipedia lists together with the DA lense
There have been quite a few obsolete formats. Remember APS film
cameras? Soon be able to add th and the digital equivalent APS-C to
the Wikipedia lists together with the DA lenses!!
Peter
Full frame Pentax Lenses a speciality
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailma
Then the image would be half the size of a normal 35mm image.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OT: What Film Format Is This?
> Olympus (and, I presume, others) made a 1/2 frame 35mm format. Perhaps
>
bout 8, used this.
>
>> From: Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: 2007/01/13 Sat PM 05:26:12 GMT
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: OT: What Film Format Is This?
>>
>> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which of cou
I think you're looking at 127 photo size is roughly 40x40mm or 1.5"x1.5"
the slides will fit in a 35mm projector. but you'll probably have
trouble scanning them in a film scanner that will only scan 35mm film or
smaller..
Mark Cassino wrote:
> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm sli
That's 127 format. Common to lots of inexpensive cameras of the
fifties. I had a
Brownie Starflash that shot 127, so I have several boxes of the
slides myself.
Paul
On Jan 13, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Mark Cassino wrote:
> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which of
> course
>
That is not 35mm, it is 127 slide film (sometimes called super slides
because it would fit in a 2x2 mount).
-graywolf
Mark Cassino wrote:
> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which of course
> is no problem. But I wasn't expecting 35 mm _square_ exposures:
>
> http://www.
John Francis wrote:
> Wikipedia is really getting to be useful nowadays.
> It shows up in the top two or three sites on a lot
> of my Google queries.
>
> Just stay away from socio-political commentary, though.
I'd have to agree. Whenever a fact or explanation of technology or
otherwise non-human
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 01:02:19PM -0500, Bob Shell wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Bob Shell wrote:
>
> > On Jan 13, 2007, at 12:44 PM, mike wilson wrote:
> >
> >> 126 format, I believe. Came in a cassette, like 110. My first
> >> camera, an Agfamatic given to me when I was about 8, u
NO, 620 film is same size as 120, which would be much bigger than
that slide.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jack Davis
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:48 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: What Film Format Is This
, 2007 12:33 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: OT: What Film Format Is This?
Olympus (and, I presume, others) made a 1/2 frame 35mm format. Perhaps
that's what you've got.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Mark Cassino
> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35
On Jan 13, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Bob Shell wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2007, at 12:44 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>
>> 126 format, I believe. Came in a cassette, like 110. My first
>> camera, an Agfamatic given to me when I was about 8, used this.
>
> 126 is smaller, IIRC.
Here's a great table showing film ty
>
> From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/01/13 Sat PM 05:56:23 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: OT: What Film Format Is This?
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2007, at 12:44 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>
> > 126 format, I believe. Came in a cas
On Jan 13, 2007, at 12:44 PM, mike wilson wrote:
> 126 format, I believe. Came in a cassette, like 110. My first
> camera, an Agfamatic given to me when I was about 8, used this.
126 is smaller, IIRC.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml
On Jan 13, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Mark Cassino wrote:
> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which of
> course
> is no problem. But I wasn't expecting 35 mm _square_ exposures:
>
> http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP2607.jpg
>
> That's a modern 35mm exposure on the right.
That'
bout 8, used this.
> >
> > From: Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2007/01/13 Sat PM 05:26:12 GMT
> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > Subject: OT: What Film Format Is This?
> >
> > My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which
126 format, I believe. Came in a cassette, like 110. My first camera, an
Agfamatic given to me when I was about 8, used this.
>
> From: Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/01/13 Sat PM 05:26:12 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: OT: What Film Fo
Olympus (and, I presume, others) made a 1/2 frame 35mm format. Perhaps
that's what you've got.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Mark Cassino
> My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which of course
> is no problem. But I wasn't expecting 35 mm _square_ exposures:
>
> http:
My sister in law asked me to scan some old 35mm slides, which of course
is no problem. But I wasn't expecting 35 mm _square_ exposures:
http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP2607.jpg
That's a modern 35mm exposure on the right.
She also had several medium format 6x6 cm slides, probably taken in a
28 matches
Mail list logo
