Talk:9.5 mm film

"single, central perforation"

I don't understand. According to the article, the format uses a "single, central perforation". Wouldn't this kinda annoying to always see perforation in the middle of the projected picture? I guess this is not the case, but the article really makes it sound like this.

Response to single, central perforation

The shutter blade should minimize this. Otherwise, in regular 8 and super 8 film you would see the black top/bottom margins, but you do not because of the shutter blade.

"between each pair of frames"

"The format uses a single, central perforation (sprocket hole) between each pair of frames"

Requested move

9,5 mm film → 9.5 mm film – Decimal point rather than comma seems to be the dominant formatting by English speakers. (See also decimal separator.) Girolamo Savonarola 04:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Strong support. English language and English Wikipedia standard. Gene Nygaard
Support per nom. --Lox (t,c) 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. LuiKhuntek 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Use English-language formatting. -- Jake 23:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 14:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite correct. The decimal vs comma is the difference between American and all European norms, regardless of language. PastReflections (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False. The UK and Ireland use the point, not the comma. oknazevad (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful claim.

The claim, "The width of 9.5 mm was chosen because three strips of film could be made from one strip of 35 mm film." is a very dubious. A better choice, if this was the reason, would be 11.5 mm. With that width, less of the 35 mm would have been wasted (in fact only 1+1⁄2 mm as opposed to 6+1⁄2 mm). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.brianpritchard.com/Fig%202.jpg it appears that there is not more than 26.62mm of space between the perforations on 35mm film, and some film formats have even smaller imaging areas (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:35mm_film_common_formats.svg ). For these reasons we can conclude the current "three strips" explanation is wrong as it's written (there isn't room for three 9.5mm strips after cutting off the sprocket holes), so I'll make a simple change to remove that false explanation, but it's possible that film manufacturers used some other method. For example, the 35mm film could be made without perfs, or with perfs on just one side, or with the three columns of perfs required for the 9.5mm format. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I know about the format. 35mm film without perfs would could be made into 3 9.5 films with a little more then 1 mm on each side for production error. This allowed them to print three copies of a film on a single 35mm film, and then cut it into three copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.68.8 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More detail needed

One thing that is not covered in any history I have been able to find is the nature of 9.5mm film at its introduction. We know about when it was introduced, but when and by whom was it conceived? Was it originally conceived as a reversal film or is that something that was adopted after Kodak introduced 16mm reversal in 1923? If the former, who has knowledge of the system's development? Did Pathe set up commercial processing stations at the beginning, or was the film originally supposed to be home processed? All of these things should be addressed. PastReflections (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have since found a little more information, but conflicting from different sources. The most likely says that the projector was introduced in time for Christmas 1922 and that the camera and reversal film were announced in April 1923. Still like to know how it came about. Was Pathe's reversal process in answer to the system Kodak was about to introduce, or did it come about independently? There seems to be little detailed company history, but my instinct tells me that because Kodak and Pathe were close, Pathe was probably aware of the reversal experiments from fairly early on, and initiated their own. It's not something you develop overnight. PastReflections (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]