Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Larry, You make me realize that I'm older than most Luggers. It has always been single-frame and double-frame for me, since I am vintage 1930. My single-frame experience started with the Universal Mercury II, which I still have. Jim Nichols Tullahoma, TN USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence Zeitlin" <lrzeitlin@optonline.net> To: <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 8:52 AM Subject: [Leica] Re: Single vs. 1/2 frame > > On Jul 22, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Mark wrote: > >> I remember getting WESS slide mounts from a camera store on Manchester >> Street in Maplewood Mo a suburb of St. Louis in the 70s and the half >> frame >> slide mounts were labeled "single frame". >> While regular slide mounts for the normal 24x36 format were labeled >> "double >> frame" and I still have some of those mounts. Each one says that on it. > > It was that way for me too. According to photo historians, the first > commercial 35 mm cameras such as the Tourist Multiple, introduced in > 1912, used the same 35 mm frame sizes as movie cameras. In fact one, the > Sept, could be used to take short movie sequences. One of Barnack's > innovations was to double the frame size to 24 x 36 mm, i.e. double > frame. In fact he wasn't even the first to do it. Up through WW2, 35 mm > cameras were referred to as double frame. I guess it wasn't until the > Japanese started popularizing single frame cameras in the 50s and 60s > that it started being called 1/2 frame. Probably to give the idea that > you go twice as much for your film dollar. > > Larry Z > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >