Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control



Michael,

I am willing to accept what you say about the thickness and length of 620
compared to 120.  I just seem to remember reading and hearing that it was
slightly different especially in thickness and maybe length. Well, so much
for relying on memory. :-)  Happy to be corrected when wrong; but my
understanding as to differences in thickness would help explain curl - too
bad it evidently does not fit the facts.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Michael Creem
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:19 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control


120 and 620 film were the same size width, length and thickness. The only
difference was the shape of the spools. The 620 spool had a very thin core
and slim ends. The 120 spool had a thicker core and fatter ends. The 620
spool and film together made a  more compact package than a spool of 120. If
I remember correctly, there were problems with film curl with 620.  There
were very few high end camera that used 620. Hasselblad always used 120.
Michael




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.