Thank you for the engagement! Just a reminder, my goal with this channel is to make niche topics more accessible for those getting into film. this is a safe place for film beginners to learn together and have a good time ❤
Thank you for this video! Just got my disposable camera photos developed and loved how they turned out. So I was looking into buying the half frame but the loss in resolution concerned me. This video was great and simple for someone just starting out like me!
I think so many people have misunderstandings about half frame simply because they never really took the time to understand how a film camera works. Just sit down for 5 minutes and learn about it. Maybe I'm being harsh, idk, it's just not really a difficult concept at all.
Absolutely correct. However, that is because the half frame models of the 1960s and 70s were designed, as much as technology would allow, to be used by folks who knew nothing about photography or camera operation, and who did not wish to learn. Their simplicity makes them far easier to use than a Pentax 17 today. Optically, their lenses are better than in new models today, because back then, cameras were objectively rated in hobby magazine. Poor optics would get an "unacceptable" rating, which would kill a new model dead as a door nail. Further, folks made prints, not smartphone screenshots, so the lenses had to stand up to a significant level of performance.
I totally get what you mean, on all my videos regarding the h35 cameras, I’ve got about 150-200 total questions about how half frame works. I think it’s easy enough to understand, but i have to remind myself that the primary target audience for those cameras are most likely beginners. Oh well haha
why couldnt they simply made it like the Konica Autorex where you could change at any moment to halfframe and back? not capable anymore to copy a 40+ cheap camera nowadays?
I’ve build a darkroom in a spare bedroom. And the enlarger I bought came with several negative carriers. Including 17mm. Me thinking, i ought to trow this out cause I’m never gonna use that. Good thing I never did. It’s the most used carrier I have now.
One note: 35mm isn't named because the long-dimension is 35mm. It's 36mm, and not remotely where the name of the film format came from. 35mm film is named for the height of the film, including the sprocket holes and rebate. That's the 35mm dimension, and it was in contrast to early cinema film, like 16mm. Oskar Barnack of (Lei)tz (Ca)mera was one of the first folks to make a commercially viable camera using that 35mm motion picture film, placed into a small canister, and run sideways rather than vertically, in order to have a compact camera with a large film capacity. In that sense, half-frame is the actual 35mm film frame size, and what we call "full frame" is more like double-frame. But yeah, I'm a fan of half frame. Most of the time, when I shoot film the "pure image quality" is already lower than digital pictures I could be taking, even when going full frame 35mm. So if I'm shooting film mostly for the character and look of film, getting more shots makes sense. I'm already not competing with resolution on 35mm. For something like the H35, you don't really lose out much in IQ compared to full-frame plastic-fantastic reloadables. While I think the 22mm lens on the Reto UWS is kind of special, just because of how wide it is for the size and price of the camera, the standard 31mm basic film camera just isn't all that good. Going for half-frame 22mm, using the best part of the lens, and even gaining access to a partly glass lens in the h35N, just makes more sense. Once upgrading to "real cameras," there is an image quality gap, but you still have the benefit of more shots. I don't know that I'd think of it as lower costs so much as adding shots. I find I still take about the same amount of time to shoot a roll, but I just shoot more pictures. I snap things I wouldn't have otherwise shot, and the cameras are so small that they're great as part of a two-camera setup. Bringing a half-frame and a medium format is the best of both worlds. All the detail and quality of 120 film for the few shots that really matter, taking the time to be precise with metering and framing, plus a half-frame for taking a lot of casual snaps of stuff you wouldn't want to slow down for on 120, shots which might feel like a waste when it's 1/12th of a roll, but at 1/72nd, it makes a lot of sense.
For me, half frame is kinda frustrating. I mostly shoot 6x6 nowadays, and a roll could took a few months to finish. Thats for 12 frames. But... I can see the idea of half frame e.g for travel snap shots. Not every photos have to be printed in big size, after all.
Part of what's fun about half-frame for me is that I can just shoot stuff I wouldn't otherwise bother with in 6x6 (or 6x12!). Add in the small size, and it's not too hard to just bring both cameras. One for when I want to be precise and nail an important shot, and one for just snapping away at stuff.
Update: 2 weeks ago, I tested the Pentax 17 (loaded with Ultramax 200) with some folks from the official Indonesia distributor. I initially skeptical about the camera, and turns out the images are properly exposed. Plenty of sharpness and contrast, like you expect from modern lens. And seems like the focus are nailed correctly. Yes overall it's a fun camera :D
Thanks for the great video. One question. When you send the film to the shop for developing, is there a need to let them know that this was shot using a half frame camera? Is there any special treatment or they can simply process it as per normal film? Thanks.
as far as i know, there is no difference in the processing step with films shoot regular in 35mm camera, but i do notice the Lab if i want the film scanned in full frame format (you get two images side by side in one frame) or in half frame format (each frame will scanned as a single image) hope it helps!
Depends if you want scans or not. Labs will often charge more for scans of half-frame, since there's twice as many images. If you're just getting developing to scan at home, shouldn't be an issue at all.
The two commenters before me did an amazing job explaining :) So it could be helpful to mention it to the lab, but correct, the processing process haha is exactly the same as it normally is. The scanning could squish two images per scan which is “simpler” to do on their end and doesn’t require more work than usual. So assuming they are chill, it won’t cost more at all either :)
The Pen F, the original, is the best half frame camera imo and you can get one for under 200 with a lens. The optics are great, they’re fully mechanical and easier to repair than an electronic camera if you encounter issues, that big gothic F logo is iconic, and it’s interchangeable lens, and you can adapt lenses to it as well. The lenses for the pen F are so good that it often doesn’t look like I’m shooting half frame on lower ISOs, which is not something you can say for the cheap Kodak plastic cameras. The Pentax 17 has a quality lens and 500 is actually not that unreasonable for a brand new camera which required R&D, design, etc but you can get an Olympus Pen F for much less. It’s fully manual so it isn’t perfect for everyone by any means, you probably want an external light meter (or get a Pen FT which has a meter)
I know this might be a dumb question but i'm waiting for my H35N to arrive and my biggest concern about it is how many times i need to wind after a shoot, its my first film camera and i just dont want to have multiple pics shoot on top of the other or a lot of black spaces in between shoots.
It will stop you from winding too much, and it won’t take a picture until you’ve wound up enough! :) can’t mess it up! all film cameras function this way!
Once you start thinking about it like that... so-called "half-frame" is really the original full frame, and so-called "full-frame" might be more accurately called double-frame.
Half frame format was a "big deal" for the first half of the 1960s, then petered out in popularity into the mid-1970s. In that era, the great majority of half frame cameras were basic point-n-shoot models, mostly from Olympus. Canon made several upscale models with exceptional optics. Other makers knock out one or two quality cameras with modest features. Oly semi-capped the era with its Pen F SLR, which had a lousy finder and great optics. I think the last half frame of any quality was the Konica Reporter, auto exposure, auto-focus, but in a lightly built package which looked like crap a week out of the box. When calling these new cameras a new era, consider that any, and I do mean any, of those old models had better optics and could render a better photo, than any of these newly introduced models. Most of them were smaller and easier to use. What drove the prior generation of half frames was the production of huge, heavy-ass full frame SLRs. As the manufacturers got the memo and started making small, lightweight full frame SLRs (think, OM-1; Pentax M series) the whole half frame era collapsed like a punctured balloon. The one advantage the new half frame models have is that film (sharpness; grain) today is vastly superior to that of the 1970s. But then, we still have large numbers of old half frame cameras which benefit from the same modern film. Further, most users are not making larger prints, where film quality matters, but are scanning to digital presentation, where such film advantages are completely irrelevant. So no, half frame didn't matter in 2000, or in 2020, and it doesn't matter now. Anyone who wants to use half frame now, and knows anything about it, is going to buy a tiny blast from the past, not waste $500 on a Pentax 17.
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for the engagement!
Just a reminder, my goal with this channel is to make niche topics more accessible for those getting into film. this is a safe place for film beginners to learn together and have a good time ❤
Thank you for this video! Just got my disposable camera photos developed and loved how they turned out. So I was looking into buying the half frame but the loss in resolution concerned me. This video was great and simple for someone just starting out like me!
I think so many people have misunderstandings about half frame simply because they never really took the time to understand how a film camera works. Just sit down for 5 minutes and learn about it. Maybe I'm being harsh, idk, it's just not really a difficult concept at all.
Absolutely correct. However, that is because the half frame models of the 1960s and 70s were designed, as much as technology would allow, to be used by folks who knew nothing about photography or camera operation, and who did not wish to learn. Their simplicity makes them far easier to use than a Pentax 17 today. Optically, their lenses are better than in new models today, because back then, cameras were objectively rated in hobby magazine. Poor optics would get an "unacceptable" rating, which would kill a new model dead as a door nail. Further, folks made prints, not smartphone screenshots, so the lenses had to stand up to a significant level of performance.
I totally get what you mean, on all my videos regarding the h35 cameras, I’ve got about 150-200 total questions about how half frame works. I think it’s easy enough to understand, but i have to remind myself that the primary target audience for those cameras are most likely beginners. Oh well haha
why couldnt they simply made it like the Konica Autorex where you could change at any moment to halfframe and back?
not capable anymore to copy a 40+ cheap camera nowadays?
@@Anjroo They'll learn eventually (I hope).
I’ve build a darkroom in a spare bedroom. And the enlarger I bought came with several negative carriers.
Including 17mm.
Me thinking, i ought to trow this out cause I’m never gonna use that.
Good thing I never did. It’s the most used carrier I have now.
One note: 35mm isn't named because the long-dimension is 35mm. It's 36mm, and not remotely where the name of the film format came from. 35mm film is named for the height of the film, including the sprocket holes and rebate. That's the 35mm dimension, and it was in contrast to early cinema film, like 16mm. Oskar Barnack of (Lei)tz (Ca)mera was one of the first folks to make a commercially viable camera using that 35mm motion picture film, placed into a small canister, and run sideways rather than vertically, in order to have a compact camera with a large film capacity. In that sense, half-frame is the actual 35mm film frame size, and what we call "full frame" is more like double-frame.
But yeah, I'm a fan of half frame. Most of the time, when I shoot film the "pure image quality" is already lower than digital pictures I could be taking, even when going full frame 35mm. So if I'm shooting film mostly for the character and look of film, getting more shots makes sense. I'm already not competing with resolution on 35mm. For something like the H35, you don't really lose out much in IQ compared to full-frame plastic-fantastic reloadables. While I think the 22mm lens on the Reto UWS is kind of special, just because of how wide it is for the size and price of the camera, the standard 31mm basic film camera just isn't all that good. Going for half-frame 22mm, using the best part of the lens, and even gaining access to a partly glass lens in the h35N, just makes more sense.
Once upgrading to "real cameras," there is an image quality gap, but you still have the benefit of more shots. I don't know that I'd think of it as lower costs so much as adding shots. I find I still take about the same amount of time to shoot a roll, but I just shoot more pictures. I snap things I wouldn't have otherwise shot, and the cameras are so small that they're great as part of a two-camera setup. Bringing a half-frame and a medium format is the best of both worlds. All the detail and quality of 120 film for the few shots that really matter, taking the time to be precise with metering and framing, plus a half-frame for taking a lot of casual snaps of stuff you wouldn't want to slow down for on 120, shots which might feel like a waste when it's 1/12th of a roll, but at 1/72nd, it makes a lot of sense.
For me, half frame is kinda frustrating. I mostly shoot 6x6 nowadays, and a roll could took a few months to finish. Thats for 12 frames.
But... I can see the idea of half frame e.g for travel snap shots. Not every photos have to be printed in big size, after all.
Part of what's fun about half-frame for me is that I can just shoot stuff I wouldn't otherwise bother with in 6x6 (or 6x12!). Add in the small size, and it's not too hard to just bring both cameras. One for when I want to be precise and nail an important shot, and one for just snapping away at stuff.
Love both these comments. I think half frame slots in very well in tandem with a medium format camera :) at least that’s my favorite combo!
Update: 2 weeks ago, I tested the Pentax 17 (loaded with Ultramax 200) with some folks from the official Indonesia distributor. I initially skeptical about the camera, and turns out the images are properly exposed. Plenty of sharpness and contrast, like you expect from modern lens. And seems like the focus are nailed correctly. Yes overall it's a fun camera :D
Thanks for the great video.
One question. When you send the film to the shop for developing, is there a need to let them know that this was shot using a half frame camera? Is there any special treatment or they can simply process it as per normal film? Thanks.
as far as i know, there is no difference in the processing step with films shoot regular in 35mm camera, but i do notice the Lab if i want the film scanned in full frame format (you get two images side by side in one frame) or in half frame format (each frame will scanned as a single image)
hope it helps!
Depends if you want scans or not. Labs will often charge more for scans of half-frame, since there's twice as many images. If you're just getting developing to scan at home, shouldn't be an issue at all.
The two commenters before me did an amazing job explaining :)
So it could be helpful to mention it to the lab, but correct, the processing process haha is exactly the same as it normally is. The scanning could squish two images per scan which is “simpler” to do on their end and doesn’t require more work than usual. So assuming they are chill, it won’t cost more at all either :)
The Pen F, the original, is the best half frame camera imo and you can get one for under 200 with a lens. The optics are great, they’re fully mechanical and easier to repair than an electronic camera if you encounter issues, that big gothic F logo is iconic, and it’s interchangeable lens, and you can adapt lenses to it as well. The lenses for the pen F are so good that it often doesn’t look like I’m shooting half frame on lower ISOs, which is not something you can say for the cheap Kodak plastic cameras. The Pentax 17 has a quality lens and 500 is actually not that unreasonable for a brand new camera which required R&D, design, etc but you can get an Olympus Pen F for much less. It’s fully manual so it isn’t perfect for everyone by any means, you probably want an external light meter (or get a Pen FT which has a meter)
I know this might be a dumb question but i'm waiting for my H35N to arrive and my biggest concern about it is how many times i need to wind after a shoot, its my first film camera and i just dont want to have multiple pics shoot on top of the other or a lot of black spaces in between shoots.
It will stop you from winding too much, and it won’t take a picture until you’ve wound up enough! :) can’t mess it up!
all film cameras function this way!
@@Anjroo thank you!
First comment, I bought colorplus 200 for H35N, hope it will work for my engagement and pre-wedding shots
Good luck!❤️
@@Anjroo thank you brother ❤️
So in cinema terms all you're doing is Super35 3-perf...
Once you start thinking about it like that... so-called "half-frame" is really the original full frame, and so-called "full-frame" might be more accurately called double-frame.
Half frame format was a "big deal" for the first half of the 1960s, then petered out in popularity into the mid-1970s. In that era, the great majority of half frame cameras were basic point-n-shoot models, mostly from Olympus. Canon made several upscale models with exceptional optics. Other makers knock out one or two quality cameras with modest features. Oly semi-capped the era with its Pen F SLR, which had a lousy finder and great optics. I think the last half frame of any quality was the Konica Reporter, auto exposure, auto-focus, but in a lightly built package which looked like crap a week out of the box. When calling these new cameras a new era, consider that any, and I do mean any, of those old models had better optics and could render a better photo, than any of these newly introduced models. Most of them were smaller and easier to use. What drove the prior generation of half frames was the production of huge, heavy-ass full frame SLRs. As the manufacturers got the memo and started making small, lightweight full frame SLRs (think, OM-1; Pentax M series) the whole half frame era collapsed like a punctured balloon. The one advantage the new half frame models have is that film (sharpness; grain) today is vastly superior to that of the 1970s. But then, we still have large numbers of old half frame cameras which benefit from the same modern film. Further, most users are not making larger prints, where film quality matters, but are scanning to digital presentation, where such film advantages are completely irrelevant. So no, half frame didn't matter in 2000, or in 2020, and it doesn't matter now. Anyone who wants to use half frame now, and knows anything about it, is going to buy a tiny blast from the past, not waste $500 on a Pentax 17.