Was 9.5mm a European format?

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

Was 9.5mm used in America? When was it popular?

What was the idea for making 9.5mm? Seems like a very oddball size.

<><><><>

DDTJRAC ~ American Indian Collection

Scottsdale Art Catalog

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

 

 

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

the story goes that the size was because 3 strips of 9.5mm could be made from unperforated 28mm film stock.  if duplicating one could duplicate three strips of 9.5mm side by side and slit the 28mm film after developing to make the developing much easier.

Later they made it out of 35mm stock when 28mm had fallen out of use. Some enthusiasts made small batches of 9.5mm even in the 2000's , I think seeing about 10 or 15 years ago they still shot it at least.

it was somewhat common back in the day, at least the French made cameras for the format. seen those cameras here too though they were more common in central Europe. When Double8 and 16mm became common and the 8mm formats were good enough quality to allow users migrating to there for lower cost and the higher budget home users went for 16mm, the 9.5mm became very rare but they still commonly sold the film in the 50's and 60's I think. and like mentioned, it was possible to custom make small batches of suitable film even in modern times.

Edited September 1 by Aapo Lettinen

[Dom Jaeger]

It was mainly used in France and England (the French firm Pathe introduced it a year before 16mm was introduced by Kodak in the US), but its popularity spread world-wide during the 20s and 30s. I actually have a 9.5mm film of my mum when she was about 5 in 1937, so it was in use in Australia. I imagine the US was a tougher market to crack with 16mm being locally promoted. 9.5mm died out in the post-war years as 8mm became the dominant home movie format.

As mentioned, 9.5mm was chosen because 3 strips could be cut from Pathe's 28mm film stock, which was a safety film made from diacetate rather than the flammable nitrate used for 35mm back then. 

It's an interesting format, with almost the same image area as standard 16mm film due to the perfs being located centrally between frames rather than on the sides. 

This is a great read about the construction, use and history of 9.5mm for anyone interested in diving deeper than a Wikipedia entry:

https://necsus-ejms.org/thinkering-with-the-pathe-baby-materiality-histories-and-reuse-of-9-5mm-film/

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Everything you need to know about Pathe‘s formats:
http://pathefilm.uk/

Edited September 2 by Joerg Polzfusz

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Fresh films are made by CFA on a non-regular base:

https://colorfilmsarchives.com/fr_FR/products/pack-pellicule-ektachrome-100d-9-5mm-30-m-developpement

[Joerg Polzfusz]

A link to the former US Group of 9.5ers:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111120225845/http://www.9-5usa.org/

[Mark Dunn]

10 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

three strips of 9.5mm side by side and slit the 28mm film after developing

Three 9.5s make 28.5- was nine-five actually nine-point-three-three recurring then? The article says it was cut from 35mm.

Edited September 2 by Mark Dunn

[Don H Marks]

The first time I saw this short film in the 1970s, it was verbally introduced as being shot on a Pathe camera. I always presumed it was 9.5. 

I guess I remembered it all these years as it was shot near where I was living at the time. 

What a blast from the past, I actually found it on YouTube. But no mention if it was indeed 9.5. 

 

 

[Simon Wyss]

After WWI, in 1919, George Eastman and Charles Pathé met. Both envisioned to capture a dormant but huge market, le cinéma chez soi, home movies. From the KOK adventure that Pathé frères had launched before the war there was everything at hand to produce 9/8 in. wide film (or 1⅛"). Pathé had the idea that a little cinématograph should be made that fits into a handbag. Eastman had no idea of what size the machinery could have, he left that to be decided at a later stage. Film with a central perforation was known since 1900, mainly in the 17,5 mm width. The Pathé employee Ferdinand Zecca who was commissioned to develop the project suggested to cut the KOK width into three. He also contacted Arthur S. Newman who is said to have largely contributed to the Pathé-Baby camera. Not long after it had reached the photo dealers the EKC launched 16 mm.

Ninepointfive saw around fifty camera models and perhaps 100 different projectors. There was at least one American made projector, the Keystone Supreme 925, product code E-948, in 1939. It borders a toy. Pathé exported quite some equipment to the USA, just have a look at ebay.com under 9.5mm camera/projector.

In Europe there were toys made for 9.5-mm. film, predominantly in the UK but also in Germany. Paillard made the Bolex H 9 from 1936 to 1945. You had the Beaulieu Reflex 9,5. Arnold & Richter offered a 9,5-mm. Kinarri in 1927. In England there was the Argus, an impressive 100-ft. spools wind-up camera. The Diksi-Tonfilmprojektor of 1938 was a two-format apparatus, 16 and 9.5. In Italy there was the Riber Ro-To with interchangeable heads for 16, 9.5, and 8. Löschner, Czechoslovakia, put out ads for the ALMO projector in all three formats but a 9.5 ALMO has yet to show up. Presumably it was never made. The ALMO 16 and 8 was licensed by Ampro (model KS).

Pathé sold joiners, developing gear, contact printers, titling and other accessories. More French brands that joined the party are Marguet, Buisse-Bottazzi, Heurtier, GIC, Ligonie. Spain counts in and Japan, too.

Ninepointfive lends itself to self-printing due to its symmetry. You can flip the negative around and run it through the camera together with print stock like that. Unfortunately there is neither a negative film available nor positive. Ektachrome 100 D has lately been made available at horrendous prices.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

19 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

It was mainly used in France and England (the French firm Pathe introduced it a year before 16mm was introduced by Kodak in the US), but its popularity spread world-wide during the 20s and 30s. I actually have a 9.5mm film of my mum when she was about 5 in 1937, so it was in use in Australia. I imagine the US was a tougher market to crack with 16mm being locally promoted. 9.5mm died out in the post-war years as 8mm became the dominant home movie format.

As mentioned, 9.5mm was chosen because 3 strips could be cut from Pathe's 28mm film stock, which was a safety film made from diacetate rather than the flammable nitrate used for 35mm back then. 

It's an interesting format, with almost the same image area as standard 16mm film due to the perfs being located centrally between frames rather than on the sides. 

This is a great read about the construction, use and history of 9.5mm for anyone interested in diving deeper than a Wikipedia entry:

https://necsus-ejms.org/thinkering-with-the-pathe-baby-materiality-histories-and-reuse-of-9-5mm-film/

 

I had never seen any 9.5mm, didn't know the sprocket was in the middle. I had never even looked it up as I hate 8mm and figured 9.5mm is close enough to it. If single center sprocket transport worked out well for stabilization, too bad 16mm didn't adopt it. Always nice to have a bigger image area, don't you think? Or is double sprocket a lot better?

9.5mm Film for sale | eBay

Looks like they did a lot with commercial films in 9.5mm back in the day. 

Edited September 2 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

[Dom Jaeger]

17 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:

Three 9.5s make 28.5- was nine-five actually nine-point-three-three recurring then? The article says it was cut from 35mm.

Well caught Mark!

Yes, it seems the idea that it was cut from 28mm is one of those repeated internet "truths" that become ubiquitous by repetition, but it's actually false. Three times 9.5 is indeed 28.5.  It appears such a logical step for Pathe to have cut down their own larger gauge safety film to make the smaller gauge, until you actually do the maths! 

This article also describes it being cut from 35mm stock, with the 35mm perfs being discarded after slitting:

https://www.filmingantiquity.com/blog/the-story-of-95-and-its-early-role-in-archaeology-part-1

 

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Other than using unperforated 35mm film and cutting it into three rows of 9.5mm, Double4.75mm or Super9.5mm, there are also devices that convert 16mm films into 9.5mm.

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

6 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Well caught Mark!

Yes, it seems the idea that it was cut from 28mm is one of those repeated internet "truths" that become ubiquitous by repetition, but it's actually false. Three times 9.5 is indeed 28.5.  It appears such a logical step for Pathe to have cut down their own larger gauge safety film to make the smaller gauge, until you actually do the maths! 

This article also describes it being cut from 35mm stock, with the 35mm perfs being discarded after slitting:

https://www.filmingantiquity.com/blog/the-story-of-95-and-its-early-role-in-archaeology-part-1

 

mechanical stuff and stuff converted from imperial or back is usually not exact millimeters so it could just had been slightly smaller than 9.5 without anyone knowing. basically 50/50 chance as it is normal to round stuff like that to the nearest number which sounds nice and is easier to remember. normally people tend to round numbers for marketing or "easier to understand" purposes and lose critical information that way.

that is why it is so hard to design new stuff which fits old devices because you must have an actual example of the said device to take dimensions from, you really can't trust any information provided by someone else. one reason why it is so expensive to make new motors for cameras too, I have to purchase a new camera every time someone wants something to be made (and I don't actually collect cameras so it is a bit annoying when they pile up and have no time to shoot with them by myself 😄 )

Edited September 3 by Aapo Lettinen

[Simon Wyss]

28 mm is wrong. 35 mm is not correct. Both figures are rounded. Dickson had Eastman film cut in two lengthwise. Eastman and Reichenbach manufactured stock that was a foot wide in 1889. Half an inch was discarded on both sides. The remaining 11 inches was cut in four, 2¾ in. each. So Edison films began with 1⅜ in. or 34,925 mm. America dominated the film dimensions, imperial measurement. The Pathé KOK films, as already mentioned, were 1⅛ in. wide, freshly cut. That equals to 28,575 mm. The base material shrunk about one percent per year. If we take 28 mm, it would mean speaking of two-years old film.

Eastman-Kodak was first to introduce a low-shrink safety film base—after WWII.

16-mm. film has been designated as ⅝ in. material by various authors which wasn’t correct either. It would correspond to 15,875 mm and that’s too narrow.

I know about the imperial-metric battle in the Technical Committee 36 of the ISO because I participated in it (many years ago). There are measurement flaws in several documents such as dimension H with ISO 466 or dimension B with ISO 71 or dimension B with ISO 1700. Most of the errors come from rounding off. It’s never decided which measurement system leads. Americans and Brits want to come closer to metrication, the others fail to understand division in whole numbers.

Yes, things became complicated by the use of decimals with the imperial system.

[John Salim]

Incredibly I get around a dozen or so 9.5mm Ektachrome 100D ( 7294 ) every year for processing from customers in Germany, Spain, France and Belgium.

Apparently there's a '9.5 group' who arrange to have their 16mm 100ft stocks slit and perforated by some retired gentleman in Germany.

John S ☺️

[Dom Jaeger]

Thanks for the clarification Simon.

What a curious situation then, that the French 28mm format is actually imperial, while the US 16mm format is metric.

[Mark Dunn]

7 hours ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

using unperforated 35mm film and cutting it into three rows of 9.5mm

Quite so, the article cited states the perfs were used to advance the film in the slitter, but there's only about 25mm. available inside the perfs. So the feedstock must have been unperforated.

Edited September 3 by Mark Dunn

[Simon Wyss]

15 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:

the article cited states the perfs were used to advance the film in the slitter

That appears to me to be wrong.