>>3656584>127 wasn't exclusively 4x4, retard. 4x6 or 4x3 were popular too.What the fuck, dude? He wasn't saying "4x4 was the only format you could shoot on 127 film" or anything like that.
Dude in
>>3656547 said 4x4 was popular.
Dude in
>>3656571 said 4x4 "has literally never existed"
Dude in
>>3656579 explained that 4x4 was a format people shot on 127. Not that it was the only format you could shoot on 127, just that 127 existed, with the (true) implication that 4x4 was a format often used with it.
Calling that guy a "fucking mouthbreather" for not being familiar with the 4x4cm film format was certainly harsh, but the dude he called that also should've done his research before authoritatively proclaiming that 4x4 wasn't a thing.
Maybe him saying "4x4 was a popular film" instead of "4x4 was a popular film format" wasn't pedantically correct, but in the context of a discussion of medium format films that are smaller than 645, it's pretty clear what he meant.
(Also, as an aside: You could also shoot 4x4cm on 120. That's the format a Diana shoots in)
>>3656586>Do you refer to Hasselblad shots as "6x6 film"?Yeah, dude, people refer to square-format shots on 120 or 220 as 6x6 all the time. That's how you distinguish them from 645, 6x7, and 6x9 etc.
