We all know that because of the need for movie film to withstand the rigors of constant, steady movement along a projector's sprockets (without tearing!) that this film had to have large sprocket holes in order to be born. That factor took up a lot of real estate and that waste is part of the legacy that movie film has left for the identical still film. But do we know what the quantified result is? Absolutely shocking! We are required to waste about half of this expensive film just because of that necessity.
Counting the leader, a 36 exposure roll of film is about 63 inches in length. With avoirdupois translated into metric, that 63 inches becomes 1600 millimeters per roll. (i.e. 63 inches x 25.4mm per inch). This 1600mm length times the 35mm width becomes 56,000 square millimeters of film per roll, total. Now, we take 36 pictures on the roll and each frame is 24mm x 36mm, yielding 864 square millimeters per frame or 31,104mm (I.e. 864 x 36 frames) used for actual image recording. 31,104 divided by 56,000 is only about 55.5% of the total film area that is actually used! We waste almost half.
Again, even worse: Counting the leader, a 24 exposure roll of film is about 45 inches in length. With avoirdupois translated into metric, that 45 inches becomes 1143 millimeters per roll. (i.e. 45 inches x 25.4mm per inch). This 1143mm length times the 35mm width becomes 40,005 square millimeters of film per roll, total. Now, we take 24 pictures on the roll and each frame is 24mm x 36mm, yielding 864 square millimeters per frame or 20,736mm (I.e. 864 x 24 frames) used for actual image recording. 20,736 divided by 40,005 is only about 52% of the total film area that is actually used! Again we waste almost half.
What more is there to say about the most popular film size ever created? 120 film does not waste nearly as much and sheet film wastes virtually none. And, remember, my calculations assume that all frames are usable. David Lyga
Again, you are polarizing.
E von Hoegh, there HAS to be some 'waste' in order to support the negative. What I say is there did not have to be AS MUCH waste.
Consider: if the exposed frame was 30mm X 36mm because of smaller sprocket holes and only on one side of the film, would the image suffer? No. You would STILL have the support needed. And that image would certainly have been better than the standard 24mm x 36mm one we have now. - David Lyga
... there HAS to be some 'waste' in order to support the negative. What I say is there did not have to be AS MUCH waste.
... so how much waste is "too much" waste? When does the existing amount of "waste" become excessive, how is it measured, and who makes the ultimate determination that it is "too much". David, I sense that you aren't getting the answer/support you are looking for because these issues are unspecified.
This is the same conversation I have at home (with no resolution) when discussing when the ketchup bottle gets thrown out. Should it get thrown out when it gets difficult to get ketchup out, or when the bottle is completely clean?
I put a bit of water in it to dilute the stuff on the bottom.. then use that "ketchup wash" to add flavor to meat loaf, etc.
To me it seems that my wife and kids want to throw out the bottle when it needs shaking. Grrrrr...
EvH/ Brian - I don't think David is really looking for any change. His motive was to point out this truism and defend his motive for pointing it out. He seems disinterested in talking beyond his "discovery" re consumption of materials in artistic pursuits.
David - Let's consider the flip side, would rapid winding cameras, like those used in the 80's to capture high speed photographs (eg sports photog, birds in flight photog, etc ) been able to support the frames per sec that they evolved to because 35mm had two sets of sprockets? Would the surface tension of the film snap if it was like Super 8 or Super 16? Would the camera makers have had to charge more to support 35mm cameras that had two teeth vs 1 row of teeth or none at all? When you propose, with almost disdain, how 35mm evolved so inefficient (ie wasteful), is the end game of better quality the only motive....no....it's a ballance. I find the topic kind of pointless because you don't seem interested in us affecting change in our habits to promote a society that uses less...
... Seriously, folks, is there anything really wrong with innocently 'noticing' the rather amazing fact that almost half the film in 35mm does not form an image? ...
And von Hoegh: surely we are not 'required' to waste this much film if we do not use 35mm film. That 'requirement' becomes a moot point; I was inferring 'given that we use it'.
Seriously, folks, is there anything really wrong with innocently 'noticing' the rather amazing fact that almost half the film in 35mm does not form an image?
PerA rhetorical tautology is defined as a series of statements that form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that, by defining a dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially, the truth of the proposition or explanation cannot be disputed. Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable.
It took me a awhile to figure out what was so grating about David's post, I've finally figured it out!!
Rhetorical Tautology
Per
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
Thank you, I was trying to recall that term.
Thank you, zsas, for unclothing and revealing me as a knave (for benefit of all).
I guess this tautology is really a form of circular reasoning whereby the 'guilty' (me) starts with a 'guaranteed' premise made so compelling and carries it through to a forced conclusion in such a manner that no one would dare to refute same. (I knew I was perfect at something!) - David Lyga
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?