35mm film and how much we are required to waste

OP

OP

David Lyga

Member

Joined

Nov 25, 2007

Messages

3,444

Location

Philadelphia

Format

35mm

• Jan 17, 2013

• #76

Boo Hoo you made me so cry, zsas!!!

Fact is, zsas, I AM a knave but was hiding it all along. Don't you think that I have the brains to know that I am doing SOMETHING right in this skewed world if my posts garner 90% of the readership (and readership that does not necessarily have to agree with me?)

Zsas, after what I went through in the public school system in Wolcott, CT for twelve years you are not CAPABLE of hurting my feelings. Honestly, I love this forum and whether I am adored or refuted or challenged or deemed politically incorrect makes little difference to me. Being exposed and read is all that matters to this troubled entity. And, yes, zsas, that means 'thank you'. - David Lyga

 

declark

Subscriber

Joined

Nov 6, 2006

Messages

248

Location

So. Cal

Format

Medium Format

• Jan 17, 2013

• #77

Now I feel even a bit more wasteful when I shoot just 35 frames so I can get them all in one printfile. Sometimes I even leave a blank mid roll so I can cut into two more manageable strips when hanging.

 

OP

OP

David Lyga

Member

Joined

Nov 25, 2007

Messages

3,444

Location

Philadelphia

Format

35mm

• Jan 18, 2013

• #78

declark, that is false 'economy'. You should be consistently aiming for 38 exposures. I promise you that you will decide to throw out at least three frames when you see the results of development. You then cut out the bad ones and replace with the good extra ones. Thus, you end up with 'only' 35 frames. It's no big deal to have some frames cut this way. - David Lyga

 

declark

Subscriber

Joined

Nov 6, 2006

Messages

248

Location

So. Cal

Format

Medium Format

• Jan 18, 2013

• #79

I do that sometimes too David, but they don't usually end up at the right frame to make for 7 rows of 5 frames. I hate having single frame stragglers, easier to load longer strips in the negative carrier. I've avoided the 6x7 format just because of the odd frame out issue.

 

BrianShaw

Member

Joined

Nov 30, 2005

Messages

16,339

Location

La-la-land

Format

Multi Format

• Jan 18, 2013

• #80

David Lyga said:

that is false 'economy'. You should ...

Click to expand...

What is a real false economy is spending too much time figuring out how to scrimp the most minute iota of extra... unless one's time is worthless. False economy has many criteria. Maybe that's false economy to you but it makes good sense to me.

 

OP

OP

David Lyga

Member

Joined

Nov 25, 2007

Messages

3,444

Location

Philadelphia

Format

35mm

• Jan 18, 2013

• #81

Sincerely, Brian, 'to each his own'. - David Lyga

 

sehrgut

Member

Joined

Jan 18, 2013

Messages

79

Format

Medium Format

• Jan 21, 2013

• #82

Sound-on-Film clarification

andrewf said:

I kinda like that in cinema, the film between the perforations on one side is used for sound info. Seems like a pretty decent attempt at making use of the area available! Shame our cameras couldn't record exposure details in that area or something cool like that! Or are the camera's that can?

Click to expand...

That's not the case at all, actually. The uninterrupted film between the sprocket holes and a smaller image is used for analog sound. Later, the strip between the perforations and one edge came to be used for the digital sound track. The area occupied by the sprockets is not and has never been used for cinematic sound.