35mm film and how much we are required to waste

[film_man]

In the grand scheme of thing photography and filmography are completely pointless and server absolutely no need other than vanity. Just think, if all that effort was spent on making food or healing people the world would be a much much much duller place full of healthy but depressed people.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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

If you think of those "unused" areas as supports or carriers for the negative, there is no waste. How else would you put the slide in a mount, or negative in a carrier without encroaching on the image?

 

[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

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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

I don't quite understand how I am polarising. We aren't "required" to waste anything as long as our use of 35mm is voluntary. Assuming the use is voluntary, it's a "that's the way it is" situation. If the waste is really an issue, don't use 35. If you want to use 35, put up with the waste.

 

[BrianShaw]

... 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?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

... 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?

You cut open the ketchup bottle and scrape out every last bit. (I live by myself)

 

[BrianShaw]

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...

 

[zsas]

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...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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...

You can also balance the open old bottle upsidedown on top of the open new bottle, draining every last bit from the old bottle.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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...

A car wastes at the very least 75% of the gasoline you put in it. A CFL lamp wastes around 90% of the energy it uses. Then there's all the other waste... plastic made from petroleum, only to be tossed in the landfill... and on and on.
I'm not getting very excited about 35mm film.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

I'm just glad we can still get film, sprocket holes and all.

 

[BrianShaw]

Ha... me too. I'm glad to still be getting film!

WRT "waste" I guess I'm much less worried abou thte possibilities of optimizing waste (maximizing efficiency) only becuase I knw that there is much more waste that happens further up the chain. Although 75% of the fuel in our cars may get wasted... that is a small portion of the waste that occurs during delivery, manufacturing, and mining the raw products that beome gas. Same with film.

 

[Dismayed]

It depends on how you frame the 'issue'. I capture on 4x5 image on 12,900 sq mm when I shoot large format, and only use 2,150 sq mm of film (including the waste) when I shoot 35mm. So large format seems wasteful, but I intend to keep shooting it.

 

[C.poulton]

I've often wondered how much wastage there is in the manufacture of film, be it 35mm, 120 or sheet? My understanding is the you start off with large sheets of film which is cut to suit different formats at the end of the coating process. How much film is 'lost' during the cutting process?


Christian

 

[AgX]

You also have wastage in in the emulsionmaking and coating stage. Anyway, all wasted materials go to a recycling system, which even in case one could extract all material and re-use means costs.

 

[David Lyga]

zsas: Thank you for correctly elucidating my points and you do have a point of your own: NO, probably the rapid-fire exposures of the eighties and nineties would have had to have been compromised. The large, double sprocket holes mattered with this.

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? That assessment does not have to mean that I am imparting lamentation along with real tears and angst or threatening revolution! It's simply a fact that I thought would be interesting to 'notice'. There is nothing that now has to change as a result ot 'god' David bringing this to unversal attention. And, as an advantage, productive analyses of just what constitutes 'waste' were forthcoming. Thus, we all learn and widen our horizons. Nothing ill intended. - David Lyga

 

[BrianShaw]

... 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? ...

No there isn't. Neither is there anything wrong with pointing out a different opinion. It is all discussion... which is good.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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?

But all the 35mm film is neccesary to the film functioning properly in the camera and thereby forming an image that we can project, scan, or enlarge.

The engine in a car wastes at least 75% of the gasoline we put in the tank. This inefficiency is inherent in Otto cycle engines, and according to the specific fuel consumption curves of dynamometer tests published in the 11th edition Brittanica, it hasn't changed in over 100 years, because it can't change. I find that appalling from an engineering and conservation standpoint. But I don't find it prevents me using a car when I need one, because there's no other option. Same with 35mm.

It seems to me you're putting a lot of energy into remarking upon the very very obvious, while ignoring the point that there's no other option if you want to use that type of camera.

 

[AgX]

But our minds are flexible, so can a type of film be changed, as has be done in the past. As one can ask why still type 120, a film quite nasty in some respect, is still manufatzured, one can also ask why the industry stuck to type 135 in spite being to their disadvantage. This is a valid question to me.

 

[zsas]

It took me a awhile to figure out what was so grating about David's post, I've finally figured it out!!

Rhetorical Tautology

A 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.

Per
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[David Lyga]

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

 

[zsas]

Thank you, I was trying to recall that term.

We are square then because you taught me Schrödinger's cat!

 

[zsas]

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

Come on David, I find you not dishonest at all, frankly your post about Hepbern was outstaning! Don't be so hard on yourself. I do think we should discuss the types of debates we invest in whilst online.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I wonder what PETA would have to say to Schroedinger?

Edit - Here's another for you, Z.

http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm