How wide is a piece of 35 mm. film? (Not a joke)

Main Page | Report this Page

Movies Forum Index » Movie Technology Forum » How wide is a piece of 35 mm. film? (Not a joke)

Page 1 of 1

Author

Message

Daniel P. B. Smith

Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:35 pm

Guest

(My first posting of this does not seem to have appeared; my apologies
if duplicated)

http://www.subclub.org/shop/halframe.htm

contains a new-to-me piece of trivia. It quotes W. K. L. Dickson to the
effect that

The actual width of the film was 1-3/8 inches to allow
for perforations now punched on both edges.... This standardized
film size of 1889 has remained, with only minor variation,
to date." This was true in 1933, and it's still true today.
interesting that he gives the dimensions in inches, not
If you measure a piece of 35mm film, you'll see that it's
1-3/8 inches across (only 34.8mm).

I tried this, and using the scientific metrological gear at my
disposal--a desk ruler and a hand lens--I have determined that I cannot
tell whether or not this is correct. 0.2 mm is much smaller than my
margin of sloppiness. Is it true?

Am I a victim of the international metrification conspiracy? Have I been
deceived all these years into thinking I had an exotic "35 mm camera"
when in reality it was a prosaic "1-3/8" camera?"

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world dot ess tee dee dot com
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/

Jeffry L. Johnson

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:55 am

Guest

Daniel P. B. Smith <see-my-sig-please@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

If you measure a piece of 35mm film, you'll see that it's
1-3/8 inches across (only 34.8mm).

1.377 +/- 0.001 inches
34.975 +/- 0.025 millimeters

For historical background on the development of this standard, refer to
A. J. Miller and A. C. Robinson, "Motion picture film -- its size and
dimensional characteristics," Journal of the SMPTE, 74:3-11, January
1965.
--
To reply remove "void."

Early Film

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:02 am

Guest

Jeff Johnson replied:

Quote:

Daniel P. B. Smith <see-my-sig-please@hotmail.com> wrote:

If you measure a piece of 35mm film, you'll see that it's
1-3/8 inches across (only 34.8mm).

1.377 +/- 0.001 inches
34.975 +/- 0.025 millimeters

For historical background on the development of this standard, refer to
A. J. Miller and A. C. Robinson, "Motion picture film -- its size and
dimensional characteristics," Journal of the SMPTE, 74:3-11, January
1965.

That dimension reffers to unprocessed raw stock. Nitrate shrinks
substansually during processing, triacetate shrunk less and polyester is
relatively stable.

For what it is worth, nitrate stock cans from the 1930s were marked 35mm of
course, but had in small print, their dimensions as 1000 feet x 1 3/8 inchs.

Earl.

Daniel P. B. Smith

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:07 pm

Guest

In article <20040105060224.01826.00002213@mb-m18.aol.com>,
earlyfilm@aol.comedy (Early Film) wrote:

Quote:

Jeff Johnson replied:

Daniel P. B. Smith <see-my-sig-please@hotmail.com> wrote:

If you measure a piece of 35mm film, you'll see that it's
1-3/8 inches across (only 34.8mm).

1.377 +/- 0.001 inches
34.975 +/- 0.025 millimeters

For historical background on the development of this standard, refer to
A. J. Miller and A. C. Robinson, "Motion picture film -- its size and
dimensional characteristics," Journal of the SMPTE, 74:3-11, January
1965.

That dimension reffers to unprocessed raw stock. Nitrate shrinks
substansually during processing, triacetate shrunk less and polyester is
relatively stable.

For what it is worth, nitrate stock cans from the 1930s were marked 35mm of
course, but had in small print, their dimensions as 1000 feet x 1 3/8 inchs.

??? So would you the comment in http://www.subclub.org/shop/halframe.htm
is true, or not? On the basis of Jeff Johnson's statement, I'm inclined
to say it's not, since the specifications are centered neither on 35 mm
nor on 1-3/8"

Except... jeez, those two specifications _are not equivalent_.

Which is the "real" specification? 1.377 +/- 0.001 inches converts to a
range of 34.950 to 35.012, inclusive--which is substantially wider than
the lower specification.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world dot ess tee dee dot com
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/

Early Film

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:52 pm

Guest

Daniel P.B. Smith asks:

Quote:

More or less correct, except W.K.L.Dickson seems to have forgotten that
Edison's perforations were completely unlike modern perforations. The only
thing near them in size and shape were the now obsolete "Fox holes" of early
Cinemascope.

Quote:

Which is the "real" specification? 1.377 +/- 0.001 inches converts to a
range of 34.950 to 35.012, inclusive--which is substantially wider than
the lower specification.

Awwwww, come on.............

The film shrunk much more than that during processing in the nitrate era.

Earl.

Jeffry L. Johnson

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:19 am

Guest

Daniel P. B. Smith <see-my-sig-please@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Jeff Johnson replied:
1.377 +/- 0.001 inches
34.975 +/- 0.025 millimeters

For historical background on the development of this standard, refer to
A. J. Miller and A. C. Robinson, "Motion picture film -- its size and
dimensional characteristics," Journal of the SMPTE, 74:3-11, January
1965.
Except... jeez, those two specifications _are not equivalent_.

Which is the "real" specification? 1.377 +/- 0.001 inches converts to a
range of 34.950 to 35.012, inclusive--which is substantially wider than
the lower specification.

Both of those specifications are from the same document, ANSI/SMPTE 139.
The film width specification in SMPTE 139 (KS perforations) is identical
to SMPTE 93 (BH perforations), SMPTE 237 (DH perforations), and SMPTE
102 (CS perforations).

The SMPTE Standards also note "The metric conversion of dimension A is
purposely chosen and shown to three decimal places to prevent the
maximum width dimensions from exceeding 35 mm."
--
To reply remove "void."

Jim Nason

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:02 am

Guest

"Jeffry L. Johnson" <jlj@void.apk.net> wrote in message
news:1g7407s.1jhhsvixrhja0N%jlj@void.apk.net...

Quote:

Daniel P. B. Smith <see-my-sig-please@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Johnson replied:
1.377 +/- 0.001 inches
34.975 +/- 0.025 millimeters

For historical background on the development of this standard, refer
to
A. J. Miller and A. C. Robinson, "Motion picture film -- its size and
dimensional characteristics," Journal of the SMPTE, 74:3-11, January
1965.
Except... jeez, those two specifications _are not equivalent_.

Which is the "real" specification? 1.377 +/- 0.001 inches converts to a
range of 34.950 to 35.012, inclusive--which is substantially wider than
the lower specification.

Both of those specifications are from the same document, ANSI/SMPTE 139.
The film width specification in SMPTE 139 (KS perforations) is identical
to SMPTE 93 (BH perforations), SMPTE 237 (DH perforations), and SMPTE
102 (CS perforations).

The SMPTE Standards also note "The metric conversion of dimension A is
purposely chosen and shown to three decimal places to prevent the
maximum width dimensions from exceeding 35 mm."
--
To reply remove "void."

In normal scientific practice, wouldn't you have to state the width at a
particular temperature and humidity? Most substances vary in relation to
those criteria.

In normal uses, as long as the sprocket holes match the sprockets, tiny
deviations from a theoretical norm can't be all that bothersome.

Manufacturing tolerances have a very slight deviation in any case.

Jim Nason

Jeffry L. Johnson

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:47 am

Guest

Jim Nason <jhnason@metrocast.net> wrote:

Quote:

In normal scientific practice, wouldn't you have to state the width at a
particular temperature and humidity? Most substances vary in relation to
those criteria.

"The dimensions apply at the time of cutting and perforating for film
adjusted to a temperature of 23ºC +/- 1ºC (nominally converted to 73ºF
+/- 2ºF) and a relative humidity of (50 +/- 2)%. The manufacturer may
indicate other nominal temperature and humidity conditions under which
the dimensions apply."
--
To reply remove "void."

Jeffry L. Johnson

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:04 pm

Guest

Daniel P. B. Smith <see-my-sig-please@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

http://www.subclub.org/shop/halframe.htm

contains a new-to-me piece of trivia. It quotes W. K. L. Dickson to the
effect that

The actual width of the film was 1-3/8 inches to allow
for perforations now punched on both edges.... This standardized
film size of 1889 has remained, with only minor variation,
to date." This was true in 1933, and it's still true today.
interesting that he gives the dimensions in inches, not
If you measure a piece of 35mm film, you'll see that it's
1-3/8 inches across (only 34.8mm).

"Edison Motion Pictures, 1890-1900 : an annotated filmography". Charles
Musser. ©1997. ISBN 1-56098-567-4.

Page 69:
1888-1890
Initial Formulations
Edison wrote a second and third caveat in March and August 1889; the
ideas articulated in these documents tried to solve some of the problems
inherent in his initial formulation. The inventor's fourth and last
motion picture caveat, of November 1889, was heavily indebted to the
serial photographic work of Étienne-Jules Marey, whom Edison met in
Paris while attending the 1889 Paris Exposition. This document outlined
a contrivance that passed a tape-like band of film past a camera lens,
halting and then exposing a single frame of film for a brief fraction of
a second, after which the strip was again moved forward, until the next
frame of film was halted in front of the lens and likewise exposed.
Despite the promising direction of this last formulation, Edison pursued
his cylinder experiments, from the time he opened a kinetoscope account
in February 1889 until sometime in late 1890.

Page 73:
1891
First Films
After the cylinder experiments Dickson and Heise began to explore the
possibilities inherent in the fourth, Marey-inspired caveat, in which a
narrow band of photographic film was passed through the camera. Heise
had been brought onto the project, in part, because he was expert in
devising ways to move tape-like strips of paper (or other materials)
through a machine. The Edison-Dickson-Heise experimental
horizontal-feed kinetograph camera and kinetoscope viewer, which used
3/4 [inch] wide film, were completed in the spring of 1891.

Page 79:
1892
Perfecting the Technology
Although the 3/4 [inch] horizontal feed camera worked in principle,
significant improvements in overall design were necessary before the
invention would be ready for commercial use. Following the successful
presentation of the horizontal-feed system to the press, Edison, Dickson
and Heise constructed a strudier, vertical-feed camera that utilized a 1
and 1/2 [inch] strip of celluloid film. Although the results were
similar to the system that Edison would subsequently commercialize, the
format and camera design had not yet achieved their final form.
According to notes in Edison's legal files, at least one film reflected
this intermediate phase.

Page 80:
During 1892, Dickson and Heise refined the design of their motion
picture camera. They took a number of films with this improved camera
in the late summer and early fall of 1892. Among other things, film
width was adjusted at about this time to 1 and 9/16ths of an inch
(approximately 35mm). If format is considered, these films can be
called the first modern motion pictures--though they were not shot with
commercial use in mind. Selected frames from several of these subjects
were subsequently published in "The Phonogram".

Page 83:
1893
The Laboratory Refigured
In December 1892, with the camera technology in place, the kinetograph
team commenced construction of the world's first specially-designed
motion picture studio, located on the grounds of the Edison Laboratory.
The Dickson-designed studio, completed in early 1893, was affectionately
known as the "Black Maria" after the police paddy wagons it was said to
resemble. Over the course of 1893, Dickson and Heise made at least
three films that were subsequently presented in the kinetoscope. These
were shot on film purchased from the Blair Camera Company, initially at
the cost of $2.20 per roll, 505 [inches] x 1 9/16 [inches]. (Blair
Camera Company to Thomas A. Edison, 29 April 1893, NjWOE.) The subjects
were also the first instances of commercial modern motion picture
production in the world.

Page 84:
On 9 May 1893, the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, gave the
first public exhibition of Edison's 1 and 9/16 [inches], vertical-feed,
peep-hole kinetoscope, showing both _Blacksmithing Scene_ and _Horse
Shoeing_.
--
To reply remove "void."

Page 1 of 1 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:03 pm Movies Forum Index