35mm? Shouldn't it have been 1.38 inches?

Shak

Shak

Suspended / Banned
Messages
833
Edit My Images
Yes
Surely the mature photographers amongst us who aren't fans of the metric system would have used an imperial measurement back in the day? Or am I being plain daft? :lol:
 
I thought that as well but didn't like to ask in case you thought I was daft. ( as well as being old !)
 
I suppose it could have a lot to do with most of the early 35mm cameras coming out of Germany? It's a bit sad really that this country has never really competed in the camera market.

I hate metrication in all it's forms. I'll never get me head round it! :gag:
 
Shak said:
Surely the mature photographers amongst us who aren't fans of the metric system would have used an imperial measurement back in the day? Or am I being plain daft? :lol:
Click to expand...

You were there, Shak, weren't you? So you tell us!
 
Well, here's how it all started and why we're stuck with it.

The early use of roll film was for a wind up movie viewer...a primative "What the Butler Saw" device with a shutter and lamp and a bit of timing to produce a flickery moving image. This was developed by none other than Thomas Edison with a few friends.
Initially, strips of celluloid were cut up and glued together to make the scenes...drawn on the strips by hand.
Edison happened across George Eastman (Mr Kodak to you) who was developing a film on a roll...easy peasy and simple to use. The little machine (a Kinetoscope) was using 1 3/8" strips at the time so Eastman made the rolls the same size.
Shortly afterwards it became feasible to coat the celluloid with silver halides instead of using glass plates...fancy idea eh?..."it'll never work, that Eastman man has lost his senses".
Alas, it did work...and the strips remained 1 3/8" wide and the roll film took off.
Next ve can blame ze Germans. Always awkward and wanting to be different (still the same today eh?....and no, I'm not being racist so sit down!). Leitz (Leica) started to develop a more compact sized camera and realised that it would be better if the film was rolled from side to side and not top to bottom. So the 1 3/8" wide film became thinner and the 1 3/8" was along the length instead. Of course, ze Germans vanted to use zere millimetres unt nicht unsere inches.
There you have it....it all started because some Yankee butler wanted to share his keyhole vision of her ladyship having bit of rough as it were.

Bob
 
Pornography advancing the technology, you mean? Funnily enough, that's probably why most of us have broadband these days ;)
 
Canon Bob said:
Well, here's how it all started and why we're stuck with it.

The early use of roll film was for a wind up movie viewer...a primative "What the Butler Saw" device with a shutter and lamp and a bit of timing to produce a flickery moving image. This was developed by none other than Thomas Edison with a few friends.
Initially, strips of celluloid were cut up and glued together to make the scenes...drawn on the strips by hand.
Edison happened across George Eastman (Mr Kodak to you) who was developing a film on a roll...easy peasy and simple to use. The little machine (a Kinetoscope) was using 1 3/8" strips at the time so Eastman made the rolls the same size.
Shortly afterwards it became feasible to coat the celluloid with silver halides instead of using glass plates...fancy idea eh?..."it'll never work, that Eastman man has lost his senses".
Alas, it did work...and the strips remained 1 3/8" wide and the roll film took off.
Next ve can blame ze Germans. Always awkward and wanting to be different (still the same today eh?....and no, I'm not being racist so sit down!). Leitz (Leica) started to develop a more compact sized camera and realised that it would be better if the film was rolled from side to side and not top to bottom. So the 1 3/8" wide film became thinner and the 1 3/8" was along the length instead. Of course, ze Germans vanted to use zere millimetres unt nicht unsere inches.
There you have it....it all started because some Yankee butler wanted to share his keyhole vision of her ladyship having bit of rough as it were.

Bob
Click to expand...

Nice story.
However, this one is an urban legend: the length of a 35mm film frame is 36mm (the width is 24mm, as we all know). 36mm happens to be 1.417323 inch, precisely.
1.417323 inch is not 1 3/8th inch, whichever way you measure it, Bob...

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Hey, you must be the guy that did the measurements on board that Mars probe, couple years ago! LOL!

:woot:
 
35mm is the actual width of the film measured edge to edge. ;)
 
I may be wrong, but I heard that:
Early Leitz cameras simply used 'kinematograph' film which was already in production in the movie industry, though as to why it's that size...?
Medium-Format (120) film is also 70mm cinema film...
The now defunct 110 format may even be 16mm movie film, but I couldn't swear to it...
 
W.Smith said:
Nice story.
However, this one is an urban legend: the length of a 35mm film frame is 36mm (the width is 24mm, as we all know). 36mm happens to be 1.417323 inch, precisely.
1.417323 inch is not 1 3/8th inch, whichever way you measure it, Bob...

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Hey, you must be the guy that did the measurements on board that Mars probe, couple years ago! LOL!

:woot:
Click to expand...

No, 1 3/8" is 35mm (actually 0.075mm less). The 36mm image size you are referring to was a later change....again attributed to Leitz/Leica....when one of their designers plumped for a 2:3 aspect ratio.
fing40.gif


If this is indeed an "urban legend"...then what is the true story?...don't leave us in suspense.

Bob
 
I was lead to believe that the leica used roll film borrowed from the cinema industry, which was 1" wide, and in plentiful supply, hence the sprocket holes down the edges... the long edge was selected by the 2:3 ratio

just my 2p.. :thumbs:
 
Dave Scanlon said:
I was lead to believe that the leica used roll film borrowed from the cinema industry, which was 1" wide, and in plentiful supply, hence the sprocket holes down the edges... the long edge was selected by the 2:3 ratio

just my 2p.. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

It was borrowed from the film industry but the standard roll film was 1 3/8" wide....as developed by Eastman and used by Edison.

A quick surf of Leica info produced the following"

The Leica was the first practical 35 mm camera. The first prototypes were built by Oskar Barnack at E. Leitz Optische Werke, Wetzlar, in 1913. Barnack used standard cinema 35 mm film, but extended the image size to 24 × 36 mm. Barnack believed the 2:3 aspect ratio to be the best choice, leaving room for a 36-exposure film length (originally 40 exposures, but some films were found to be thicker).

I think we need to get "Myth Busters" on this one

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Well, here's how it all started and why we're stuck with it.

The early use of roll film was for a wind up movie viewer...a primative "What the Butler Saw" device with a shutter and lamp and a bit of timing to produce a flickery moving image. This was developed by none other than Thomas Edison with a few friends.
Initially, strips of celluloid were cut up and glued together to make the scenes...drawn on the strips by hand.
Edison happened across George Eastman (Mr Kodak to you) who was developing a film on a roll...easy peasy and simple to use. The little machine (a Kinetoscope) was using 1 3/8" strips at the time so Eastman made the rolls the same size.
Shortly afterwards it became feasible to coat the celluloid with silver halides instead of using glass plates...fancy idea eh?..."it'll never work, that Eastman man has lost his senses".
Alas, it did work...and the strips remained 1 3/8" wide and the roll film took off.
Next ve can blame ze Germans. Always awkward and wanting to be different (still the same today eh?....and no, I'm not being racist so sit down!). Leitz (Leica) started to develop a more compact sized camera and realised that it would be better if the film was rolled from side to side and not top to bottom. So the 1 3/8" wide film became thinner and the 1 3/8" was along the length instead. Of course, ze Germans vanted to use zere millimetres unt nicht unsere inches.
There you have it....it all started because some Yankee butler wanted to share his keyhole vision of her ladyship having bit of rough as it were.

Bob
Click to expand...
Mostly true, but (I believe) not entirely true.

The standard which we now know as 35mm was originally used by the kinetoscope, conceptually invented by Thomas Edison but largely developed by his employee William Dickson.

The first prototype kinetoscope was demonstrated in 1891 and used film that was 3/4" (19mm) wide. In 1892 they decided to use wider film, and obtained rolls from Eastman Kodak. The film they were supplied was not 35mm wide: Eastman's standard at the time was 2 3/4" (70mm), and Edison and Dickson decided to split it in half to produce a width of 1 3/8" (35mm). This was the size they used for the first complete kinetoscope, which had its premiere in 1893. The kinetoscope was a huge success and some time in 1894 or 1895 Eastman started supplying Edison with rolls of film which were already trimmed to 1 3/8".

(Note: some sources state that Edison and Dickson used film 1 9/16" (40mm) wide, and trimmed it a bit to 1 3/8". That sounds a little weird to me. Whereas splitting 2 3/4" film in half seems much more practical.)

So far so good.

BUT - The reason why the standard came to be known as 35mm rather than 1 3/8" is obscure. My understanding is that it is NOT because of Leitz/Leica. That company developed the first prototype 35mm film camera in 1913, but didn't actually introduce it until 1925. (Also - Leica used standard 35mm film. They didn't change the dimensions of the actual film; they just changed the dimensions of the images - from 24x18mm to 36x24mm - by winding the film horizontally instead of vertically.)

The thing is, 35mm was already established as the international standard long before Leica came on the scene. The kinetoscope was so successful that Edison's format quickly became a de facto standard, and it was made the official standard in 1909 by the Motion Picture Patents Company. As far as I can tell, it was already being referred to as 35mm, rather than 1 3/8", by then. I haven't been able to work out why.

EDIT: This whole topic is covered very well indeed by Wikipedia. See the articles on the kinetoscope, 35mm movie film, 35mm still film, etc.
 
O.K. So once we settle this one, would anyone please tell us why there are 18 holes in a game of golf??:D
 
St Andrews (Old Course) had 12 holes by 1764, and probably much earlier. The holes were laid out in a line and 10 holes were played twice - once 'out' and once back 'in', making a 'round' of 22 holes. However, in 1764, the golfers decided to combine the first four holes into two, which produced a round of 18 holes, though it was really 10 holes of which 8 were played twice.

Therefore, when Prestwick was built in 1851 with only 12 holes, it did not look out of place.

By 1857 however, St Andrews had put second holes in the 8 double greens of the Old Course, creating a proper round of 18 holes, and in 1858 the St Andrews club laid down a round of 18 holes for matches between its own members.

Or alternatively that was the amount of holes it took to down a bottle of scotch! ;)

:)
 
Why are you all so against metric? It's impossible to use imperial in anything sciency without a lot more thought applied, and metric is much easier to use in most situations. Imperial is out dated, completely random and built up over hundreds of years. There's a reason most of the world uses metric - it makes sense! It translates between languages easily, it is completely standard anywhere you go, and it makes use of SI units. Get with the times guys!
 
leoedin said:
Why are you all so against metric? It's impossible to use imperial in anything sciency without a lot more thought applied, and metric is much easier to use in most situations. Imperial is out dated, completely random and built up over hundreds of years. There's a reason most of the world uses metric - it makes sense! It translates between languages easily, it is completely standard anywhere you go, and it makes use of SI units. Get with the times guys!
Click to expand...


You don't understand it, do you:D

:lol:;):thumbs:
 
leoedin said:
Why are you all so against metric? It's impossible to use imperial in anything sciency without a lot more thought applied, and metric is much easier to use in most situations. Imperial is out dated, completely random and built up over hundreds of years. There's a reason most of the world uses metric - it makes sense! It translates between languages easily, it is completely standard anywhere you go, and it makes use of SI units. Get with the times guys!
Click to expand...

Don't waste your (metric) energy, leoedin: those peeps still ride steam engines too . . . !

:bonk::bonk::bonk:
 
W.Smith said:
You were there, Shak, weren't you? So you tell us!
Click to expand...

I'm 24!

This turned out to be quite a thread! :bonk: Some very interesting points made. :thumbs:

PS. I prefer metric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top