Interesting discussion. I agree with the two posters who mentioned that all analogue processes are much better than using digital, if you make a point to recycle everything you can.
BTW, I don't believe "waste" is the intended word as there is no part of the roll of film not used and that includes the leader, the trailer and the area used by the sprocket. Obviously may not be used directly for the image capture but certainly performs an intended function - it was designed that way. Possibly inefficient when compared to other sprocketless films but even those have other "wasted" parts that still serve an intended function.
16mm still cameras that use double perforation film waste more film by percentage. Image is 10mm high and film is 16mm high.
Yes, Les Sarile and ic-racer: you are correct: 'waste' here is imparted largely theoretically, as all parts of the film are used to at least some good purpose and the 'waste' with 16mm is profound. But this waste with still cameras could have been lessened. That is all I am driving at.
I think that this thread dichotomizes and illustrates the theory of waste versus the sometimes 'necessity' of such. It is good to look at all angles of a problem and to not only comfortably resign oneself with what 'is'. However, if 35mm film were to have been specially made for still cameras (remember Bantam, as one already mentioned?), negating the need for such overkill protection, I think that we could have easily ended up with a 32 x 36 format using the same lenses that we now have. Single sided perforations, and smaller at that, would have readily sufficed to attain the same, or virtually the same, precision. Think of how nice that would have been: image quality coming ever closer to medium format's 4.5 x 6 with no need for different lenses. Why, for some people, is that so bad to imagine or consider worthy of mention?
Folks, here I simply bring up possibilities of 'what could have been'. This does not translate into 'complaining' or becoming 'depressed over what cannot be resurected'. Some, and not only here on this forum, cannot deal with such 'brainstorming' and that should be one benefit of a multi-faceted forum such as this: elucidating possibilities that might have been errors of the past for the purpose of going forward in life and identifying similarities that could now benefit from such hindsight. 'Waste' is something worthy of being at least mentioned and, even if nothing can be done to rectify the past, analyzed for future benefit.
And tkamiya, as you said: "Its an established design widely adopted by the industry and consumers". My dear, so was slavery, until analyzed thoughtfully and thoroughly, without consideration for how 'efficient' it was.
I think that that assessment is both fair and necessary. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 01-15-2013 at 07:47 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I think your "what could have been" brainstorm is interesting but I don't think you are promoting artists to affect change in wasting less, for eg., you cite all this waste in the evolution of 35mm as the basis of reflection for analysis of future benefit, but when presented with much more wasted media in analog photography (eg 20% or so of a analog printed photo generally contains a white border i.e. WASTE), yet I don't hear you caring about that. You seem to be reveling in the fact that yes 35mm might have waste when compared with say 120 film, but you don't seem to be genuinely promoting this revelation of the concept of waste-in-artistic-process to waste less. You seem to be pointing towards history as the cause of excess waste and throwing your hands up in the air with distaste for how the 35mm camera evolved to be so wasteful.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
i don't think it is wasted film at all david i think it serves a purpose.
how could something with a use be a waste ?
its like saying that because care tire treads are only on the surface that touches the roadway
it is a waste of rubber + materials to make the sidewalls out of rubber, or because the tire makes a seal
on the rim, all tires should be tubeless, and it is a waste to have an innertube.
time and effort have created things to be as they currently are because other ways did not work as well.
they might have worked in some applications and situations but the benefit outweighed the cost.
im just glad that kodak didn't have a proprietary 35mm design specifically for their 35mm cameras .. a different
drive / transport mechanism, a different type of sprocket holes and canister size &c. they stopped making 35mm cameras in the 60s? 70s?
and they would have had to retool their machinery to work with the other 35m formats. what a pain!
almost as much of a hassle as it is to deal with proprietary sizes for their 80 years with box cameras + roll film.
what a drag it is now to find spools and film and processing equipment / methodology when using an old folder.
at least 35mm is an accepted format, and a free for all ...
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?
Certainly, here I am guilty of focusing upon ONLY 35mm film and you are correct when you state that there are other 'wastes' that I am not zeroing in on. Nevertheless, I wanted to make a point that we use for recording purposes only about half of the film and I though that that 'fact' was interesting to parse. In fact, many were rather amazed at that revelation.
OK, Jnanian, 35mm film's sensational success is surely at least partly due to the fact that it is, as you rightly state, a 'free for all'. That's probably a primary reason why it never 'died' like the other formats.It HAD to be kept in stock because of the movie industry. And, both Jnanian and zsas, as you, again, correctly assert, this 'waste' does serve a purpose: my point is that the SAME purpose could have been served with LESS waste. Let's not present this thread in polarized absolutes. I think that my original point is valid but at the same time the counteraction to my singular focus is not only just and fair, but necessary. There are many angles to this idea and it is best to expose them all.
Andrewf: Point well made about the salvation of much of this waste through the audio track built right into the film for absolute synchronization.
- David Lyga
Originally Posted by andrewf
you can add whatever information you want to the film rebate area. it just takes a sharpie
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.