Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
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.