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