Just a follow-up.
35 mm movie film was introduced by the Lumi�re brothers in 1895. There were
other widths available at the time, but 35 mm became the standard.
There's a very good history at http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html.
There's a section on the 9.5 mm film ("neuf-cinq") I mentioned.
35 mm still cameras were introduced in 1914, using the same frame size (now
known as a half frame) as the movies. The 24 mm x 36 mm frame came later.
There's an interesting page at http://www.subclub.org/shop/halframe.htm, in
which the author notes that 35 mm film is actually 34.8 mm, and that it is,
in fact, 1-3/8" wide. I have checked and he is right.
That doesn't, in any way, lessen any argument for metrication (quite
obviously). However, it indicates that some caution is needed in asserting
something is hard metric when it may not be so. (We are, of course, correct
in our assertion of the hard metric nature of the 90 mm diskette and 120 mm
CD specifications -- and of many other contemporary specifications.)
For 35 mm film, the 18 mm x 24 mm movie frame and 24 mm x 36 mm still frame
formats do appear to be hard metric.
Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Bill Potts
> Sent: June 16, 2001 11:59
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:13821] Re: Fw: Questions about measurement standards
>
>
> John:
>
> 35 mm was also developed for movies (before 16 mm and 8 mm, I think). I
> think its use for still photography came later (mid 1930s or so).
>
> Incidentally, there was also a 9.5 mm format, with sprocket holes down the
> center, between the frames.
>
> Bill Potts, CMS
> Roseville, CA
> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kilopascal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: June 16, 2001 11:38
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; U.S. Metric Association
> > Subject: Re: [USMA:13816] Re: Fw: Questions about measurement standards
> >
> >
> > 2001-06-16
> >
> > Of course, they did not mention this one. And, I forgot about it
> > too, as I
> > don't have an 8 mm video camera.
> >
> > And also, what about the USA development of photographic film what was
> > standardised in 8 mm and 16 mm for home movies and 35 mm
> > photographic film?
> >
> > It seems the metric standards don't become obsolete as fast as
> inch based?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> > Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrt�mlich glaubt
> > frei zu sein.
> >
> > There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely
> > believe they
> > are free!
> >
> > Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, 2001-06-16 14:25
> > Subject: [USMA:13816] Re: Fw: Questions about measurement standards
> >
> >
> > > John Schweisthal wrote:
> > > > 3.) Funny thing you mention tape. I haven't bought tapes
> in years. I
> > buy
> > > > all my music on CD's and CD's are SI. Their diameter is
> 120 mm. That
> > is
> > > > the standard. There is also a smaller version that is 80 mm.
> > >
> > > And, of course, one could add that the tape used in amateur
> > digital video
> > > cameras is 8 mm.
> > >
> > > Bill Potts, CMS
> > > Roseville, CA
> > > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> > >
> >
> >
>
