The difference in the sizes metioned amounts to 0.75 mm. Could some of
that be due to allowance for thermal expansion or for kerfing losses of
some sort? (Even if cut by knife, there might be some smoothing that is
done which would reduce the width.)
Jim
On Saturday 16 June 2001 1930, Joseph B. Reid wrote:
> I am grateful to Bill Potts for the additional information he found
> in USMA 13826
....
> >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.
>
> The Lumi�re brothers were the first to present a public performance
> of motion pictures. I have visited the room on the Rive Gauche in
> Paris where the show took place. If the film is only 1-3/8" wide it
> is a modification due to (American) Society of Motion Picture
> Engineers. I started my professional career with Kodak Limited,
> Harrow, Middlesex, and I never heard a suggestion that 35 mm was
> really 1-3/8". It is unlikely that Agfa would produce 1-3/8" film
> and call it 35 mm. Also, if SMPE shaved down the width of the f9m,
> why did they preserve the metric sprocket spacing and the metric
> frame size? I suspect that American engineers may have referred to
> the film as 1-3/8" as a measurement that Americans could understand,
> but that it was really 35 mm.
....
--
James R. Frysinger University/College of Charleston
10 Captiva Row Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Charleston, SC 29407 66 George Street
843.225.0805 Charleston, SC 29424
http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cert. Adv. Metrication Specialist 843.953.7644
