Although the arithmetic doesn't make a lot of sense, as the article talks
about slitting a 2-3/8" film down the middle, which of course yields a width
of 1-3/16", or just over 30 mm, this excerpt (from
http://www.editorsnet.com/article/printerfriendly/0,7226,116917,00.html)
talks, once more, about an original 34.8 mm standard -- "the Edison size."
<start of excerpt>
Large format film productions have been gaining in popularity by providing
audiences with a uniquely intense viewing experience. That's a goal
filmmakers have been striving for since the dawn of cinema over 100 years
ago. Back in May 1889, Thomas Edison was intrigued by the 2 3/8" across roll
of celluloid that Eastman was using in its new Kodak still photo cameras. He
had one of his assistants, W. K. L. Dickson, order a roll half as wide to
see if it could replace the flip cards in his Kinetoscope. The idea worked,
and the new film technology was patented by the inventor. Its 34.8mm width,
referred to as "the Edison size," became cinema's first de facto standard,
recording images with an aspect ratio of 1" wide to 3/4" high. We've come to
refer to that 4 X 3 image geometry as 1.33. With the power of his U. S.
patent behind him, Edison tried to prevent others from copying what he
claimed to be his exclusive invention of motion pictures on 35mm film. The
first example of a "format war" was on.
<end of excerpt>
Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of kilopascal
> Sent: June 16, 2001 21:46
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:13833] Re: Fw: Questions about measurement standards
>
>
> 2001-06-17
>
>
> > As you can see, Edison is credited with the standard four
> perforations per
> > frame, as opposed to the single perforation per frame of the Lumi�re
> > brothers' product. Could it be that Edison used what was available (34.8
> > mm/1.375") and worked in metric on the other axis (and for the frame
> size)?
> >
> > The mystery deepens.
> >
> > Bill Potts, CMS
> > Roseville, CA
> > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> >
> >
>
> I'll repeat what I printed in a previous posting. 34.8 is derived from
> 1-3/8 only if 1.37 and not 1.375 is multiplied by 25.4
>
> 1.37 x 25.4 = 34.798 mm = 34.8 mm
> 1.375 x 25.4 = 34.925 mm = 34.9 mm
> 1.38 x 25.4 = 35.052 mm = 35.0 or 35.1 mm (truncate or round).
>
> For all practical purposes, these are all 35 mm.
>
> These websites must be passing around the same false information. Someone
> should send them a message pointing out their error. And I highly doubt
> that the technology of 1889 was to the point where the difference of 35 mm
> and 1.375 in would be noticed in film.
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
