Still 355mm Film and Motion Picture 35mm Film

[Jase Ryan]

I'm going to try and explain this the best I can and hopefully it is easy to understand....

 

I was talking with someone who was telling me that the film used for Still 35mm photography and the film used for Motion Picture 35mm photography is a different size from each other. And that the focal lengths from stills lenses to Motion picture are different, even if reading the same number.

 

 

To me, it doesn't make sense that the film would be any different in size. And as far as the lenses are concerned, My thought was that since in motion pictures, we pick different rations and different perf pull downs. So if we are shooting something in 2 perf, the film fram is not using the full lens, which would make some people think we are not at the same length?

 

Does my thoughts and questions make any sense? I'd love to hear what you all think!

[Johnny Roc]

85mm lens on an SLR is closer to a 100mm lens on a motion picture camera.

Still and motion picture film is the same size and is 35mm and is four perforations per frame.

a 50mm lens on an SLR will even look very different when mounted on a let's say 40D dSLR because of the chip. It will look more like an 85mm.

I'm not a dp, i'm sure someone here will be able to explain this much better.

 

 

I'm going to try and explain this the best I can and hopefully it is easy to understand....

 

I was talking with someone who was telling me that the film used for Still 35mm photography and the film used for Motion Picture 35mm photography is a different size from each other. And that the focal lengths from stills lenses to Motion picture are different, even if reading the same number.

 

 

To me, it doesn't make sense that the film would be any different in size. And as far as the lenses are concerned, My thought was that since in motion pictures, we pick different rations and different perf pull downs. So if we are shooting something in 2 perf, the film fram is not using the full lens, which would make some people think we are not at the same length?

 

Does my thoughts and questions make any sense? I'd love to hear what you all think!

[Scott Fritzshall]

The strip of film running through the camera is the same size, but still cameras run it through horizontally whereas motion picture cameras run it through vertically. VistaVision (35mm run through the camera horizontally) is approximately the same size as 35mm still film.

 

A focal length is a focal length; a 50mm lens is always going to be 50mm no matter what, but it will give a different field of view depending on how large the exposure area is. Thus, a 50mm lens gives a wider field of view on a 35mm motion picture camera than on a 35mm still camera, even though it's the same focal length and the same gauge of film. Here's an illustration that I found with a quick search: http://www.zerocut.com/tech/formats.html

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

it's a good question

 

forget the dslr first and stick to still 35 cameras and motion picture camera.

the size of the film strip is the same, you can run motion picture film in your still camera, the chemicals are different but it's not the point.

 

sorry i'm explaining in the metric system

 

your frame size with aspect ratio is :

in still camera : 24mmX36m

in 1.33 : 18mmX24mm

in 1.37 : 16mmX22mm

in 1.66 : 13,25mmX22mm

in 1.85 : 11,89mmX22mm

in S35 : 18,66mmX24,89mm it's including the sound track

in 3 perf : 13,87mmX27,89mm

and

vistavision 1.5 : 25,2mmX37,7mm

 

as you can see the image of the 50mm lens of your still camera will fit in any of the images of the motion picture one, it will be slitly croped depending on the format on the horizontal.

but, in vertical it will be more croped in letter box ratios.

 

now if your frame is like in 16mm lets say 10,22mmX7,42mm

as the image is centered you'll only have the center part of the 50mm image, it's like if you where zooming in.

that's what happen if you use a 35mm lens on a S16mm camera or a still camera lens on a DSLR camera with a 2/3" chip then you 50mm will have the field of view of an 85mm

and opticaly it's still a 50mm with the depth of sielf of a 50mm

 

i hope it was clear

[Chris Keth]

Thus, a 50mm lens gives a wider field of view on a 35mm motion picture camera than on a 35mm still camera, even though it's the same focal length and the same gauge of film.

 

Scott is all correct except for this. It's probably just a slip up Any given lens will give a narrower field of view on a motion picture camera because the physical frame size is smaller than for a still full frame 35mm camera. You can see this if you look at the "normal" focal lengths of each format: 43mm for full frame still 35mm (24x36mm frame size) and 30mm for half frame (18x24 frame size).

 

I'm not the person to ask but I think the perfs may be slightly different for MP 35mm film and for still 35mm film. I'm not positive about this, though.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Chris Keth

[Chris Keth]

I went and looked at a bit of 35mm MP film I have for scratch tests and some 35mm Kodachrome for stills I have in the freezer and they do have different perfs. The MP film has "BH" (Bell and Howell) perforations while the still film has "KS" or "DH" perfs, I can't tell them apart by eye.

 

I don't think the different perfs would make much difference running through cameras unless you were running high speed. One may run a bit louder than the other.

 

See this article for what those types of perforations look like.

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hi

i already did in the some tests with kodak stock from short ends 35 in my old pentax still cam and had them processed with regular camera tests.

motion picture film run as good horizontaly in still camera as verticaly in motion picture ones..

in still cam you'r not concerned with steadyness issues

[Brian Pritchard]

I went and looked at a bit of 35mm MP film I have for scratch tests and some 35mm Kodachrome for stills I have in the freezer and they do have different perfs. The MP film has "BH" (Bell and Howell) perforations while the still film has "KS" or "DH" perfs, I can't tell them apart by eye.

 

I don't think the different perfs would make much difference running through cameras unless you were running high speed. One may run a bit louder than the other.

 

See this article for what those types of perforations look like.

Motion Picture camera film is normally BH short pitch known as neg perfs. Still film is normally KS (Kodak Standard) long pitch known as pos perfs. DH (Dubray Howell) perfs are the same shape as KS but the same height as BH perfs. They were designed for multiple pass printing (A & B Rolls etc), they are usually long pitch. They have the rounded corners of KS perfs to give strength on projection but the shorter height to give better registration when multiple pass printing.

Brian

[Chris Keth]

in still cam you'r not concerned with steadyness issues

 

Not usually, anyway.;) My comment was more aimed at someone who might try to load a 100ft "bulk" roll of Velvia made for still use into a movie camera, or some situation like that.

[Chris Keth]

Motion Picture camera film is normally BH short pitch known as neg perfs. Still film is normally KS (Kodak Standard) long pitch known as pos perfs. DH (Dubray Howell) perfs are the same shape as KS but the same height as BH perfs. They were designed for multiple pass printing (A & B Rolls etc), they are usually long pitch. They have the rounded corners of KS perfs to give strength on projection but the shorter height to give better registration when multiple pass printing.

Brian

 

Thanks for the clarification, Brian. I guess my Kodachrome is KS perf.

[Simon Wyss]

Hey, Jase

 

Want to make a small historic journey with me?

 

So, during World War I an aerial photography ciné film was manufactured by Perutz of München, Germany. They called it Fliegerfilm. It was nothing else than an orthochromatic low speed motion-picture stock. Oskar Barnack, an employee at the Leitz works, thought of using that film for stills photography in 1915 and started to build a little camera. Look, until the 1930s photographers worked with glass plates (some still do) and sheet film (some still do) in the formats of 4" X 5", 5" X 7", 8" X 10". Roll film and the 135 story became widespread only after World War II.

 

Barnack's Leica (Leitz camera) was odd in a number of respects. He chose an aperture of 24 by 36 mm, aspect ratio of 2 to 3. Photographers were used to compose on the ratio of 3 to 4, 4 to 5 or square. Also, many people wouldn't understand why to use a strip of film with up to 36 exposures when they mostly needed one good picture. Life had not yet accelerated so much.

 

Now you can compare 35-mm stills photography with 35-mm cinematography, i. e. 24 by 36 mm vs. 18 X 24 mm (it once was ¾ inches on 1 inch with Dickson at Edison labs). With the “Academy” standard of 1932 the camera aperture was defined as .631" X .868", a little later .630" X .867". The aspect ratio of the screen was to remain 3 to 4.

 

The rest of the story is an industry that throws out throw-away products, also lenses. The 1920 photographer (and cinematographer) had very few lenses which he had a feeling for. He would not change often his equipment.

[Simon Wyss]

Ciné stock perforation became standardized first in 1907 at the Paris international motion-picture film technical congress. There the frame-line was established as to be between a hole pair. In 1909 the hole form, hole rows separation, and pitch was fixed to what Bell & Howell Co. of Chicago determined with their 1908 perforator. Don't ask me how this was accomplished. Square holes with rounded corners came in 1938 as Dubray-Howell perf. Eastman-Kodak introduced square holes with rounded corners in 1939 in order to give space to the sprocket teeth of printers. The fourth standardized 35-mm film perforation was the 1953 CinemaScope type with square holes and rounded corners, set somewhat more apart and smaller to give way to magnetic stripes on prints.

[Brian Pritchard]

Ciné stock perforation became standardized first in 1907 at the Paris international motion-picture film technical congress. There the frame-line was established as to be between a hole pair. In 1909 the hole form, hole rows separation, and pitch was fixed to what Bell & Howell Co. of Chicago determined with their 1908 perforator. Don't ask me how this was accomplished. Square holes with rounded corners came in 1938 as Dubray-Howell perf. Eastman-Kodak introduced square holes with rounded corners in 1939 in order to give space to the sprocket teeth of printers. The fourth standardized 35-mm film perforation was the 1953 CinemaScope type with square holes and rounded corners, set somewhat more apart and smaller to give way to magnetic stripes on prints.

KS Perforations were introduced in 1924, Dubray-Howell were introduced in 1931. Cinemascope perforations have the same pitch as KS perforations (0.1870) but are smaller.

Brian