Guest coolbreeze Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Maybe John P would know the answer... Can anyone tell me how much a 1000ft roll of 35mm film weighs? (not including the can?) Sincerely, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 35mm negative film weighs just over 2g per foot. So your 1,000 ft roll would be a bit more than 2kg. Add about 20g or 30g for the core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted August 30, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted August 30, 2005 35mm negative film weighs just over 2g per foot. So your 1,000 ft roll would be a bit more than 2kg. Add about 20g or 30g for the core. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My usual "rule of thumb" is about 5 pounds per 1000 feet for film, core and can. The Kodak catalog says about 30 pounds for a case of five 1000-foot rolls, including case: http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...g/contact04.pdf (Shipping weight, page 6) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest coolbreeze Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Thanks guys!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 My usual "rule of thumb" is about 5 pounds per 1000 feet for film, core and can.Sorry . . . .I forgot those quaint old-fashioned units you use - pounds :rolleyes: 2 kilograms is 4.4 pounds. Add in about 30g (an ounce) for the core, half a pound for the can, and we're close to five pounds. I think processed negative is a little lighter (judging by the weight of the silver that comes out :D ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted August 31, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted August 31, 2005 Sorry . . . .I forgot those quaint old-fashioned units you use - pounds :rolleyes: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Almost everyone educated in technology would favor using International (Metric) units of measurement, including myself. But it's an argument I always lose with my wife, who evidently represents the prevailing view in the USA. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 But it's an argument I always lose with my wifeJohn, please thank your wife for preserving a little bit of colour and variety in the otherwise bland and abstract world of SI units. By the way, does she have a preference for foot lamberts, candelas per square metre, nits or apostilbs when it comes to screen brightness? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted September 1, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted September 1, 2005 John, please thank your wife for preserving a little bit of colour and variety in the otherwise bland and abstract world of SI units. By the way, does she have a preference for foot lamberts, candelas per square metre, nits or apostilbs when it comes to screen brightness? :blink: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Footlamberts, of course. We only use "standard" candles, and my foot is almost exactly a foot long, so I can measure the distance to the screen. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now