# Exact specified dimensions of 35mm film



## Skaperen (Nov 28, 2009)

I have figures for the spacing between sprockets along the length of the film (0.187 inch) and the size of the sprockets (0.11 inch by 0.087 inch), with rounded corners (with either a radius or diameter of 0.02 inch).  The information I don't have is the positions of the sprockets along the width of the film ... how far from the edge and thus how far apart from each other.  Anyone know the positions?


----------



## Garbz (Nov 28, 2009)

Measured with callipers: 2.05mm sprocket edge to film edge. 2.77mm from sprocket edge to next sprocket edge. 1.99mm is the width of the sprocket which was just done to check against the KS standard spocket in film (1.91mm exact spec) to ensure the above measurements are reasonably accurate.


----------



## Skaperen (Nov 28, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Measured with callipers: 2.05mm


Is that from the edge of film to sprocket edge?

35mm - 24mm gives 11mm working space, split to 5.5mm each side.  So 2.05mm puts the sprockets closer to the image than the edge, which is probably necessary for film base strength.  Still looking for the exact specs number.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 28, 2009)

What are you trying to do?


----------



## KmH (Nov 28, 2009)

Skaperen said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > Measured with callipers: 2.05mm
> ...


Dude....Really!



> Measured with callipers: 2.05mm *sprocket edge to film edge.*


 
Read his post again and slow down.


----------



## Dwig (Nov 29, 2009)

This Wikipedia page gives the specs for the sprocket holes themselves, though it fails to give the exact placement relative to the edge of the film stock.

Film perforations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

keep in mind that movie negative stock intended for camera use has a different sprocket (BN) than that used by cine printers and 35mm still cameras (KS).

The full spec for the 135 still film format is available from the ISO as ISO1007, specifically the most recent version ISO1007:2000.


----------



## Skaperen (Nov 30, 2009)

Dwig said:


> The full spec for the 135 still film format is available from the ISO as ISO1007, specifically the most recent version ISO1007:2000.


It costs over $150 to buy a document to get a couple numbers.


----------



## Skaperen (Nov 30, 2009)

KmH said:


> Skaperen said:
> 
> 
> > Garbz said:
> ...


Don't you mean "go back and re-read the post after it was edited"?  I don't know if he posted it short and edited it, or the system truncated some displays.  But when I quoted it in my followup, even the quote was short.  That's exactly how I saw it the first time.  It sure looks more useful now.

I'm now editing my own post just to see how it comes out ... such as if it tells the world if/when I did the edit.

Second edit ... there appears to be no indication that I edited it.  I do know posts in LinkedIn.Com can be edited with no indication of edit.  But edits must be done within 15 minutes.  I see that I responded to Garbz's post only 5 minutes after.  So even if TPF does the same as LinkedIn, he could have edited it and improved, it finished what he intended to type (e.g. an accidental save).

Third edit ... just to see what it looks like.


----------



## Skaperen (Nov 30, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> What are you trying to do?


Build some objects in a graphical rendering system that will show pieces of film (unmounted slides, negatives, rolls), typically exposed and processed with images ... and as technically correct as possible.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 30, 2009)

Skaperen said:


> ... such as if it tells the world if/when I did the edit.



If you do it within a few minutes of the original post, it shows it as unedited.



Skaperen said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > What are you trying to do?
> ...


Your best bet may be to just go out and buy a roll of film and measure it yourself...  A couple bucks for a roll of film is a hell of a lot better than $150 to buy the ISO spec.


----------



## Skaperen (Nov 30, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Your best bet may be to just go out and buy a roll of film and measure it yourself...  A couple bucks for a roll of film is a hell of a lot better than $150 to buy the ISO spec.


I didn't want to depend on my own measurements.  This can require some work to get really accurate.  Sure, it can be argued that if I can't see the error in making the measurements, it won't show in the images being produced.  Actually, I have found that if I get used to seeing something a lot, I can see even tiny variations.  But I don't look at film that much to depend on my own eye for it.  I just wanted some real numbers.  I have gotten them for many other things I've done some graphics with.

Of course, I could have just done some photometry


----------

