my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Large Format Forum   » 80 minutes of 70mm ? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: 80 minutes of 70mm ? Steve Matz Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 672 From: Billings, Montana, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 08-10-2014 12:00 AM                     Interesting Photo;This is supposed to be 80 Minutes of 70MM Film. If were running 90 Ft a minute; that's 7200 ft or over 1-3/8th mile of Film.So what does that Calculate for Weight not counting the Platter? I'm sure you wouldn't have to worry about someone walking off with this unless his name was Hercules...  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-10-2014 12:23 AM                     5/70mm used 105 ft/min and 15/70mm IMAX used 330ft/min - both at 24fps. IMAX film that big would weigh in close to 800lbs and is mounted on a half inch deck to support that much weight. What could be that this is an IMAX print that was played on an early open reel system, thus the payout would be on the outside.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 08-10-2014 01:37 AM                     Looks like a full length IMAX DMR print to me.  |  IP: Logged Randy Pryde Film Handler Posts: 32 From: Casper, WY, USA Registered: Feb 2013 posted 08-10-2014 01:37 AM                        In the interest of accuracy: 4/35 at 24 fps runs 90 feet per minute. 5/70 at 24 fps runs 112.5 feet per minute. The 15/70 print in the photo runs 337.5 feet per minute.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 08-10-2014 11:55 AM                    quote: Randy Pryde 4/35 at 24 fps runs 90 feet per minute Actually it is 96 feet. 24 frames per second = 16 frames in a foot so that would be 1.6 feet per second X 60 seconds =96 feet per minute.  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 08-10-2014 02:00 PM                     quote: Darryl Spicer Actually it is 96 feet. Huh? I suck at math, but: 24fps for 60sec = 1440 frames per minute 1440 frames divided by 16 frames (1ft)= 90 So, it's 90 feet per minute according to my math which is right 50% of the time. (and that's almost half!)  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-10-2014 03:42 PM                     A flaw is in the source measurement. Film is dimensioned (for positive release prints) at .1870" per perforation. Thus it runs at .1870x4 = .7480"/frame. The 16 frame/foot is off as 16 frames is actually 11.968" so you are going to multiply that out and multiply the error with it. So 16 frames/foot is an approximation that is sufficient for its purpose. .1870" x 4 x 24 x 60 = 1077.12" or 89.76-feet...which again is an approximation but one that is sufficient for its purpose. Kind of like there are 8-turns of a house reel (5" hub) between cue marks...sufficient to know where they should be...just not what you should use for critical measurement. The big flaw in Darryl's math above was the "1.6" factor. As Don Adam's would say..."he missed it by this much." The factor is 1.5 16frames/foot x 1 second/24 frames yields .66667 seconds/foot or if you invert it...1.5 feet/seconds, not 1.6. 1.5 feet/seconds x 60 seconds = 90-feet. So Jim's math is better than 50% right this time!  |  IP: Logged Steve Matz Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 672 From: Billings, Montana, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 08-10-2014 04:02 PM                     quote: Randy Pryde In the interest of accuracy: 4/35 at 24 fps runs 90 feet per minute. 5/70 at 24 fps runs 112.5 feet per minute. The 15/70 print in the photo runs 337.5 feet per minute. OK if this is 15/70 at 337.5fpm x 80min = 27,000ft divided by 5280ft(1mile) = 5.114 miles...Do you really think there is more than 5 miles of film on that Platter....I would like it unspooled and measured end to end please just for verification  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 08-10-2014 05:11 PM                    Yep missed it by that much. I was thinking literally instead of mathematically.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-10-2014 06:36 PM                     Interesting of the shoe polish that separates the reels. Could be 5/70 using DTS, or even CDS due to the lack of magnetic striping. Or, 8/70 Megasystem, which then could come close to the "80 minutes" topic.  |  IP: Logged Steve Matz Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 672 From: Billings, Montana, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 08-10-2014 08:51 PM                     Doing some simple math here. If a 35mm Feature is 2hrs Long (6Reels) at 90fpm = 1800ft x 6 = 10,800ft divided by 5,280 Equals = 2.045miles....That means this Platter at 40 minutes less time than a 2hour 35mm Feature would still have over 3 miles of Film left on it. I don't even run 3 miles any more this is just too much Film Now I see why there is Digital Well; Accidents will Happen on Ocassion  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-10-2014 11:28 PM                     Good pict ! Been there and done that when not on location and my operators don't check their operation when a splice sticks in the failsafe and the film just pays out everywhere. But, not a lost cause: find the end and don't touch the pile. One can wind this nest back up on the deck in less than a half hour...then zip it through the Kelmar a few times with media rolls soaked in F-G.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-11-2014 02:36 PM                     quote: Darryl Spicer I was thinking literally instead of mathematically. This will make me seem like an insensitive prick, but... Even with your original algorithm, you should've come out with 1.5 ft/sec. So, the way I see it, you were neither thinking literally nor mathematically. 16 goes into 24 once, with 8 frames leftover. 8 frames = half a foot.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-11-2014 05:36 PM                     God Manny! What an insensitive prick!  |  IP: Logged Steve Matz Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 672 From: Billings, Montana, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 08-11-2014 11:16 PM                     Now I know why MANNY says the Things he Does!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.