Does 35mm have to be film?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Dudley Hanks, Oct 20, 2008.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Yep, I agree.
    I wrote the above after midnight, when I wasn't thinking all that clearly.
    I corrected myself in another post and noted that the gas / diesel was a
    more accurate analogy.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 23, 2008
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Are you sure, Mark? It involves film...

    As a not-quite-exact multiple of 35mm I think it qualifies... :)

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 23, 2008
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Peter Chant Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:

    If, in translating American to English ( ;-) ) by trucks you mean 4x4's and
    pickups, then petrol (gas!) / diesel would not be a good analogy over here.
    Of that class the majority are deisel I'd say.
     
    Peter Chant, Oct 23, 2008
    #63
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote,on my timestamp of 22/10/2008 11:23 PM:
    Other than the prior single reply? None.
    The subject is not worth discussion.
    The fact you got heaps from the rest
    of the moronic pack of trolls from pbase
    is proof enough.
     
    Noons, Oct 23, 2008
    #64
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Proof of what?

    People responded. They expressed their opinions, maybe vented a bit. And,
    the issue is playing itself out.

    If the issue goes away for good, with this thread playing a small part in
    resolving it, then it was a worthwhile exercise.

    Would you not agree?

    Take Care,
    dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 23, 2008
    #65
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    If there is a majority, then there must be a minority. Hence, a dichotomy
    exists. So, why isn't it a good analogy?

    In the realm of 35 vs. digital, there is a majority and a minority as well.
    For the analogy to work, one does not need two equal halves. One only needs
    a similar situation or relationship.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 23, 2008
    #66
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Bijesh Guest

    None of the dimensions of a full-frame(24x36) sensor is 35mm. 35mm
    film is 35mm wide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film) though the
    image size is 24x36. So, 35mm definitely means film and not digital.
     
    Bijesh, Oct 23, 2008
    #67
  8. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    None of the dimensions of a full-frame(24x36) sensor is 35mm. 35mm
    film is 35mm wide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film) though the
    image size is 24x36. So, 35mm definitely means film and not digital.

    You're REALLY reaching now...

    The 35mm width was established in order to enable film manufacturers to
    implement an industry wide film canister which would work in all "35mm" film
    camera bodies. The bodies which grew around those canisters then took on a
    life of their own, and everything adopted the generic "35mm" term, not
    unlike the scenario whereby the term "stereo" originally meant a two channel
    broadcast but evolved into a generic term for 2-channel amplifiers,
    receivers, tape-recorders etc.

    Besides, you guys are missing the point. By including rangefinders, SLRs,
    half-frame cameras, etc, the Charter Members established an "inclusive"
    precedent, indicating that the group should welcome discussion pertaining to
    any camera system which comfortably covers the niche of amateur and
    low-budget professional pics.

    You fellows who are being so beligerant definitely are not living up to that
    spirit...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 23, 2008
    #68
  9. That's because they're all 35mm *film* cameras, all of which existed and
    were in use at time the charter was written. Which in no way included,
    or was envisioned to include (at the time) digital cameras.

    Digital cameras are sui generis, different from film cameras, and
    therefore deserve their own separate places for discussion. How hard is
    it to grasp that concept?
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 23, 2008
    #69
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    David, you are so predictable... I was waiting for that reply.

    By accepting half-frame cameras, the Charter Members explicitly acknowledged
    that experimentation within the imaging area is alright with this group.
    While the half-frame cameras did use the 35mm film, a difference in the area
    where the capture / conversion takes place went unchallenged.

    Hence, as I said before, the Charter Members explicitly approved of an
    inclusive interpretation of the Charter.

    What is so hard to accept about that?

    Besides, digital cameras existed long before this group was formed; they
    even existed back in the '70s and took a trip to the moon. It didn't take a
    genius to foresee that digital sensors would be the norm within a very short
    time of the group's inception. The Charter Members were among the most
    knowledgeable on that topic at the time, yet they wrote not a word to
    prohibit the encroachment of the dreaded digital monsters. Their silence is
    telling.

    You must think these original members idiots...

    Ssince there is nothing to explicitly exclude digitals, and there is a
    precedent of inclusiveness expressed within the Charter, you don't have a
    leg to stand on.

    Something else I find rather telling is that you film "enthusiasts" aren't
    even excited enough about your medium to post one thread about it. Just
    because digital sensors housed in 35mm bodies are the overwhelming norm on
    this group, it doesn't follow that you can't post film specific threads as
    well. I think a lot of shooters on this group (myself included) still have
    a soft spot for the soft strips, and would love to have late breaking
    developments brought to their attention. Don't you? What is it that is of
    such importance to you, David, that you have to clear the group of all
    digital traffic in order to free up sufficient bandwidth to accomadate the
    ensuing discourse?

    Come on, David, tell me something new about the 35mm film world, and we'll
    single-handedly get this group back on track...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 23, 2008
    #70
  11. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Yeah, John, you're probably right.

    Perhaps it's time for the killfile...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 23, 2008
    #71
  12. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote,on my timestamp of 23/10/2008 11:31 PM:


    Proof that it's not worth discussing.

    Of course. But is it worth calling it an issue?
    To me, it's not.
     
    Noons, Oct 25, 2008
    #72
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    So, the issue of whether or not it's an issue is more of an issue with you
    than the actual issue...?

    Hmmm...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 25, 2008
    #73
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote,on my timestamp of 26/10/2008 3:22 AM:
    Narh. Just not worth wasting my time on.
    Sorry.
     
    Noons, Oct 26, 2008
    #74
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.