I just woke up from a nap, so maybe my brain isn't working correctly, but 
shouldn't we be talking about AREA rather than length?  That is, a 35mm frame 
is roughly 4x the area of a 16mm frame, so it requires 4x as much chemistry, 
not the roughly 2x suggested by the math below.  So if 5 feet of 35mm equals 
about 20 feet of 16mm, then 100 ft.=5 rolls of 36-exposure 35mm film.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, but that's how I've always done the 

On Apr 28, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Ed Inman wrote:

A 36-exposure roll of 35mm still film is about 5 feet long. If you equate that 
roughly as equal to 11 feet of 16mm film, a 100-foot roll of 16mm is similar in 
overall size to 9 rolls of 36-exposure 35mm.
-----Original Message-----
From: J Vent
Sent: Apr 28, 2013 1:19 PM
To: Frameworks
Subject: [Frameworks] Footage equivalency

Good morning - I have a Morse, well a Fairchild crank tank processor and a
Lomo processor tank, I'm going to be processing with Arista E-6 in it, the
chem usage/re-useage specs are for 36 exp 35mm film. Anyone have a clue
about how many feet are in a 36 exp roll of 35 mm film?

Directions say I can run 4 rolls in a pint of juice (x3 parts), 8 rolls in
a quart.
I'm trying to sort out how many feet of 7285 I can run in a given amount of

I guess I could run several 1 foot pieces in a scaled down amount of E-6
sauce until it breaks down but thought some one out there might have the
answer and spare me that step.

FrameWorks mailing list

FrameWorks mailing list

Reply via email to