Thanks. Gives me a fair idea of how much I've got.
Chuck Norcutt
Walt Wayman wrote:
> Idle curiosity drove me to dig out some 8mm film and do some figuring: 24
> frames = 4 inches, so 100 feet would run about 5 minutes at 24 fps. On the
> other hand, 7 inches of 16mm = 24 frames. That will maybe give you an idea
> of running time based on reel size. AFAIK, the thickness of the films should
> be about the same.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>Walt Wayman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chuck,
>>>
>>>Not sure enough about the 8mm to give an answer, but a roll of 16mm
>>>film of that size is 100 feet in length. At 24 fps, 100 ft. runs
>>>2.75 minutes (166.5 seconds, to be precise). If you know the length,
>>>it's easy to figure the time, because at 24 fps, three feet runs five
>>>seconds. I've got boxes of the stuff somewhere "down there."
>>>
>>>Walt
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|