film running times

[J.sharp]

Thank you Mark - this is incredibly helpful.

Best,

Jasper


--------- Original Message --------
From: KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
To: KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu <KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: film running times
Date: 18/01/07 09:12

> Jasper, Kodak has a handy tool for this:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/filmCalculator.htmlBut if you want to get
fetishistically precise like an archivist, it gets complicated fast. I
recalled a thread from the AMIA list. I'll paste it below.Markus[Date
Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re:
[AMIA-L] meters = minutes (continued)To: AMIA-L at LSV.UKY.EDUSubject: Re:
[AMIA-L] meters = minutes (continued)From: Martin Koerber
&lt;makoerber at WEB.DE&gt;Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:44:08 +0200In-reply-to:
&lt;20060816171458.81045.qmail at web32404.mail.mud.yahoo.com&gt;Message-id:
&lt;25F8A936-7F88-49FB-B34F-DCD8CCE589F6 at web.de&gt;References:
&lt;20060816171458.81045.qmail at web32404.mail.mud.yahoo.com&gt;Reply-to:
Association of Moving Image Archivists &lt;AMIA-L at LSV.UKY.EDU&gt;Dear Prof.
Hill, Jos?. Richard and all who are interested -meters is in my opinion the
best way to describe a film length, recording minutes is bogus because of
the various projection speeds that are possible, especially with silent
film, but also because of the 24/25 fps changes made (not only) between
presentations in "real" projection or television.Thus minutes tend to tell
you not the film length, but the lenght of a particular form of presentation
of the film you want to know more about.That is why film length is recorded
in meters (or feet, for that matter) in serious filmographies.My 0.877
calculation factor was simply taken from a piece of paper next to a
projector many many years ago. I have no source for this formula other than
telling you it was a piece of paper in the booth of the famous old "Arsenal"
cinema in Berlin, some of you may know this place, since moved to the new
Filmhaus at Potsdamer Platz. I  found the formula worked for my purposes,
and never questioned it. The Arsenal play a lot of silent films, with
variable speeds, and thus they needed something to figure this out.Richard
and Jos? have found out that it is not quite correct. In fact Richard
pointed out to me (off-list) that my formula is 0,3% off. Thus I apologize
(for 0,3%) for having suggested it and share hereunder Richards
calculations, which may show you how precise some people want to be - Thanx
Richard!Martin KoerberMartin:  regarding use of 0.877I've now found a small
discrepency between your 0.877 (for seconds), and my 52.48 (for minutes),
because 52.48/60 = 0.8747.The Kodak online tool uses something very close to
0.87485 (because 10000 meters of 35mm comes up as 6 hrs, 4 min, 31 sec --
which equals 364.52 minutes.  So we don't agree on the third digit.  I've
checked my calculations (based on 16 frames per meter; I hope that is
exact!) and the difference could simply be the factor used to convert meters
to feet:  3.28 or 3.280839895013123... or whatever.Meters * Feet_per_meter *
(16 frames/ft) / frames_per_second  = seconds Meters * Feet_per_meter * (16
frames/ft) / frames_per_second * (1 minute/60 sec)  = minutes3.2808 * 16 =
52.493, so that's accurate to 5 places, whereas I used 3.28*16 = 52.48 = 3
places accuracy, and slightly off in the 4th digit.But 52.493/60 = 0.87488 
so 0.877 just isn't right: it's off in the 3rd digit.I'm sorry to be so
pedantic, but I felt I had to look into the difference between what you used
for seconds and what I used for minutes.  My conclusion is that if you want
a 3-digit conversion factor, you should use 0.875, and NOT 0.877.  I know
this is a difference of about 0.3% and is irrelevant in all cases where the
practicalities are that people may only know the initial value (the meters)
to, say, 10% -- but nevertheless the correct factor is 0.87488 which round
to 0.875. By the way, 0.875 is of course exactly 7/8, for what that's worth
as a rule of thumb.Regards, Richard Am 16.08.2006 um 19:14 schrieb Jos?
Llufr?o:Dear Prof Steven, and all, There was no difference in projection
speed for theatrical use in Eastern Europe (so called "Socialist
Countries"). Looking up the historical use of foot, you find many
definitions, which have different equivalents to the meter. For example, in
pre-revolutionary France (up to 1800) the French "Pied du Roi" or "Pied de
Paris" was 32.48 centimeters (the standard English foot is 30.48
centimeters). In Spanish speaking countries there is also a Pie, which is of
different length in different countries. Lots of interesting data about
measuring units and systems in  http://www.sizes.com/units/index.htm For
practical purposes any figure that does not depart more than 1% from the
27.44 can be used. The head and tail leaders would amount to close to 1% of
the film length, and that would only mean one minute in a standard feature
film with an hour and a half screening time. Sometimes the projectionists,
during changeover (if running smaller reels with double projectors) skip
much more than that. Jose LlufrioTechnicolorNew YorkOn Jan 18, 2007, at
12:51 PM, J.sharp wrote:Sorry for all these questions, but I have another
more general quickie...Can anyone inform me of a reliable equation for
transferring film meters tominutes. I know how to do feet per minutes, but
again the jmdb list alltheir film lengths in meters, so if anyone has a
reliable formula it wouldbe much appreciated!Thanks,Jasper--Midnight Eye:
The Latest and Best in Japanese Cinemawww.midnighteye.com=Available now in
bookstores everywhere:The Midnight Eye Guide to New Japanese Film (Stone
Bridge Press)by Tom Mes and Jasper
Sharphttp://www.midnighteye.com/features/midnighteye_guide.shtml"Easily one
of the most important books on Japanese cinema ever released inEnglish."-
Newtype USA--------- Original Message --------From:
KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.eduTo: KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
&lt;KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu&gt;Subject: The Real Best of
2006Date: 18/01/07 06:39 Since people are posting their best/worth lists of
2006, I thought I'd add some more data to the mix. As Aaron always points
out, these lists aremostly interesting as representations of a given
publication's collectivetake on the state of Japanese cinema (or an
individual's, should you wadeinto the numbers). But a more crucial data set
comes out of the industry,and 2006 proved to be a significant
year?statistically speaking. In the Dec.28 Variety, Mark reported that the
market share for domestic films wasexpected to hit the 50% mark for the
first time since 1985, and productionmay have exceeded 400 titles for the
first time since 1973. He adds,Althoughno Japanese film has crossed the Y10
billion ($88.6 million) line this year,the number of titles grossing Y5
billion ($26 million) or more -- the localmeasure of a blockbuster -- has
hit six, an all-time high.As a result, totalB.O. for the year is expected to
surpass last year's $1.71 billion.To giveyou a sense for how significant
these numbers are in the global scheme ofthings, German B.O. for last year
was a bit over $706 milliion; that is fora year of double digit growth,
thanks to some domestic hits. By way ofcontrast, Japan doesn't look as
impressive next to South Korea. After adecade of growth, South Korea has
cracked the $1 billion mark in total B.O.,and domestic films pulled in 61%
of the grosses (in comparison to 34% forU.S. films). The numbers, at least,
bode well for the 2007 film
season.Markus________________________________________________Message sent
using Hunter Point Online WebMail

________________________________________________
Message sent using Hunter Point Online WebMail