Film-Tech Cinema Systems


Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 24" reel holds how many ft. of film? (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: 24" reel holds how many ft. of film?
Don E. Nelson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 138
From: Brentwood, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2001


 - posted 07-18-2003 10:30 AM      Profile for Don E. Nelson   Email Don E. Nelson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
How many feet of 35mm film fit on a 24" reel? And what is the largest reel made for a vertically mounted pedestall projector?

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9144
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-18-2003 11:36 AM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
4000' feet of acetate on a 5" core and about 5800 feet of estar
The largest on board reel was the cinemecanica with 36" reels on vic8's

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 2885
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 07-18-2003 11:37 AM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It depends on the size if the core, the thickness of the stock and, rarely now, whether the print is mag striped.

For triacetate stock, without stripe, on a five inch or thereabouts core, you should get about 5000 feet. Somewhat more with polyester, and somewhat less on a spool with the larger size core.

It also depends on how far you are prepared to fill it, I've seen film wound about four inches beyond the flanges. [Eek!]

The largest spools I've used, on towers, are about 37 inches, with a core about ten inches, and hold about 1200 feet of triacetate, or closer to 1500 feet of polyester.

There is a Fedi projector at Bletchley Park Museum which takes large spools on the base of the machine itself. I think they are somewhat larger, maybe 40 inch or so.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 07-18-2003 11:59 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The roll diameter can be calculated from the following equation:

D = Squareroot [ ( (48 x L x t) / Pi) + (C x C) ]

Where:
D is roll diameter in inches
L is length of film roll in feet
t is film thickness in inches (about 0.0053 for Kodak VISION Color Print film)
C is core/hub diameter in inches

For example, for a shipping reel with a 4-inch core, and a film thickness of 0.0053 inches, 2000 feet of film will have the following diameter:

D = Squareroot [ ( (48 x 2000 x 0.0053) / Pi) + (4 x 4) ]

= 13.3 inches

 |  IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1742
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001


 - posted 07-18-2003 12:56 PM      Profile for Ken Lackner   Email Ken Lackner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If something seemingly insignificant as film thinckness makes a difference when calculating the diameter, then wouldn't the diameter also depend on how loosly or tightly the film is wound?

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3851
From: Technicolor NYC, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 07-18-2003 01:15 PM      Profile for Bill Gabel   Email Bill Gabel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Our two Cinemecanica Vic 8's in the GCC AVCO Theatre main house (Westwood, Ca.) could handle 12,000 reels and were auto change-over.

They cut the house into two a few years ago. [thumbsdown]

 |  IP: Logged

Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1572
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 07-18-2003 01:18 PM      Profile for Evans A Criswell   Author's Homepage   Email Evans A Criswell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
How tight the film is wound could be modeled in the formula by slightly changing the value for film thickness. You have to remember that the formula gives you a value, but the real life value could be slightly different.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 07-18-2003 01:19 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If something seemingly insignificant as film thinckness makes a difference when calculating the diameter, then wouldn't the diameter also depend on how loosly or tightly the film is wound?

Yes, a very loosely wound roll will be larger, but you should not wind it too loose anyway. SMPTE Recommended Practice RP106 specifies a tension of 6 to 16 ounces (1.7 to 4.4 Newtons) for 35mm films.

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 2885
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 07-18-2003 01:37 PM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Gordon wrote:

quote:

4000' feet of acetate on a 5" core and about 5800 feet of estar
The largest on board reel was the cinemecanica with 36" reels on vic8's

Gordon, spools of the same nominal size or capacity can vary considerably, nominally 24 inch ones were often listed as being nominally 6000 feet, in the days when triacetate prints were the norm. In my experience this is over optimistic, but your figure of 4000 feet seems rather conservative. Running two 2000 foot rolls on a 24 inch spool was quite common at one time, partly because the spools would have been over full if a third part was added, and partly because many lamps would not burn for long enough on a single trim of carbons. Such a spool would be far from full, though if a third part would not fit, then 4000 feet was the practical limit, unless you added a few adverts or trailers on the beginning if the first spool, or had a short part somewhere in the print.

Or is print stock over there somewhat thicher than it is here?

Ken wrote:

quote:

If something seemingly insignificant as film thinckness makes a difference when calculating the diameter, then wouldn't the diameter also depend on how loosly or tightly the film is wound?

Film may be only a few thou thick, with dhe difference between triacetate being only a fraction of that, but there are many thousands of layers of film on a full spool, and it all adds up. The difference in thickness, as a percentage, is significant.

A slack wind would increase the size of the roll, but incorrect tension, either too high or too low, is likely to cause damage to the film, and within the small range of tension which might be considered 'correct' the difference in the size of the roll would also be small.

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9144
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-18-2003 01:41 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The nominal norm was 2 full reels almost filled on 24" reel with a 5" core
The 25" reel was the standard 5000' 3d reel
26" was the norm for 6000'

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 16966
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 07-18-2003 04:11 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Am I going to have to take a frame counter to this??? A 24 inch reel will hold a LOT more film than 4000 feet, even of acetate.

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9144
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-18-2003 04:27 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You may be right since off the top of my head I was thinking of mag fullcoat and a 24" reel full to the edge here is 52min of estar mag stock
But I would have assumed that mag estar stock would be about the same thickness as acetate print stock

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 7333
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-18-2003 08:45 PM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My favorite configuration is 26" reels with 7" floating hubs. These will each hold the equivalent of four not-quite-full shipping reels' worth of ESTAR-base film. Most features will fit onto two 26" reels, while many would require three of the 24" reels (example: "LA Confidential" is eight reels long, but fits on two 26" reels with room to spare). The 26" reels also fit nicely onto standard Kelmar reel arms (the only enclosed reel magazines that I've dealt with only have 2000' capacity).

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 3792
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000


 - posted 07-19-2003 11:00 AM      Profile for Steve Kraus         Edit/Delete Post 
Ken asked:
If something seemingly insignificant as film thinckness makes a difference when calculating the diameter, then wouldn't the diameter also depend on how loosly or tightly the film is wound?

Seemingly insigificant? Perhaps you want to rethink that as I do believe I can fit more turns of hair-thin audio tape onto a reel than inch thick garden hose!

But the second part of your comment is correct, the wind tension will matter although how much I'm not sure. But I would suggest that the thickness be derived empirically (that means from real world experimentation) than from some official figure. Like take a reel wound at whatever tension you have in mind, mark two points on the edge of the pack a certain distance apart, and then unwind counting how many turns of film were in that distance. Divide and there is your real world thickness value.

Back when I was in college I spent some time pondering the question of reel diameters and footage and came up with some formula based on an average turn or some such while my roommate the Nuke E. did something with limits and the end result was the same. Much later I realized that the whole thing could be considered as a measure of areas. Areas as viewed from the side of the reel. The area of a circle is pi * radius squared so the area of the film pack would be the area of the outer radius minus the area of the inner radius. The film itself can be viewed as a rectangle whose area is length times width, width being the thickness since we're talking about film viewed on edge. So divide the area of the film pack by the tiny edge thickness of the film and you get the length. I believe crunching these formulae will result in the same as John's.

 |  IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1742
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001


 - posted 07-19-2003 01:19 PM      Profile for Ken Lackner   Email Ken Lackner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, people. I know that the thickness isn't insignificant. Poor choice of words. I just meant that if you hold a piece of accetate next to a piece of polyester, you can't tell the difference because it's so small. The difference becomes apparent when you wind them on to spools, however. That's why I said "seemingly insignificant." The difference may seem insignificant at first, but it adds up.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2014 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.