8mm Forum


  
my profile | my password | search | faq | register | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» 8mm Forum   » 8mm Forum   » SOUND SPEED OR SILENT SPEED?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: SOUND SPEED OR SILENT SPEED?
David Pannell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1072
From: Horsham, West Sussex, UK
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted December 22, 2007 04:08 AM      Profile for David Pannell   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Right!

I'm about to show my ignorance here, so you can all have a jolly good laugh at my expense [Embarrassed]

Apart from home/family movies, where I know what speed they were shot at, what about commercial silent films where there is no indication which speed to project at [Confused]

I have several Blackhawk railroading and travel silent movies, amongst others, as well as Disney and MGM etc. cartoons.

The question is, were they printed from 16mm sound originals, and if so, was the speed altered from 24fps to 16/18fps?

The difficulty is that many of them don't look speeded up if run at 24fps, neither do they look slow motion if run at 16/18fps.

Is there a definite principle that ANY and ALL silent films should be run at silent speed, or are there any exceptions? If there are any exceptions, how can we tell [Confused]

--------------------
Dave.

Valves and celluloid - a great combination!
Early technology rules OK!

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted December 22, 2007 05:54 AM      Profile for Steve Klare   Email Steve Klare   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The IMDB can be useful here, if you are willing to put faith in the information there and the film is listed in the first place.

For example:

Great Train Robbery (1903)

Time 12 Minutes, Length 225M (on 35mm).

If you do the math this works out to a Super-8 equivalent of about 170 feet. We know that 12 Minutes at 24FPS is a little less than 250 feet, so this one you would best project at 18. (As a bonus, IMDB says 16FPS in the technical specs)

Second Example:

Double Whoopee (1929)

Time 20 Minutes, length 517M (on 35mm)

Here's a super 8 equivalent length of 390 Feet, 400 feet is exactly 20 minutes at 24 FPS.

I bet 24 is a pretty good standard for all of these later theatrical silents.

In early days they say that projectionists used to speed up and slow down the projection speed to go with the mood of the film (and move audiences out faster...), so I guess the earlier you go the more it becomes whatever you feel like.

Amateur originated film: 16 FPS is a pretty safe bet, so 18 works.

Of course if they somehow did manage to change the frame rate, all bets are off as far as the math above. Was this commonly done?

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

 |  IP: Logged

James N. Savage 3
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1375
From: Washington, DC
Registered: Jul 2003


 - posted December 22, 2007 02:16 PM      Profile for James N. Savage 3     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
David-

This is actually a very good question. I've often wondered if the silent digests of the 60's and 70's were actually running at 24 fps, even though they would most likely be projected at 18 fps. It would seem to be a difficult process for the film company to actually change the frame rate from 24 to 18 fps.

This would also explain why a 200 foot sound digest runs at 8 minutes, while the silent versions were usually listed at 11 minutes for the running time.

James.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted December 22, 2007 02:57 PM      Profile for Steve Klare   Email Steve Klare   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The only way I could imagine doing it pre-computer is skip every third frame in the 24 FPS original when preparing the 18 FPS negative, but I'm not sure how good it would look. this would get you to 16 FPS and 18 wouldn't be a big stretch. I seem to recall that 18 is stretched to 24 by double printing frames.

Today of course they could morph adjacent frames to get the ones at the exact 18 FPS times, but I doubt it's needed very often.

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Taffis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1592
From: United States
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted December 22, 2007 05:18 PM      Profile for Joe Taffis   Email Joe Taffis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I run my silents at 24fps; even if they may look just a tad too fast, they seem much more enjoyable [Smile]

--------------------
Joe Taffis

 |  IP: Logged

Hugh McCullough
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 156
From: Old Coulsdon. Surrey. UK
Registered: Oct 2006


 - posted December 22, 2007 06:14 PM      Profile for Hugh McCullough   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
To my knowledge, 24 fps was agreed, as the standard speed for 35mm, when sound on film was introduced.
Also it gave better sound reproduction than films shot, and projected, at the silent speed.

It is true that the speed of projection was altered on silent films to suite the action of the screen, but I imagine that this was only done on hand cranked machines.

Apparently, most projectionists cranked at about 24 fps for silent films so they could get home early.

35mm silent films were shot at 16 fps, if using a motorised camera, and all the old silent films that I have shown in the cinema had every second frame printed twice.

Your guess is as good as mine at the frame rate of hand turned cameras.

--------------------
EIKI Ex 6100 xenon machine.

 |  IP: Logged

Claus Harding
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006


 - posted December 22, 2007 06:32 PM      Profile for Claus Harding   Email Claus Harding   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Silents started at an 'agreed' speed of 16f.p.s. when shooting, but the cranking speed went up as we got into the 1920es.

For one thing, exhibitors, wanting to have more screenings, told projectionists (before the machines had motors) to overcrank reels, so the film would finish sooner. This became something directors and cameramen were aware of, so the scene frame rate started drifting up to the range of 18-22 f.p.s by the mid-20es.

So, 16, 18, and 24 are basically 'mile markers' on the road to accurate projection of silents.
The 'best' speed for a given feature is the one you select with a variable-speed projector, once you are familiar with the director's preferences (something to be judged by eye or by the recommendation from someone 'in the know' like a film historian.)

Best,
Claus.

--------------------
"Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)

 |  IP: Logged

David Pannell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1072
From: Horsham, West Sussex, UK
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted December 23, 2007 05:22 AM      Profile for David Pannell   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What seems to be coming out of the replies so far, is that it's a very subjective topic.

Perhaps we shouldn't be so concerned as to what is the "right" speed, but more as to what looks best to us as the viewer.

I just wondered if there was a definitive answer, but apparently it would seem not.

Any other thoughts?

--------------------
Dave.

Valves and celluloid - a great combination!
Early technology rules OK!

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central  
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2