8mm Forum: SOUND SPEED OR SILENT SPEED?

This is topic SOUND SPEED OR SILENT SPEED? in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003323

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on December 22, 2007, 04:08 AM:

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]

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on December 22, 2007, 05:54 AM:

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?

Posted by James N. Savage 3 (Member # 83) on December 22, 2007, 02:16 PM:

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.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on December 22, 2007, 02:57 PM:

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.

Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on December 22, 2007, 05:18 PM:

I run my silents at 24fps; even if they may look just a tad too fast, they seem much more enjoyable [Smile]

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 696) on December 22, 2007, 06:14 PM:

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.

Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on December 22, 2007, 06:32 PM:

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.

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on December 23, 2007, 05:22 AM:

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?

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2