Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » How did 24 frams a sec. come about???? (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: How did 24 frams a sec. come about????
Charlie Frisby
Film Handler

Posts: 58
From: Guymon, Ok USA, org. from DFW
Registered: Dec 2004


 - posted 01-03-2005 05:06 PM      Profile for Charlie Frisby   Email Charlie Frisby   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In that same respect what was the "Original" screen format that edison used with his 14 fps?

 |  IP: Logged

Tao Yue
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 209
From: Princeton, NJ
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 01-03-2005 07:00 PM      Profile for Tao Yue   Author's Homepage   Email Tao Yue   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure what you mean by "screen format," but if you're talking about aspect ratio, then there's a story about how Edison arbitrarily decided on the 1.33 silent aspect ratio.

From: http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf

quote:

As the story goes, Dickson was working with a new 70MM celluloid-based film stock supplied by photographic entrepreneur George Eastman. Because the 70MM format was considered unnecessarily wasteful by Edison, he asked Dickson to cut it down into smaller strips. When Dickson asked Edison what shape he wanted imaged on these strips, Edison replied, "about like this" and held his fingers apart in the shape of a rectangle with approximately a 4:3 aspect ratio. Over the years there has been quite a bit of conjecture about what Edison had in mind when he dictated this shape ... Whatever the true story may be, Edison's 4:3 aspect ratio was officially adopted in 1917 by the Society Of Motion Picture Engineers as their first engineering standard, and the film industry used it almost exclusively for the next 35 years.

The 70mm film mentioned is probably more accurately referred to as 2 3/4 inch film.

 |  IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 01-03-2005 07:12 PM      Profile for Dominic Case   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Stephen Furley
It's amasing how many of these disks have managed to survive.
They were manufactured in massive quantities, because the disks were very soft, and tended to wear out after a few plays. According to Scott Eyman (The Speed of Sound - referenced repeatedly in this thread, and it's a great book), the disks came with a label that had to be ticked each time they were played. After 24 plays they were to be discarded.

So far as the "standard" speed is concerned, most cameras were operated normally at 16fps, because camera operators had learnt to pace their cranking at 2 turns per second (8 frames per turn). At other speeds they were less consistent. However, films were projected increasingly quickly through the '10s and '20s up to the coming of sound. Filmmakers were reluctant to run the cameras faster as it would use more stock (and require more light): theatres were reluctant to play any slower as it reduced the number of houses per night that could be fitted in. I also guess that audiences were becoming film-literate faster than the filmmakers realised, and were quite happy to get the story told a little faster.

 |  IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001


 - posted 01-03-2005 08:27 PM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
Years ago in one of my Photo Science classes at RIT in Rochester, the subject of 24 FPS motion picture speed came up. If I can remember correctly, a study was done with 50 or so viewers. This group was shown various subjects projected from 18 fps on up to about 30 fps.

The study group without knowing the film speed marked down on a sheet of paper their subjective impressions of each presentation.

By analyzing the data, the 24 second speed was selected. Findings were most viewers could not tell much difference between speeds between 22 to 30 seconds but could tell a big difference between speeds of 21 fps and slower. The 24 fps was selected as a safe point that most of the 50 viewers could not tell the difference in image quality and flicker.

Larry

 |  IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 01-04-2005 05:24 PM      Profile for Dominic Case   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Larry Myers says:
quote: Larry Myers
The 24 fps was selected as a safe point that most of the 50 viewers could not tell the difference in image quality and flicker.
Interesting: but this result would depend a lot on the screen brightness.

I suspect that flicker was one of the factors that pushed projectionists faster in the early silent days (apart from a hurry to get home [Smile] ), but I haven't ever seen any discussion of screen brightness in the context of screening speeds in those days.

Randy Starkey says:
quote: Randy Stankey
As with many things, people just make it up as they go.

(I meant to add this before):
As you so clearly have done in your own post, Randy [Wink]

 |  IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001


 - posted 01-05-2005 10:57 AM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
In otherwords the 24 fps was selected as a curve of best fit. You still have some flicker, just that most people (typical viewers not in the industry) really don't see it or know the difference to see it.

Larry

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 01-05-2005 05:59 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dominic and Monte have got it, IMHO. The flicker/luminance trade off was the key issue, and the driving force behind it was a change in cinema exhibition patterns. Before WWI films were shown in multipurpose venues, they were relatively short and they were projected using portable projectors and limelight. The emergence of a Hollywood-led global film industry from the late teens onwards promoted a trend towards larger, purpose-built auditoria. The screens became bigger, as did the throw from projector to screen. Despite the introduction of carbon arcs, light output became a valuable commodity - hence the move from three to two-blade shutters and the consequent increase in projection speeds to get rid of the flicker.

At this point it wasn't 100% necessary to standardise shooting and projection speeds, as a margin of error exists within which most viewers won't notice that what they are seeing was shot a little faster or slower than the speed at which it's being projected. But the arrival of sound forced the issue, because the human ear is far more sensitive with audio.

The links to the SMPTE Journal reprints on David Pierce's website posted by Jeffrey tell the whole story. In addition (and as well as Eyman) the following are well worth a look, IMHO:

Kevin Brownlow, 'Silent films - What was the right speed?', Sight and Sound, 49/3 (Summer 1980), pp. 164-167.

Charlotte Herzog, 'The Motion Picture Theater and Film Exhibition, 1896-1932', PhD Thesis, Northwestern University (also 1980), UMI no. 8026823.

...plus also the numerous technical manuals written by a James Cameron (no relation of the director, AFAIK!) in the late '20s to early '30s for projectionists dealing with the rollout of synch sound, for a contemporary view of the standardisation process.

 |  IP: Logged

Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000


 - posted 01-06-2005 08:09 PM      Profile for Jeffry L. Johnson   Author's Homepage   Email Jeffry L. Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Edison Motion Pictures, 1890-1900 : an annotated filmography". Charles
Musser. ©1997. ISBN 1-56098-567-4.
quote:

Page 69:
1888-1890
Initial Formulations
Edison wrote a second and third caveat in March and August 1889; the
ideas articulated in these documents tried to solve some of the problems
inherent in his initial formulation. The inventor's fourth and last
motion picture caveat, of November 1889, was heavily indebted to the
serial photographic work of Étienne-Jules Marey, whom Edison met in
Paris while attending the 1889 Paris Exposition. This document outlined
a contrivance that passed a tape-like band of film past a camera lens,
halting and then exposing a single frame of film for a brief fraction of
a second, after which the strip was again moved forward, until the next
frame of film was halted in front of the lens and likewise exposed.
Despite the promising direction of this last formulation, Edison pursued
his cylinder experiments, from the time he opened a kinetoscope account
in February 1889 until sometime in late 1890.

Page 73:
1891
First Films
After the cylinder experiments Dickson and Heise began to explore the
possibilities inherent in the fourth, Marey-inspired caveat, in which a
narrow band of photographic film was passed through the camera. Heise
had been brought onto the project, in part, because he was expert in
devising ways to move tape-like strips of paper (or other materials)
through a machine. The Edison-Dickson-Heise experimental
horizontal-feed kinetograph camera and kinetoscope viewer, which used
3/4 [inch] wide film, were completed in the spring of 1891.

Page 79:
1892
Perfecting the Technology
Although the 3/4 [inch] horizontal feed camera worked in principle,
significant improvements in overall design were necessary before the
invention would be ready for commercial use. Following the successful
presentation of the horizontal-feed system to the press, Edison, Dickson
and Heise constructed a strudier, vertical-feed camera that utilized a 1
and 1/2 [inch] strip of celluloid film. Although the results were
similar to the system that Edison would subsequently commercialize, the
format and camera design had not yet achieved their final form.
According to notes in Edison's legal files, at least one film reflected
this intermediate phase.

Page 80:
During 1892, Dickson and Heise refined the design of their motion
picture camera. They took a number of films with this improved camera
in the late summer and early fall of 1892. Among other things, film
width was adjusted at about this time to 1 and 9/16ths of an inch
(approximately 35mm). If format is considered, these films can be
called the first modern motion pictures--though they were not shot with
commercial use in mind. Selected frames from several of these subjects
were subsequently published in "The Phonogram".

Page 83:
1893
The Laboratory Refigured
In December 1892, with the camera technology in place, the kinetograph
team commenced construction of the world's first specially-designed
motion picture studio, located on the grounds of the Edison Laboratory.
The Dickson-designed studio, completed in early 1893, was affectionately
known as the "Black Maria" after the police paddy wagons it was said to
resemble. Over the course of 1893, Dickson and Heise made at least
three films that were subsequently presented in the kinetoscope. These
were shot on film purchased from the Blair Camera Company, initially at
the cost of $2.20 per roll, 505 [inches] x 1 9/16 [inches]. (Blair
Camera Company to Thomas A. Edison, 29 April 1893, NjWOE.) The subjects
were also the first instances of commercial modern motion picture
production in the world.

Page 84:
On 9 May 1893, the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, gave the
first public exhibition of Edison's 1 and 9/16 [inches], vertical-feed,
peep-hole kinetoscope, showing both _Blacksmithing Scene_ and _Horse
Shoeing_.


 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 01-07-2005 01:23 AM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
1 and 9/16ths of an inch (approximately 35mm).
It's nowhere near 35mm, It's almost 39.7mm. The 1 and 9/16ths of an inch is quoted more than once, so it's unlikely to be a typng error; I've not seen this gauge mentioned elsewhere, is it an error, or did Edison make yet another change before arriving at his final format?

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 01-07-2005 02:52 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Leo Enticknap
...plus also the numerous technical manuals written by a James Cameron (no relation of the director, AFAIK!) in the late '20s to early '30s for projectionists dealing with the rollout of synch sound, for a contemporary view of the standardisation process.

Here is a pict of "The Motion Picture Projector" that James R. Cameron wrote. The blue one was printed in 1943, and the black one was printed in 1922:

 -

Here are some picts within the 1922 edition.

This one is of the Simplex:

 -

This is of a "platter" design for the sake of no-rewinding. A device that replaced the upper magazine with a center feed reel:

 -

..and the booth of the Capitol Theatre in NYC .. the 'battery' of Simplexes with low-intensity arc lamphouses:

 -

Interesting reading material contained within these two books of the art of being a projectionist and what curtails in this trade and skill.

thx-Monte

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 01-07-2005 05:06 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks Monte. I've got a 1927 edition of Motion Picture Projection plus Motion Pictures With Sound from 1932. The latter described pretty much every disc and optical reproducer system then on the market and must be invaluable for anyone wanting to restore some of this kit, I'd have thought.

It would be great if someone could edit a selection of chapters from the umpteen editions and republish it, complete with a contextualising introduction to each section. A more specialist publisher such as Focal Press might just bite at the idea, though to cover the whole range of technical issues Cameron deals with would mean winding up with a pretty thick book (250k words at least, I'd have thought) which would push production costs up. You'd have to find a way of pitching it at film historians more generally as well as technology buffs, or else I'd guess that the potential market would be too small.

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 01-08-2005 03:55 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
...for all those are curious about the "standards" set by the SMPE of 1922:

 -

 -

...which shows the basis of the start of this topic as for the history of the film speed.

AND.....even though I erred in my earlier statement about the shutter speed for silent,16fps film speed, I wish to correct myself: I neglected to notice that the early machines of Simplex and the Powers had three blade shutters, in which the light pulse rate, with film speed at 16fps, would be 48 interruptions of light.

So, in a logical sense, with taking out a shutter blade to make the standard two blade shutter, the film speed was sped up to the now standard of 24fps to keep the same 48 interruptions of light.

Have to learn to "do the math."

thx-Monte

thx-Monte

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002


 - posted 01-08-2005 04:34 AM      Profile for Michael Schaffer   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Schaffer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Why is there such a big gap between the lamphouse and the head? Is that a prefocusing lens such as can still be found in the Meopta MEO5XB projector? Or did somebody install the head the wrong way around?

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 01-08-2005 05:16 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here's a little diagram of the low-intensity lamphouse that were used in this era:

The arc rods were one size different - like 10mm positive and 8mm negative - both black, and positioned in the lamphouse at the 11 and 5 o'clock position. Low Intensity arcs were the voltage was higher than the amperage and the negative was forward a bit from the positive so the positive would burn the "bowl" needed for light emission to the condenser lenses in front of the lamphouse in that "snood" The arc burning emitted a high angle of light where the corners of the light was the same as the corners of the condenser lenses in the "snood". The condenser lenses had a long focus length where the light was concentrated to meet the aperture opening, thus why the long distance between the "snood" and the rear of the machine. These low-intensity arcs light output was so low is for the reason of such a long light angle-to try to get as much effective light to the machine as possible.

The Hi Intensity arc, both refractor (which also used the condenser lenses, like the lamphouses that Radio City Music Hall used behind those Simplex XL heads)which use a much larger condenser lens, and the reflector, which contained this angle within, thus the distance was taken up with the longer built lamphouse.

Here is a pict, with added drawings of how the Low Intensity operated behind these silent-era machines:

 -

Hope this answers your question on this area.

thx-Monte

 |  IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 01-08-2005 05:43 AM      Profile for Carl Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Carl Martin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
aha! time to reopen the "douser" vs. "dowser" debate! will someone post a usage of "douser" from before 1922?

carl

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
   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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.