quote:

---

The speed of the film bearing the sound track had been standardized at 90 feet a minute, 24 frames a second. Although tradition has had it that 90 feet a minute was the optimum speed for the quality of sound reproduction, the fact of the matter was that, originally, Earl Sponable and Theodore Case had been experimenting with a speed of 85 feet a minute, which appears
to have worked satisfactorily. As Sponable said, "After our affiliation with the [Fox company] this was changed to ninety feet a minute in order to use the controlled motors already worked out and used in the Vitaphone system."* The standardization, then, was not made for purposes of sound quality, but for maximum profits for Western Electric.

* Western Electric engineer Stanley Watkins averred that 24 frames per second for Vitaphone was not part of a capitalist plot, but a purely arbitrary decision. "According to strict laboratory procedures, we should have made exhaustive tests and calculations and six months later come up with the correct answer," he related in 1961. "What happened was that we got together with Warners' chief projectionist and asked him how fast they ran the [silent] film in theaters. He told us it went at eighty to ninety feet per minute in the best first-run houses and in the small ones anything from one hundred feet up, according to how many shows they wanted to get in during the day. After a little thought, we settled on ninety feet a minute as a reasonable compromise."

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

12 frames per foot

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

I'm not sure when 2000 foot double reels were introduced for projection

---

quote:

---

One 35mm foot of film contains 16 different images or frames. Although projection speed varied, one foot of film equaled approximately half a second of running time in 1894-1896 (when Edison films were taken and shown roughly between 30 and 36 frames per second) and closer to one second in 1898-1900 (when Edison films were taken and shown at roughly between 18 and 20 frames per second.)

---

quote:

---

Likewise the decision about the size and speed of the sound discs revolved around manufacturing expedience. "We had our discs processed by the commercial record companies," said Watkins, "and the largest diameter they could handle was about seventeen inches. With a record of that size, the optimum speed to get the ten minutes of recording time we needed was somewhere around 35 revolutions a minute. We standardized at 33 1/3 because that happened to fit best with the gearing arrangements our engineers were working out for coupling the turntable to the picture machine."

---

quote: Matthew Jaro

---

The three blade shutters (72 interruptions per second) totally eliminate flicker and improve motion.

---

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.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

It's amasing how many of these disks have managed to survive.

---

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 ), 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
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-05-2005, 10:57 AM:
 
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
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-05-2005, 05:59 PM:
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 01-06-2005, 08:09 PM:
 
"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_.

---

quote:

---

1 and 9/16ths of an inch (approximately 35mm).

---

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
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-07-2005, 05:06 AM:
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-08-2005, 03:55 AM:
 
...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
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-08-2005, 04:34 AM:
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-08-2005, 05:16 AM:
 
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
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 01-08-2005, 05:43 AM:
 
aha! time to reopen the "douser" vs. "dowser" debate! will someone post a usage of "douser" from before 1922?

carl
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-08-2005, 05:51 AM:
 
Not to mention flange 'wabble'. Was James R. Cameron really Elmer Fudd in disguise?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-08-2005, 04:11 PM:
 
..funny, I've always seen the word "dowser" used for either the hand dowser (which I've always called "damper") on the lamphouse, or the selenoid driven dowser for the machine. Never knew of the alternative spelling, unless this is the British spelling for the word.

thx-Monte
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-08-2005, 08:04 PM:
 
I usually see it spelt 'douser', I don't know if it's different in other countries. I do occasionally see it spelt 'dowser', but that's normally somebody who goes looking for water with a couple of sticks.

I've never heard 'damper' used in that context, but it has got at least two other uses, both of which might be found on a film projector; a device which damps an oscillation, like the shock absorbers on a car, I think the Zeiss Favorit 16B 16mm projector had one somewhere in its film path, but I haven't seen one for years.

A device for restricting the airflow in a flue or chimney. Most carbon arc lamphouses were fitted with these, and they had to be adjusted when the lamp was connected directly to a chimney out through the projecton room roof, rather than to an extraction system with a constant airflow, depending on the state of the wind.
 

---