This is topic Silent 35mm format in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=008069

---

Posted by Giorgio Volpi (Member # 1182) on 06-10-2006, 11:28 AM:
 
Hi,

I have to cut an aperture plate for silent 35 mm film (1:33).

Who know what are correct dimensions?

Thanks in advance.

Giorgio.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-10-2006, 11:39 AM:
 
Silent films had a multitude of apertures though they started to standardize around 1913 or so. By then, the aperture was about .680" x .910" I have measured several machines of the era of different manufacturers and they all came to these dimensions within a few 1000th of an inch. Going too much beyond .910" may lead to showing clear parts of the film or other stray artifacts.

However, going above .680 rarely, if ever, has ill results.
I would not be afraid to show up to .700" in height on any of the films I've seen.

I have a couple of customers that have insisted on what I call "Super-Silent" to which I cut .725" x .945" apertures...as they say...seeing a bit of the perfs or a frame line only adds to the experience. I don't agree but they are the customer. I think they have a facination with what is going on just outside of the intended aperture...kinda like seeing the boom mic in today's films. Even those with Super-Silent also have the regular silent plates. I hope with the public they are only using the standard silent plates unless they know that it is an early silent film that uses the additional frame.
 

---

Posted by Phillip Grace (Member # 2262) on 06-10-2006, 10:38 PM:
 
Our full-aperture silent plates were cut to .680 height, but experience shows .690 is more useful, and if doing it again I would go higher, to .700 inch. Above this height there is the possibilty of not being able to mask displaced framelines from the preservation process.
There is quite a lot of pre-standard silent film in circulation.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-11-2006, 01:50 AM:
 
you might be tempted also to have, uh, "sub-silent" plates for material that's been duped off of shrunken elements. often though, it varies so much from shot to shot you probably just have to live with seeing printed in perfs from time to time.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-11-2006, 04:34 AM:
 
Agreed totally - the frame lines, especially from early step printers, were so hit-and-miss that you need to undercut a long way to avoid showing some frame line.

One way to make a reasonably accurate cut on the non-soundtrack edge is to cut three sides using an RP-40 and then relace the test film the other way round, so that you've got a guide for the right-hand edge.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-11-2006, 04:41 AM:
 
Or just do what I saw one British cinema do once, and run it with 1.85 plates.

The cinema had the correct plates and lenses for their machines; the excuse I was given when I complained was that the chief wasn't in that day, and the projectionist on duty didn't what to risk upsetting the setup for the 1.85 film running later in the day by changing them for the silent film!
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 06-11-2006, 10:47 AM:
 

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

One way to make a reasonably accurate cut on the non-soundtrack edge is to cut three sides using an RP-40 and then relace the test film the other way round, so that you've got a guide for the right-hand edge.

---