Does anyone know the frame rate of the 1920's silent movies?
Silent Movie
Back to post
Comments
fwtep
wrote on 10/19/2005, 9:53 AM
Serena, projectionists didn't overcrank to extreme; I didn't mean to imply something like a 12fps shooting rate (common with Griffith) and a 24fps projecting rate. I mean that if a film was supposed to be projected at 20fps they might go as high as 24fps. That's faster but not to the point of looking silly.
As I said, there is no evidence that ANY silent film, other than perhaps the experimental period up to 1910, was intended to be shown at the frame rate it was shot at. A slightly speeded up (by 3-6fps) projecting rate was the norm (with comedy sometimes faster). This rate feels much better than the real frame rate and lets the films flow better.
Showing The General at 18fps is an awful idea. According to the available info it was intended to be shown at approximately 24fps, and possibly as high as 27fps. Slowing down Keaton to "normal" speed kills the pacing that he worked so hard for. I'm sure you still get laughs, but that's to Buster's credit, not yours in slowing the film down to a crawl. The Killiam print you're using is best projected at sound speed, the way Buster and Clyde Bruckman intended.
As for your question about what speed I'd project a silent film, I'd try to find out what speed it was supposed to be shown at. If that wasn't possible, I'd show it faster than normal motion. Again, look at the silent films that Chaplin released during the sound period; he CLEARLY intended them to be faster than normal because that's the way he released them. And each of the silent stars who re-released their films in the sound era did so at a faster-than-normal speed.
The speeded-up silent film stereotype is actually a reality, though certainly early cheap video releases exaggerated it because they just projected at 24fps with no thought to whether that was right (it turns out to be perfect for Keaton though). The current crop, from the likes of Kino, Warners, Milestone, Laughsmith, etc. are carefully researched to be as accurate as possible. The upcoming Harold Lloyd box set (with 27 shorts and features!) will all, as you'll notice, be faster than their shooting speed, and this is an official release that was well researched (spearheded by Lloyd's granddaughter).
Fred
As I said, there is no evidence that ANY silent film, other than perhaps the experimental period up to 1910, was intended to be shown at the frame rate it was shot at. A slightly speeded up (by 3-6fps) projecting rate was the norm (with comedy sometimes faster). This rate feels much better than the real frame rate and lets the films flow better.
Showing The General at 18fps is an awful idea. According to the available info it was intended to be shown at approximately 24fps, and possibly as high as 27fps. Slowing down Keaton to "normal" speed kills the pacing that he worked so hard for. I'm sure you still get laughs, but that's to Buster's credit, not yours in slowing the film down to a crawl. The Killiam print you're using is best projected at sound speed, the way Buster and Clyde Bruckman intended.
As for your question about what speed I'd project a silent film, I'd try to find out what speed it was supposed to be shown at. If that wasn't possible, I'd show it faster than normal motion. Again, look at the silent films that Chaplin released during the sound period; he CLEARLY intended them to be faster than normal because that's the way he released them. And each of the silent stars who re-released their films in the sound era did so at a faster-than-normal speed.
The speeded-up silent film stereotype is actually a reality, though certainly early cheap video releases exaggerated it because they just projected at 24fps with no thought to whether that was right (it turns out to be perfect for Keaton though). The current crop, from the likes of Kino, Warners, Milestone, Laughsmith, etc. are carefully researched to be as accurate as possible. The upcoming Harold Lloyd box set (with 27 shorts and features!) will all, as you'll notice, be faster than their shooting speed, and this is an official release that was well researched (spearheded by Lloyd's granddaughter).
Fred
johnmeyer
wrote on 10/19/2005, 10:50 AM
Cleaning up and restoring old film negs or prints prior to striking new prints is a valuable activity.
I wasn't necessarily trying to advocate any particular approach, but was instead just pointing out that there are quite a few different ways to think about restoration, with no single "right" answer. To take an extreme example, some people love colorized movies, and others take great offense. More to the point of your comment that I quoted above, there are people who believe that any modification, including removing dust and cleaning up film negs or prints, should not be done because it unavoidably alters some of the content and therefore is not "true" to the original. I ran into this just two weeks ago when cleaning up a photo from a farm, taken around 1890. It was in absolutely terrible shape. As I removed several blobs of mold, I became aware that some of these blobs might actually be farm animals. Should I remove them? Could I really tell whether they were cows, and if not, should I leave them in?
My final decision was that if I couldn't tell what the heck they were, even under extreme magnification, then neither could anyone looking at the print, and the whole thing looked a lot better with all the "blotches" gone. Of course I probably did "violence" to the information on the original photo, but it was certainly more "comfortable" to look at and, for most people, more enjoyable.
I wasn't necessarily trying to advocate any particular approach, but was instead just pointing out that there are quite a few different ways to think about restoration, with no single "right" answer. To take an extreme example, some people love colorized movies, and others take great offense. More to the point of your comment that I quoted above, there are people who believe that any modification, including removing dust and cleaning up film negs or prints, should not be done because it unavoidably alters some of the content and therefore is not "true" to the original. I ran into this just two weeks ago when cleaning up a photo from a farm, taken around 1890. It was in absolutely terrible shape. As I removed several blobs of mold, I became aware that some of these blobs might actually be farm animals. Should I remove them? Could I really tell whether they were cows, and if not, should I leave them in?
My final decision was that if I couldn't tell what the heck they were, even under extreme magnification, then neither could anyone looking at the print, and the whole thing looked a lot better with all the "blotches" gone. Of course I probably did "violence" to the information on the original photo, but it was certainly more "comfortable" to look at and, for most people, more enjoyable.
Serena
wrote on 10/19/2005, 4:57 PM
OK Fred & John ---I surrender to better knowledge! Fred, the information you have about intended projection speeds for particular films would be useful; guess I can get that from our film achives. I have to admit that all my recent showings of The General have been from DVD which looks to me that it runs at the appropriate speed, but my projection of the print was some years ago (so I chose unwisely my example and memory has lead me into a losing position in this debate!). The usual assumption that people make about silent film (documentaries) is that motion was jerky and speeded up with poor quality images (because that's what they see on TV) and this was really the old issue that set me off. In getting into comedies etc I could see the quicksand but unwisely kept going anyway!
John, I'd remove the blotches, too.
Serena
John, I'd remove the blotches, too.
Serena
fwtep
wrote on 10/19/2005, 11:05 PM
Serena, there are various places to get film speed info. For Keaton there are mentions in some of the books about him. Here's an article I just found that was interesting:
http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm
There's even a chart with the shooting and projection speeds of several films. The article was written by Kevin Brownlow, who is pretty much the acknowledged leading authority on silent film for the past 40 years or so.
A great place to get info about silents is the newsgroup alt.movies.silent. There are some extremely knowledgable folks there, many who have written books, done restorations, composed scores, and many from the various distributors (Milestone, Keystone, Image, etc.). In fact, I used that group to double check my comments about the projection speed of The General (just wanted to be sure). :-) According to one guy there, the transfer on the Kino DVD for The General is *faster* than 24fps-- closer to 26fps.
http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm
There's even a chart with the shooting and projection speeds of several films. The article was written by Kevin Brownlow, who is pretty much the acknowledged leading authority on silent film for the past 40 years or so.
A great place to get info about silents is the newsgroup alt.movies.silent. There are some extremely knowledgable folks there, many who have written books, done restorations, composed scores, and many from the various distributors (Milestone, Keystone, Image, etc.). In fact, I used that group to double check my comments about the projection speed of The General (just wanted to be sure). :-) According to one guy there, the transfer on the Kino DVD for The General is *faster* than 24fps-- closer to 26fps.
Serena
wrote on 10/19/2005, 11:52 PM
Fred,
Thanks for that info; I'll have a read. I "know" Kevin Brownlow and have his book The Parade Goes By. As a young teenager he started with 9.5mm at the same time and age as I did and wrote in Amateur Cine World about his searches and finds in village markets of 9.5mm snippets of silent films . Of course he's never heard of me, so you understand that "know" in this context is quite miniminist!
Serena
Edit: I think our discussion got off the track because I chose a particular title. The points I was trying to make are those Brownlow gives in his introduction:
"Ask people to describe a silent film, and they'll tell you they were 'jerky', like the Chaplins they've seen on television, or they'll talk about 'flicker' and 'bad photography'. The last two charges can often be laid at the door of modern laboratories, for the original prints were generally superior to the black and white they produce today. But the idea that silent films were 'jerky' is less easily dismissed. Shown at the right speed, of course, they move as smoothly as a modern film- but what was the right speed? " And that was your point.
I should have chosen "Birth of a Nation" for my example. Some scenes cranked at 12fps and need to be projected at that rate. In 1915 Biograph instructed projectionists to crank at 15fps and in 1920 the standard speed was still 16fps (although the race between cameramen and projectionists had some cameramen cranking at 20fps). So in Brownlow's table we see that cranking rates rose from 16fps in 1920 to 24 fps in 1928. I see also that the table lists The General at 24fps.
"'Ideally,' says David Gill, 'projectors should have variable speeds from at least 14 to 24 fps. "
Thanks for that info; I'll have a read. I "know" Kevin Brownlow and have his book The Parade Goes By. As a young teenager he started with 9.5mm at the same time and age as I did and wrote in Amateur Cine World about his searches and finds in village markets of 9.5mm snippets of silent films . Of course he's never heard of me, so you understand that "know" in this context is quite miniminist!
Serena
Edit: I think our discussion got off the track because I chose a particular title. The points I was trying to make are those Brownlow gives in his introduction:
"Ask people to describe a silent film, and they'll tell you they were 'jerky', like the Chaplins they've seen on television, or they'll talk about 'flicker' and 'bad photography'. The last two charges can often be laid at the door of modern laboratories, for the original prints were generally superior to the black and white they produce today. But the idea that silent films were 'jerky' is less easily dismissed. Shown at the right speed, of course, they move as smoothly as a modern film- but what was the right speed? " And that was your point.
I should have chosen "Birth of a Nation" for my example. Some scenes cranked at 12fps and need to be projected at that rate. In 1915 Biograph instructed projectionists to crank at 15fps and in 1920 the standard speed was still 16fps (although the race between cameramen and projectionists had some cameramen cranking at 20fps). So in Brownlow's table we see that cranking rates rose from 16fps in 1920 to 24 fps in 1928. I see also that the table lists The General at 24fps.
"'Ideally,' says David Gill, 'projectors should have variable speeds from at least 14 to 24 fps. "
farss
wrote on 10/20/2005, 1:37 AM
Here's a really whacky Bob idea and I might just give this one a go myself.
Get hold of an old 3 lens 8mm camera and fit a cheapo sugarcube security camera inside it (minus the lens). Leaving the mechanical shutter in place should give some interesting 'effects'. If I could figure out a way to put a tiny alternator in there to power the camera I could truly claim to have a clockwork video camera!
But seriously, one other difference apart from the frame rate and film stock was the uncoated lenses on the old cameras, they captured the light in a subtly different way to modern optics. I think the difference was the difference in fall off between in-focus and out-of-focus compared to modern lenses. I've recently scanned lots of 35mm slides from both modern and ancient cameras and there's a hard to describe difference to them.
Bob.
Get hold of an old 3 lens 8mm camera and fit a cheapo sugarcube security camera inside it (minus the lens). Leaving the mechanical shutter in place should give some interesting 'effects'. If I could figure out a way to put a tiny alternator in there to power the camera I could truly claim to have a clockwork video camera!
But seriously, one other difference apart from the frame rate and film stock was the uncoated lenses on the old cameras, they captured the light in a subtly different way to modern optics. I think the difference was the difference in fall off between in-focus and out-of-focus compared to modern lenses. I've recently scanned lots of 35mm slides from both modern and ancient cameras and there's a hard to describe difference to them.
Bob.
Coursedesign
wrote on 10/20/2005, 2:17 AM
I think the difference was the difference in fall off between in-focus and out-of-focus compared to modern lenses.
This is called "bokeh" and is only now becoming more widely appreciated again. It is not related to the lens coating, but to the optical design (and the iris shape).
I've recently scanned lots of 35mm slides from both modern and ancient cameras and there's a hard to describe difference to them.
This is related to both lens coating differences, films that didn't see color the same way, and the lower contrast (MTF) in many older lens designs. Many of the oldest lenses also exhibited quite a bit of flare.
Still the images looked good!
This is called "bokeh" and is only now becoming more widely appreciated again. It is not related to the lens coating, but to the optical design (and the iris shape).
I've recently scanned lots of 35mm slides from both modern and ancient cameras and there's a hard to describe difference to them.
This is related to both lens coating differences, films that didn't see color the same way, and the lower contrast (MTF) in many older lens designs. Many of the oldest lenses also exhibited quite a bit of flare.
Still the images looked good!
jeremyk
wrote on 10/21/2005, 3:23 PM
Fred, that's a great article about silent film speeds.
Our PAL-using friends get to benefit from film speedup when they see 24 fps films shown at 25fps.
Our PAL-using friends get to benefit from film speedup when they see 24 fps films shown at 25fps.