the cat asked

Dybbuk

Shared on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 11:21
J-Cat asked " Just a question: How good was the picture quality in 1903? Or is that something that we would know today?"

Quote:

It is certainly crude filmmaking, made in a time when cameras had to be operated manually and Nickelodeons where part of the new, technological rave. To rate the quality of the film by today’s standards is certainly cheating, but it is also probably cheating to even rate it on the standard that D.W. Griffith created not five years later with The Birth of a Nation. It is amazing to note how much filmmaking improved in just five short years, between 1910 and 1915,
The visual quality of silent movies -- especially those produced during the 1920s -- was often extremely high. However, there is a widely held misconception that these films were primitive and barely watchable by modern standards. This misconception is due to technical errors (such as films being played back at wrong speed) and due to the deteriorated condition of many silent films (many silent films exist only in second or even third generation copies which were often copied from already damaged and neglected film stock).


Up until around 1925, most silent films were shot at slower speeds (or "frame rates") than sound films, typically at 16 to 23 frames per second depending on the year and studio, rather than 24 frames per second. Unless carefully shown at their original speeds they can appear unnaturally fast and jerky, which reinforces their alien appearance to modern viewers. At the same time, some scenes were intentionally undercranked during shooting in order to accelerate the action, particularly in the case of slapstick comedies. The intended frame rate of a silent film can be ambiguous and since they were usually hand cranked there can even be variation within one film. Film speed is often a vexed issue among scholars and film buffs in the presentation of silents today

Projectionists frequently showed silent films at speeds which were slightly faster than the rate at which they were shot. Most films seem to have been shown at 18 fps or higher - some even faster than what would become sound film speed (24 fps). Even if shot at 16 fps (often cited as "silent speed"), the projection of a nitrate base 35mm film at such a slow speed carried a considerable risk of fire. Often projectionists would receive instructions from the distributors as to how fast particular reels or scenes should be projected on the musical director's cue sheet. Theaters also sometimes varied their projection speeds depending on the time of day or popularity of a film in order to maximize profit.

Comments

CrypticCat's picture
Submitted by CrypticCat on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 12:20
I'm not the Cat who asked, but it's something I've always wondered about. Actually, I have always assumed that the technolgy of today was just too advanced to show them proper and I had never reckoned that variable recording speeds was actually a part of filmmaking and storytelling. Thanks!
J-Cat's picture
Submitted by J-Cat on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 12:35
I once heard that the cameramen would sing "Row, Row, Row your Boat" or something like that in order to keep pace. The reel took the song length to film. If that's true, then it's no wonder that the film playback are variable. So if I understand you correctly, the actual film quality wans't bad at all, no overexposed frames or "holes" in the film like we see in the Alice in Wonderland film. Interesting!
Dybbuk's picture
Submitted by Dybbuk on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 13:38
you are correct on both parts. often the camera man would sing to themselves in order to keep time. this was done more to keep a consistent speed to the film as a whole. If you can find a film taken from a first print in great shape they look almost as good as any of todays 35mm prints. I am talking film vs film not film vs modern film CGed up. for example the current remastered Metropolis looks great.

Join our Universe

Connect with 2o2p