1 00:00:04,480 --> 00:00:12,360 Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, 2 00:00:12,440 --> 00:00:16,160 Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. 3 00:00:16,160 --> 00:00:20,119 Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the 4 00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:23,320 Speaker 1: tech are you? So? Today I wanted to talk about 5 00:00:23,560 --> 00:00:26,960 Speaker 1: cinematic frame rates because I think it's a fascinating subject 6 00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:32,519 Speaker 1: that combines technology, psychology, physiology, and, as Doc Terminus would say, 7 00:00:32,560 --> 00:00:35,120 Speaker 1: any other ology you can think of. Also, a big 8 00:00:35,680 --> 00:00:37,720 Speaker 1: shout out to y'all out there. If any of y'all 9 00:00:37,720 --> 00:00:41,159 Speaker 1: know who Doc Terminus is, I might be narrow casting. 10 00:00:41,720 --> 00:00:46,240 Speaker 1: The standard cinematic frame rate is twenty four frames per second, 11 00:00:46,360 --> 00:00:48,880 Speaker 1: and we'll get to the reasons why in just a moment. 12 00:00:48,960 --> 00:00:53,320 Speaker 1: But this means that traditionally, filmmakers would capture twenty four 13 00:00:53,479 --> 00:00:58,440 Speaker 1: images twenty four still photographs on film per second, and 14 00:00:58,480 --> 00:01:02,080 Speaker 1: then play those pictures back at that same speed. This 15 00:01:02,280 --> 00:01:06,560 Speaker 1: is what creates the illusion of movement. As Quentin Tarantino 16 00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:09,840 Speaker 1: has pointed out in various interviews, film really has no 17 00:01:09,959 --> 00:01:13,000 Speaker 1: movement in it at all, because it really is just 18 00:01:13,040 --> 00:01:16,000 Speaker 1: a series of still photographs, and when they are projected 19 00:01:16,080 --> 00:01:19,600 Speaker 1: onto screens at a speed of twenty four images per second, 20 00:01:19,920 --> 00:01:22,920 Speaker 1: we get the illusion that things are actually moving around 21 00:01:22,959 --> 00:01:26,120 Speaker 1: in front of us. And to Tarantino, at least, this 22 00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:30,080 Speaker 1: element of film is intrinsic in the experience, you know, 23 00:01:30,120 --> 00:01:34,120 Speaker 1: the magic of movies. I'm somewhat inclined to agree with them. 24 00:01:34,200 --> 00:01:38,560 Speaker 1: Not that I haven't enjoyed digital films projected digitally, I have, 25 00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:44,279 Speaker 1: But there is something special about film, I would argue, 26 00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:47,720 Speaker 1: And part of the magic that Tarantino is talking about 27 00:01:47,880 --> 00:01:51,320 Speaker 1: is inside of us. This isn't some sort of Disney 28 00:01:51,440 --> 00:01:54,000 Speaker 1: version in which the magic was inside you all along. 29 00:01:54,120 --> 00:01:57,440 Speaker 1: I mean that for films to work, they have to 30 00:01:57,600 --> 00:02:01,680 Speaker 1: because of the way our brains work. Vision is a 31 00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:04,600 Speaker 1: really complicated topic, and most of what we would have 32 00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:08,040 Speaker 1: to focus on really is happening inside of our brains, 33 00:02:08,080 --> 00:02:12,040 Speaker 1: not our eyeballs. So, for example, let's take this idea 34 00:02:12,160 --> 00:02:16,000 Speaker 1: of the persistence of vision. So say that you get 35 00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:20,360 Speaker 1: yourself a cardboard tube, and you cover one end of 36 00:02:20,360 --> 00:02:23,359 Speaker 1: the tube, you know, with cardboard paper or something like that, 37 00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:26,600 Speaker 1: and you cut a slit in the end so that 38 00:02:26,760 --> 00:02:28,360 Speaker 1: you know, if you hold the tube up to your eye, 39 00:02:28,480 --> 00:02:30,880 Speaker 1: you get a very narrow view of whatever's in front 40 00:02:30,880 --> 00:02:32,440 Speaker 1: of you. Well, if you were to do that and 41 00:02:32,480 --> 00:02:35,280 Speaker 1: then to turn your head quickly so that you're getting 42 00:02:35,320 --> 00:02:38,560 Speaker 1: a really quick pan of your surroundings. Your brain would 43 00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:41,920 Speaker 1: actually take little slices of information and stitch them together 44 00:02:42,440 --> 00:02:45,520 Speaker 1: in a bigger picture in your brain. So that's kind 45 00:02:45,560 --> 00:02:47,919 Speaker 1: of like how some digital cameras will let you take 46 00:02:47,919 --> 00:02:51,600 Speaker 1: a panoramic shot right by taking a series of photographs 47 00:02:51,639 --> 00:02:53,919 Speaker 1: where you just line up the edges and you keep 48 00:02:53,960 --> 00:02:56,320 Speaker 1: taking them and it stitches it together in a big 49 00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:59,919 Speaker 1: panoramic image. But obviously for us, you have to do 50 00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:02,760 Speaker 1: it much much faster, and it's just using your brain. 51 00:03:03,040 --> 00:03:04,840 Speaker 1: So your brain can hold on to an image for 52 00:03:04,919 --> 00:03:08,440 Speaker 1: around one thirtieth of a second, and that's not a 53 00:03:08,440 --> 00:03:12,560 Speaker 1: hard and fast rule, but that's a general typical experience. 54 00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:14,680 Speaker 1: So that's why you need to turn your head quickly 55 00:03:14,760 --> 00:03:17,680 Speaker 1: to get this effect. If you were moving much more slowly, 56 00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:20,920 Speaker 1: then your brain isn't retaining the earlier information to let 57 00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:25,359 Speaker 1: you stitch together that bigger picture. This is possibly why 58 00:03:25,400 --> 00:03:28,919 Speaker 1: we also get that illusion of motion on screen when 59 00:03:28,919 --> 00:03:31,480 Speaker 1: the projector shows us one image. Our brain holds on 60 00:03:31,520 --> 00:03:33,959 Speaker 1: to that information as the next picture is coming up, 61 00:03:34,200 --> 00:03:37,200 Speaker 1: and it's our noggins that piece this all together to 62 00:03:37,240 --> 00:03:39,560 Speaker 1: create the illusion of movement seems like all of us 63 00:03:39,600 --> 00:03:43,720 Speaker 1: should also get an Academy award too, because without our brains, 64 00:03:43,800 --> 00:03:47,480 Speaker 1: films just wouldn't work, even for Adam Sandler movies. That 65 00:03:47,600 --> 00:03:51,120 Speaker 1: was a dig. Now, I should say that the persistence 66 00:03:51,120 --> 00:03:54,120 Speaker 1: of vision theory isn't necessarily the whole story. In fact, 67 00:03:54,320 --> 00:03:57,480 Speaker 1: there are those who criticize this theory, and they have 68 00:03:57,600 --> 00:04:01,240 Speaker 1: some very thoughtful objections. This isn't just people arguing for 69 00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:04,720 Speaker 1: arguing's sake. For example, they say the theory appears to 70 00:04:04,800 --> 00:04:09,320 Speaker 1: describe an effect that should manifest as our brains perceiving 71 00:04:09,520 --> 00:04:12,320 Speaker 1: just a series of still images, but not an actual 72 00:04:12,400 --> 00:04:16,000 Speaker 1: illusion of motion, and that it would be akin to 73 00:04:16,200 --> 00:04:19,360 Speaker 1: flipping through a sequence of photos at a slower rate, 74 00:04:19,480 --> 00:04:23,480 Speaker 1: like if you were just taking a stack of photographs 75 00:04:23,480 --> 00:04:25,680 Speaker 1: and you look at the top line and you then 76 00:04:25,760 --> 00:04:27,480 Speaker 1: put it aside and you look at the next one, 77 00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:29,560 Speaker 1: and that you know, that wouldn't be fast enough for 78 00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:33,320 Speaker 1: us to create an illusion of motion. And the argument 79 00:04:33,360 --> 00:04:37,080 Speaker 1: here is saying that persistence of vision only would describe 80 00:04:37,200 --> 00:04:41,000 Speaker 1: us seeing a sequence of pictures, but not the feeling 81 00:04:41,040 --> 00:04:45,600 Speaker 1: of something actually moving. So there is some debate about 82 00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:50,720 Speaker 1: the physiology behind this illusion of motion. I should also 83 00:04:50,800 --> 00:04:53,680 Speaker 1: mention flicker. Flicker is an important part of this too. 84 00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:57,120 Speaker 1: And if you were to project a sequence of photographs 85 00:04:57,279 --> 00:05:01,040 Speaker 1: and you weren't masking the transition of one image to 86 00:05:01,080 --> 00:05:03,560 Speaker 1: the next, you would get a lot of blur on 87 00:05:03,600 --> 00:05:05,880 Speaker 1: your screen, to the point where you might not even 88 00:05:05,920 --> 00:05:08,039 Speaker 1: be able to tell what you're looking at. So to 89 00:05:08,200 --> 00:05:14,520 Speaker 1: counter this, inventors created shutters for projectors, and the shutters 90 00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:16,680 Speaker 1: they would use would be in the form of a wheel. 91 00:05:16,839 --> 00:05:19,880 Speaker 1: So imagine a disc, right, but one side of the 92 00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:22,839 Speaker 1: disk extends further outward than the other side. It's like 93 00:05:22,880 --> 00:05:25,919 Speaker 1: it has a blade on it, so that half the 94 00:05:26,000 --> 00:05:30,000 Speaker 1: disc extends out significantly. The other half of the disc 95 00:05:30,240 --> 00:05:33,520 Speaker 1: ends earlier. And when you spin this and you have 96 00:05:33,640 --> 00:05:39,680 Speaker 1: it positioned between the projector lamp and the film, then 97 00:05:39,960 --> 00:05:43,200 Speaker 1: the blade part blocks the light from the lamp, and 98 00:05:43,240 --> 00:05:46,159 Speaker 1: it does so just at the moment that the projector 99 00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:50,320 Speaker 1: advances to the next image on the film. And so 100 00:05:50,920 --> 00:05:56,559 Speaker 1: this very careful choreography happens where the light goes through 101 00:05:56,800 --> 00:06:00,880 Speaker 1: and illuminates a full image on the film and then 102 00:06:01,040 --> 00:06:04,200 Speaker 1: is shut off by this shutter. It's blocked by the 103 00:06:04,240 --> 00:06:08,599 Speaker 1: shutter while the projector pulls the film downward so that 104 00:06:08,960 --> 00:06:11,640 Speaker 1: the next image is in place to be shown to 105 00:06:11,720 --> 00:06:16,240 Speaker 1: the people watching the movie. And this is happening incredibly fast. 106 00:06:16,279 --> 00:06:18,839 Speaker 1: Like I said, standard would be twenty four frames per second, 107 00:06:19,000 --> 00:06:23,120 Speaker 1: So with a single bladed shutter, that shutter is turning 108 00:06:23,240 --> 00:06:27,640 Speaker 1: twenty four times a second. Now, the issue here is 109 00:06:27,680 --> 00:06:33,719 Speaker 1: that blocking the lamplight introduces flicker. That's why some people 110 00:06:33,800 --> 00:06:37,640 Speaker 1: refer to films as flicks. It's from the flicker that 111 00:06:37,640 --> 00:06:41,600 Speaker 1: would be created by the use of a shutter, especially 112 00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:44,880 Speaker 1: if you were watching like films that were on lower 113 00:06:44,920 --> 00:06:48,960 Speaker 1: frame rates and the shutters not moving as fast because 114 00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:53,400 Speaker 1: it doesn't have to turn as quickly to cover the transitions, 115 00:06:53,520 --> 00:06:56,039 Speaker 1: you get a lot more noticeable flicker. You needed to 116 00:06:56,040 --> 00:06:58,279 Speaker 1: get up to around at least sixteen frames per second 117 00:06:58,279 --> 00:07:01,760 Speaker 1: to reduce it to a point where it wasn't just now. Interestingly, 118 00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:05,920 Speaker 1: modern projectors have shutters that have multiple blades on them 119 00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:08,880 Speaker 1: so that when they do one full rotation, it actually 120 00:07:08,920 --> 00:07:13,800 Speaker 1: blocks the light more than once two or three times. Typically. Why, well, 121 00:07:13,840 --> 00:07:17,240 Speaker 1: this helps you get around to sixty or seventy flicks 122 00:07:17,280 --> 00:07:21,120 Speaker 1: per second where you hit the flicker fusion threshold. And 123 00:07:21,160 --> 00:07:23,520 Speaker 1: I'm not making this up. This is a point where 124 00:07:23,520 --> 00:07:26,680 Speaker 1: our brains just perceive a persistent brightness from the projector. 125 00:07:26,760 --> 00:07:29,280 Speaker 1: We don't actually see the flicker anymore. It's too fast 126 00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:32,920 Speaker 1: for us to notice it's still there, but we can't 127 00:07:32,960 --> 00:07:35,760 Speaker 1: see it. We can't perceive it ourselves. I guess we 128 00:07:35,840 --> 00:07:39,120 Speaker 1: see it, we just don't perceive it. It's an interesting distinction. 129 00:07:39,440 --> 00:07:42,640 Speaker 1: To learn more about this, I really recommend the engineer 130 00:07:42,840 --> 00:07:46,800 Speaker 1: Guy's video How a film Projector Works. It's an absolutely 131 00:07:46,840 --> 00:07:50,960 Speaker 1: phenomenal YouTube video and it will really make you appreciate 132 00:07:51,000 --> 00:07:53,960 Speaker 1: the mechanics inside a projector and how elegant it all 133 00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:57,760 Speaker 1: works together to create this effect that we're used to, 134 00:07:57,920 --> 00:08:01,760 Speaker 1: this cinematic effect. But again, that shutter is important to 135 00:08:01,880 --> 00:08:07,280 Speaker 1: reduce blur, and by creating multi bladed shutters where you're 136 00:08:07,320 --> 00:08:12,119 Speaker 1: seeing the same image illuminated two or three times before 137 00:08:12,160 --> 00:08:14,880 Speaker 1: it moves to the next image in the film, it 138 00:08:14,960 --> 00:08:19,960 Speaker 1: means that that flicker no longer is perceptible. So getting 139 00:08:19,960 --> 00:08:22,760 Speaker 1: back to frame rate, twenty four frames per second is 140 00:08:22,800 --> 00:08:26,400 Speaker 1: the standard, but some filmmakers have experimented with different frame rates. Now, 141 00:08:26,680 --> 00:08:29,560 Speaker 1: if you shoot at a higher frame rate, like say 142 00:08:29,720 --> 00:08:32,360 Speaker 1: forty eight frames per second, but you're still projecting your 143 00:08:32,400 --> 00:08:35,080 Speaker 1: film at the standard twenty four frames per second, and 144 00:08:35,120 --> 00:08:38,600 Speaker 1: you haven't converted the film like it's still at forty 145 00:08:38,600 --> 00:08:41,160 Speaker 1: eight frames per second, well, then you would get slow motion. 146 00:08:41,920 --> 00:08:44,800 Speaker 1: Everything would move half as fast as it did when 147 00:08:44,840 --> 00:08:47,320 Speaker 1: you were shooting it. If you were shooting a sequence 148 00:08:47,360 --> 00:08:49,720 Speaker 1: at one hundred and twenty frames per second but playing 149 00:08:49,720 --> 00:08:52,880 Speaker 1: it back at twenty four, then the action on screen 150 00:08:52,920 --> 00:08:56,120 Speaker 1: will be five times slower than what happened in real 151 00:08:56,160 --> 00:08:58,440 Speaker 1: life while you were filming it. So if the sequence 152 00:08:58,480 --> 00:09:02,200 Speaker 1: took ten seconds for you to film than the film version, 153 00:09:02,320 --> 00:09:05,120 Speaker 1: the projected version of that scene will take fifty seconds, 154 00:09:05,120 --> 00:09:07,600 Speaker 1: and so on. Now you could also do the opposite. 155 00:09:07,720 --> 00:09:10,080 Speaker 1: You could shoot a sequence at one frame rate and 156 00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:13,400 Speaker 1: project it at a higher frame rate, and that will 157 00:09:13,440 --> 00:09:16,839 Speaker 1: make the action that's on screen speed up considerably. It 158 00:09:16,920 --> 00:09:19,680 Speaker 1: might also look really jerky, depending on how low a 159 00:09:19,720 --> 00:09:22,120 Speaker 1: frame rate you used when you were shooting the scene, 160 00:09:22,280 --> 00:09:26,320 Speaker 1: because there's more time that's passing between each sequential shot 161 00:09:26,800 --> 00:09:29,280 Speaker 1: in that sequence. Right, if you shot a sequence at 162 00:09:29,280 --> 00:09:31,000 Speaker 1: twelve frames per second and you played it back at 163 00:09:31,040 --> 00:09:33,600 Speaker 1: twenty four frames per second, everything would move twice as 164 00:09:33,640 --> 00:09:36,360 Speaker 1: fast on screen as it did in real life. Now 165 00:09:36,400 --> 00:09:38,800 Speaker 1: you can also shoot at a higher frame rate and 166 00:09:39,200 --> 00:09:43,440 Speaker 1: project at that same frame rate upon screening, So you 167 00:09:43,440 --> 00:09:45,520 Speaker 1: could shoot a movie at forty eight frames per second 168 00:09:45,720 --> 00:09:47,720 Speaker 1: and then play it back also at forty eight frames 169 00:09:47,760 --> 00:09:50,480 Speaker 1: per second. That's what Peter Jackson did with the Hobbit films, 170 00:09:50,679 --> 00:09:53,440 Speaker 1: at least for some of the film releases. You know, 171 00:09:53,520 --> 00:09:57,120 Speaker 1: there were others where a conversion process had to be 172 00:09:57,200 --> 00:09:59,679 Speaker 1: done so that the forty eight frames were converted down 173 00:09:59,720 --> 00:10:02,360 Speaker 1: to two twenty four frames. Essentially means I mean literally 174 00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:05,079 Speaker 1: ditching half the frames that were shot in order to 175 00:10:05,120 --> 00:10:08,559 Speaker 1: make this work. And that's because a lot of theaters 176 00:10:08,880 --> 00:10:12,960 Speaker 1: didn't have projectors capable of showing a film at forty 177 00:10:13,000 --> 00:10:15,280 Speaker 1: eight frames per second. But for those that did, you 178 00:10:15,280 --> 00:10:17,440 Speaker 1: could get that experience of a film that was shot 179 00:10:17,480 --> 00:10:19,440 Speaker 1: at forty eight frames per second and then projected at 180 00:10:19,480 --> 00:10:21,880 Speaker 1: forty eight frames per second. This meant that you were 181 00:10:21,880 --> 00:10:25,560 Speaker 1: seeing more information per second, like literally twice as much 182 00:10:25,679 --> 00:10:29,000 Speaker 1: information per second as someone who was seeing the twenty 183 00:10:29,040 --> 00:10:32,880 Speaker 1: four frame per second version. And more information being packed 184 00:10:32,960 --> 00:10:37,079 Speaker 1: into every second would result in a few different effects 185 00:10:37,160 --> 00:10:40,240 Speaker 1: like reduced motion blur. Everything would be much more crisp 186 00:10:40,280 --> 00:10:43,440 Speaker 1: and clear and there'd be less blur as things were moving, 187 00:10:43,520 --> 00:10:46,160 Speaker 1: even if things were moving quickly, there was also more 188 00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:49,880 Speaker 1: clarity in the image, and in my opinion, it created 189 00:10:49,960 --> 00:10:53,480 Speaker 1: a worse viewing experience. I saw the first two Hobbit 190 00:10:53,520 --> 00:10:56,560 Speaker 1: films in high frame rate and in three D, and 191 00:10:56,640 --> 00:10:59,200 Speaker 1: my experience was so unpleasant that I never bothered to 192 00:10:59,200 --> 00:11:01,520 Speaker 1: watch the third film at all. Still haven't seen it. 193 00:11:01,679 --> 00:11:04,280 Speaker 1: And keep in mind, the Hobbit was my favorite book 194 00:11:04,320 --> 00:11:07,520 Speaker 1: as a kid, but a combination of factors, including the 195 00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:11,000 Speaker 1: high frame rate, contributed to me forming a negative opinion 196 00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:14,360 Speaker 1: about the films. And was I just being snobby? Was 197 00:11:14,360 --> 00:11:17,320 Speaker 1: I just resisting what Peter Jackson was saying was going 198 00:11:17,320 --> 00:11:19,160 Speaker 1: to be the future of film? Could I just not 199 00:11:20,000 --> 00:11:23,080 Speaker 1: see the improvements or something else going on? Is something 200 00:11:23,360 --> 00:11:27,600 Speaker 1: fundamentally human that impacts perception playing a part in this? 201 00:11:28,120 --> 00:11:29,920 Speaker 1: That's kind of what we're going to talk about today. 202 00:11:30,400 --> 00:11:33,280 Speaker 1: And first, of course, we need to talk about some history. 203 00:11:33,360 --> 00:11:35,280 Speaker 1: And we're not going to walk through the entire history 204 00:11:35,320 --> 00:11:37,520 Speaker 1: and evolution of film, because I've already done that in 205 00:11:37,679 --> 00:11:41,160 Speaker 1: other episodes. And there's an awful lot in fact, just 206 00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:45,400 Speaker 1: the transition from still photography to creating a moving picture 207 00:11:45,760 --> 00:11:48,400 Speaker 1: has so many different steps in it. So we're going 208 00:11:48,480 --> 00:11:51,280 Speaker 1: to skip ahead to the early days of actual cinema, 209 00:11:51,320 --> 00:11:54,720 Speaker 1: when folks like Thomas Edison had invented cameras and projectors 210 00:11:54,960 --> 00:11:57,240 Speaker 1: or really slapped his name on a patent after one 211 00:11:57,280 --> 00:12:00,000 Speaker 1: of his engineers invented it. And in those early days 212 00:12:00,280 --> 00:12:02,760 Speaker 1: you had folks in France who were experimenting with cameras 213 00:12:02,800 --> 00:12:06,000 Speaker 1: and projectors that worked at around sixteen frames per second. 214 00:12:06,400 --> 00:12:10,199 Speaker 1: Edison felt the sweet spot was really forty six frames 215 00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:13,480 Speaker 1: per second, an interesting number that he arrived at. He 216 00:12:13,600 --> 00:12:15,520 Speaker 1: just assumed that at forty six, where I guess he 217 00:12:15,920 --> 00:12:19,079 Speaker 1: determined that forty six was what you needed in order 218 00:12:19,200 --> 00:12:22,320 Speaker 1: to get a point where you didn't have flicker being 219 00:12:22,320 --> 00:12:27,520 Speaker 1: distracting and you had a good smooth representation of action. Now, remember, 220 00:12:27,840 --> 00:12:30,880 Speaker 1: projectors used the shutter to block light from the projector 221 00:12:30,880 --> 00:12:33,040 Speaker 1: in order to transition from one image to the next, 222 00:12:33,040 --> 00:12:36,000 Speaker 1: which meant the shutter was blocking light at least once 223 00:12:36,040 --> 00:12:38,880 Speaker 1: per frame, and at lower frame rates it really is 224 00:12:38,960 --> 00:12:42,760 Speaker 1: noticeable and it becomes distracting. That's why Edison thought a 225 00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:44,920 Speaker 1: rate of forty six frames per second would be fast 226 00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:47,320 Speaker 1: enough for flicker to no longer really be an issue, 227 00:12:47,440 --> 00:12:49,520 Speaker 1: and we wouldn't even notice it. Now. As I mentioned 228 00:12:49,559 --> 00:12:52,480 Speaker 1: earlier there, that's a little bit slower than the sixty 229 00:12:52,600 --> 00:12:56,240 Speaker 1: or seventy flicks per second that typically we would say 230 00:12:56,240 --> 00:13:00,640 Speaker 1: reaches the flicker fusion threshold. But it's much closer to 231 00:13:00,760 --> 00:13:04,160 Speaker 1: the right number than sixteen frames per second. But that's 232 00:13:04,200 --> 00:13:07,360 Speaker 1: interesting because then you get into people saying, well, we 233 00:13:07,480 --> 00:13:10,560 Speaker 1: have a workaround, which is again the multi bladed shutter. 234 00:13:10,600 --> 00:13:14,000 Speaker 1: If you have a shutter with three blades and you're 235 00:13:14,040 --> 00:13:19,520 Speaker 1: projecting your sixteen frame per second film and you're allowing 236 00:13:19,600 --> 00:13:23,880 Speaker 1: one full rotation of the shutter per frame, that means 237 00:13:23,960 --> 00:13:27,920 Speaker 1: each frame of your film is displayed three times in 238 00:13:27,960 --> 00:13:30,439 Speaker 1: a row before it goes to the next one. Remember 239 00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:33,320 Speaker 1: this is not a fraction of a second. But the 240 00:13:33,440 --> 00:13:36,120 Speaker 1: end result of that is you get forty eight frames 241 00:13:36,120 --> 00:13:39,800 Speaker 1: per second of projected film. Yeah, you're only showing sixteen 242 00:13:39,880 --> 00:13:43,600 Speaker 1: separate images every second, but the shutter is multiplying each 243 00:13:43,679 --> 00:13:46,880 Speaker 1: frame three times, and then you get kind of forty 244 00:13:46,920 --> 00:13:50,280 Speaker 1: eight frames per second effect, and you get less flicker, 245 00:13:50,760 --> 00:13:54,680 Speaker 1: not smoother motion, but less flicker. Now, why were people 246 00:13:54,960 --> 00:13:58,600 Speaker 1: kind of gravitating towards sixteen frames per second even though 247 00:13:58,760 --> 00:14:00,559 Speaker 1: Edison was saying, no, no, no, you should be doing 248 00:14:00,559 --> 00:14:03,920 Speaker 1: forty six. It all has to come down to money. 249 00:14:04,320 --> 00:14:06,800 Speaker 1: And speaking of money, we're gonna take a quick break 250 00:14:06,800 --> 00:14:08,880 Speaker 1: to thank our sponsors and then we'll come back and 251 00:14:08,920 --> 00:14:11,920 Speaker 1: I'll tell you more about how money plays a big 252 00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:24,320 Speaker 1: part in the evolution of cinema. Okay, we're back, and 253 00:14:24,360 --> 00:14:27,000 Speaker 1: now it's time to talk about that dalla dalla bill, y'all. 254 00:14:27,320 --> 00:14:33,040 Speaker 1: So film costs money, right, Film stock, the actual raw 255 00:14:33,160 --> 00:14:37,280 Speaker 1: material you use to shoot upon, is a thing you 256 00:14:37,360 --> 00:14:40,120 Speaker 1: have to purchase. And then on top of that, once 257 00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:43,160 Speaker 1: you shoot film, you have to process it before you 258 00:14:43,160 --> 00:14:46,080 Speaker 1: can display it, like you have to develop the film 259 00:14:46,280 --> 00:14:49,800 Speaker 1: and you have to transfer the negative to make a master. 260 00:14:50,400 --> 00:14:54,760 Speaker 1: All this kind of stuff is costly. Right, the more 261 00:14:54,800 --> 00:14:57,040 Speaker 1: film you shoot, the more expensive it's going to be. 262 00:14:57,280 --> 00:15:00,120 Speaker 1: And if you're shooting at a higher frame rate, it 263 00:15:00,160 --> 00:15:03,360 Speaker 1: means you're consuming film faster than you would if you 264 00:15:03,400 --> 00:15:05,800 Speaker 1: were using a lower frame rate. You could think of 265 00:15:05,840 --> 00:15:09,200 Speaker 1: it this way, if you're spending bookoos of cash for 266 00:15:09,360 --> 00:15:12,160 Speaker 1: every foot of film that you have to purchase for 267 00:15:12,280 --> 00:15:15,200 Speaker 1: your movie, and then you're given the option to either 268 00:15:15,280 --> 00:15:19,600 Speaker 1: tell your story with sixteen photographs per second or choosing 269 00:15:19,720 --> 00:15:23,480 Speaker 1: forty six photographs per second, you're likely to go with 270 00:15:23,520 --> 00:15:26,320 Speaker 1: the sixteen. It's going to take up less film for 271 00:15:26,400 --> 00:15:29,400 Speaker 1: you to shoot a second of footage unless you're part 272 00:15:29,440 --> 00:15:32,000 Speaker 1: of the lustrous money bags family, I guess. But yeah, 273 00:15:32,200 --> 00:15:36,240 Speaker 1: film was a limited and costly resource, and for that reason, 274 00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:39,520 Speaker 1: or at least primarily for that reason, a lot of 275 00:15:39,600 --> 00:15:43,680 Speaker 1: early filmmakers gravitated towards sixteen frames per second in those 276 00:15:43,760 --> 00:15:46,680 Speaker 1: early days of filming, and they relied on projectors to 277 00:15:47,000 --> 00:15:50,840 Speaker 1: kind of smooth things out by using multi bladed shutters. 278 00:15:51,160 --> 00:15:54,720 Speaker 1: Now I say gravitated towards sixteen frames per second, but 279 00:15:54,880 --> 00:15:57,680 Speaker 1: even saying gravitated as being a bit generous because early 280 00:15:57,720 --> 00:16:02,200 Speaker 1: film cameras and projectors were frequently hand cranked. They didn't 281 00:16:02,240 --> 00:16:05,680 Speaker 1: have an electric or even spring loaded motor in them, 282 00:16:06,080 --> 00:16:09,520 Speaker 1: and a steady camera operator might manage to keep a 283 00:16:09,560 --> 00:16:13,880 Speaker 1: fairly regular rotational speed while literally cranking the camera or 284 00:16:13,920 --> 00:16:17,200 Speaker 1: the projector, but usually there was some variation in there, 285 00:16:17,240 --> 00:16:21,400 Speaker 1: so you're talking more like sometimes between ten and eighteen 286 00:16:21,520 --> 00:16:24,880 Speaker 1: frames per second, with sixteen being the goal. And then 287 00:16:24,920 --> 00:16:29,280 Speaker 1: there were also filmmakers who were purposefully experimenting with undercranking, 288 00:16:29,360 --> 00:16:33,000 Speaker 1: which means you're recording more slowly than the projection rate 289 00:16:33,040 --> 00:16:36,720 Speaker 1: will be, or overcranking, where you're recording a faster frame 290 00:16:36,800 --> 00:16:39,600 Speaker 1: rate than the projection rate should be. And like I 291 00:16:39,640 --> 00:16:44,800 Speaker 1: said earlier, this kind of translates into faster or slower 292 00:16:44,840 --> 00:16:47,280 Speaker 1: action on screen, and it can also make things a 293 00:16:47,280 --> 00:16:51,800 Speaker 1: little jerky, depending upon how erratic the changes are. So 294 00:16:51,960 --> 00:16:54,720 Speaker 1: if you watch those early silent films, you might notice 295 00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:58,600 Speaker 1: that the action is erratic, it's inconsistent in its speed, 296 00:16:58,760 --> 00:17:01,040 Speaker 1: and that's because during the record arding frame rate was 297 00:17:01,040 --> 00:17:03,480 Speaker 1: a little bit variable, and if it's played back on 298 00:17:03,560 --> 00:17:07,000 Speaker 1: modern equipment, well, the playback speed is not varying at all. 299 00:17:07,280 --> 00:17:10,800 Speaker 1: Now you could, I guess, try to digitally convert everything 300 00:17:10,880 --> 00:17:15,639 Speaker 1: so that it maintained a consistent playback speed in conjunction 301 00:17:15,760 --> 00:17:18,600 Speaker 1: with whatever was recorded, but one it would probably look 302 00:17:18,640 --> 00:17:21,760 Speaker 1: really weird, and two it might have been that the 303 00:17:21,800 --> 00:17:26,320 Speaker 1: director intended for those different frame rates in order to 304 00:17:26,359 --> 00:17:30,040 Speaker 1: create a specific effect on the film itself. But yeah, 305 00:17:30,040 --> 00:17:33,000 Speaker 1: we have to come back around to variable frame rates 306 00:17:33,160 --> 00:17:35,760 Speaker 1: because that will play a part in our discussion toward 307 00:17:35,840 --> 00:17:38,440 Speaker 1: the end. But the silent film era had a lot 308 00:17:38,440 --> 00:17:40,760 Speaker 1: of different frame rates that were used both for filming 309 00:17:40,760 --> 00:17:43,720 Speaker 1: and for projection, and often those frame rates tended towards 310 00:17:43,720 --> 00:17:47,719 Speaker 1: sixteen frames per second or thereabouts because one it seemed 311 00:17:47,720 --> 00:17:51,600 Speaker 1: to be about the lowest you could go without affecting 312 00:17:52,080 --> 00:17:56,040 Speaker 1: perception of the film negatively. And it also allows you 313 00:17:56,080 --> 00:17:58,000 Speaker 1: to save as much money as you could on film 314 00:17:58,040 --> 00:18:01,359 Speaker 1: stock because you're not chewing through it. Super movie houses 315 00:18:01,359 --> 00:18:03,719 Speaker 1: would sometimes take advantage of all this. They would actually 316 00:18:03,760 --> 00:18:07,240 Speaker 1: play movies back at a higher frame rate than what 317 00:18:07,440 --> 00:18:10,440 Speaker 1: was shot because if you can play a movie back 318 00:18:10,440 --> 00:18:13,680 Speaker 1: at a faster frame rate, the screening takes less time. Right, 319 00:18:13,760 --> 00:18:16,840 Speaker 1: you get through your film faster, and you might be 320 00:18:16,840 --> 00:18:19,080 Speaker 1: able to fit in an additional seating at the end 321 00:18:19,080 --> 00:18:21,359 Speaker 1: of the day and sell more tickets that way. But 322 00:18:21,440 --> 00:18:25,360 Speaker 1: things would trend towards standardization because of a new technological 323 00:18:25,400 --> 00:18:29,600 Speaker 1: development for film, which was adding sound to it. So 324 00:18:29,640 --> 00:18:32,560 Speaker 1: here's the thing. The way sound on film would work 325 00:18:32,880 --> 00:18:36,680 Speaker 1: like early on, there was an attempt to pair films 326 00:18:36,720 --> 00:18:40,160 Speaker 1: with things like a record album and you would start 327 00:18:40,200 --> 00:18:43,280 Speaker 1: the two at the same time. But this was tricky. 328 00:18:43,359 --> 00:18:46,440 Speaker 1: You could easily have an issue where things were out 329 00:18:46,480 --> 00:18:49,120 Speaker 1: of sync and then it just becomes distracting. The big 330 00:18:49,160 --> 00:18:52,959 Speaker 1: development on film was optical sound in that there's an 331 00:18:53,000 --> 00:18:57,399 Speaker 1: optical track, a light based track that holds the sound information, 332 00:18:57,520 --> 00:19:01,399 Speaker 1: and this track runs a long side the actual image 333 00:19:01,400 --> 00:19:04,520 Speaker 1: is captured on film. There's a very narrow band where 334 00:19:04,560 --> 00:19:09,760 Speaker 1: the optical track lives, and within a projector, there's a 335 00:19:09,880 --> 00:19:14,200 Speaker 1: separate lamp from the actual film lamp that beams light 336 00:19:14,359 --> 00:19:17,000 Speaker 1: through this narrow band on the side of the strip 337 00:19:17,000 --> 00:19:19,639 Speaker 1: of film, and you have a photosensitive detector that's on 338 00:19:19,720 --> 00:19:23,320 Speaker 1: the opposite side, and the photosensitive detector picks up light 339 00:19:23,359 --> 00:19:28,159 Speaker 1: that's coming through this optical band of information, and the 340 00:19:28,280 --> 00:19:31,879 Speaker 1: light that's passing through ends up being converted into an 341 00:19:31,920 --> 00:19:35,359 Speaker 1: electrical current through this photo detector, and that sends it 342 00:19:35,400 --> 00:19:38,119 Speaker 1: to an amplifier, which then can go to speakers and 343 00:19:38,160 --> 00:19:40,960 Speaker 1: then you can get sound playing back. I've also done 344 00:19:40,960 --> 00:19:43,080 Speaker 1: episodes about this, so I'm not going to go further 345 00:19:43,160 --> 00:19:46,280 Speaker 1: into detail, but it is cool now. In a projector, 346 00:19:46,600 --> 00:19:49,280 Speaker 1: this means that the bit that you are seeing and 347 00:19:49,320 --> 00:19:52,680 Speaker 1: the bit you are hearing are actually offset on the 348 00:19:52,680 --> 00:19:55,879 Speaker 1: physical film itself, because you are you talking about two 349 00:19:55,920 --> 00:19:59,000 Speaker 1: different lamps typically, So that means that if you were 350 00:19:59,040 --> 00:20:03,359 Speaker 1: to freeze time, the bit that you would see on 351 00:20:03,480 --> 00:20:07,200 Speaker 1: screen would be from one lamp showing through the picture 352 00:20:07,480 --> 00:20:11,119 Speaker 1: on the film. The sound that you would somehow be 353 00:20:11,160 --> 00:20:13,680 Speaker 1: able to hear while you have frozen time would be 354 00:20:13,720 --> 00:20:16,800 Speaker 1: going through a separate lamp a little further down in 355 00:20:16,840 --> 00:20:19,439 Speaker 1: the film, so they're offset from each other. If this 356 00:20:19,520 --> 00:20:21,560 Speaker 1: weren't the case, then everything would look like a really 357 00:20:21,720 --> 00:20:25,600 Speaker 1: badly dubbed movie and the words wouldn't match characters' mouths. 358 00:20:25,640 --> 00:20:28,880 Speaker 1: But more importantly, for frame rates, this meant the industry 359 00:20:29,440 --> 00:20:34,280 Speaker 1: had to establish a solid standard, because audiences could tolerate 360 00:20:34,359 --> 00:20:37,040 Speaker 1: some variation in playback speeds as far as images go, 361 00:20:37,160 --> 00:20:39,480 Speaker 1: but for sound it's a different thing. Folks were not 362 00:20:39,920 --> 00:20:42,119 Speaker 1: lining up to watch a picture in which Clark Gable 363 00:20:42,200 --> 00:20:44,520 Speaker 1: was going to sound like a chipmunk or something. So 364 00:20:44,560 --> 00:20:48,160 Speaker 1: in nineteen twenty nine, the industry agreed upon a standard 365 00:20:48,200 --> 00:20:51,760 Speaker 1: frame rate of twenty four frames per second. This was 366 00:20:51,840 --> 00:20:55,000 Speaker 1: low enough to still be somewhat economical when it came 367 00:20:55,040 --> 00:20:58,239 Speaker 1: to film stock, and it also represented a number that 368 00:20:58,359 --> 00:21:02,040 Speaker 1: was easily divisible that editors happy, right because a full 369 00:21:02,119 --> 00:21:05,119 Speaker 1: second of your footage would be twenty four frames. If 370 00:21:05,160 --> 00:21:07,680 Speaker 1: you wanted to edit down to a half second, you're 371 00:21:07,680 --> 00:21:09,960 Speaker 1: talking about twelve frames. A third of the second was 372 00:21:10,000 --> 00:21:13,199 Speaker 1: eight frames and so on. So this made precise edits 373 00:21:13,359 --> 00:21:17,560 Speaker 1: really possible and easy to do mathematically. Twenty four frames 374 00:21:17,560 --> 00:21:20,600 Speaker 1: per second also allowed for some decent audio fidelity with 375 00:21:20,680 --> 00:21:23,520 Speaker 1: your optical tracks. If you went with a lower frame rate, 376 00:21:23,840 --> 00:21:26,399 Speaker 1: you would get lower quality audio to the point where 377 00:21:26,680 --> 00:21:29,960 Speaker 1: it would be distracting to an audience. So by using 378 00:21:29,960 --> 00:21:32,679 Speaker 1: twenty four frames per second as the standard, then a 379 00:21:32,720 --> 00:21:35,760 Speaker 1: projector outfitted with a double bladed shutter, which means each 380 00:21:35,800 --> 00:21:38,320 Speaker 1: frame of film would be projected twice, you would get 381 00:21:38,320 --> 00:21:40,640 Speaker 1: the effect of a forty eight frames per second projection 382 00:21:40,760 --> 00:21:44,679 Speaker 1: speed with each frame repeated a single time. Right. So, 383 00:21:44,760 --> 00:21:46,960 Speaker 1: for half a century, twenty four frames per second was 384 00:21:47,000 --> 00:21:53,720 Speaker 1: a practically unassailable standard. It defined cinematic esthetic. At twenty 385 00:21:53,720 --> 00:21:56,719 Speaker 1: four frames per second, there's still motion, blur and potentially 386 00:21:57,080 --> 00:22:00,639 Speaker 1: some flicker depending upon the projector and the shutter. Twenty 387 00:22:00,680 --> 00:22:04,080 Speaker 1: four frames per second met the technical, economic, and psychological 388 00:22:04,119 --> 00:22:07,600 Speaker 1: thresholds to be a practical way to capture stories on film. 389 00:22:08,040 --> 00:22:11,720 Speaker 1: Some folks, however, were not satisfied with this. They really 390 00:22:11,760 --> 00:22:14,680 Speaker 1: wanted to push the technological envelope, which is super cool, 391 00:22:14,880 --> 00:22:17,720 Speaker 1: even if I personally find deviations from twenty four frames 392 00:22:17,760 --> 00:22:21,560 Speaker 1: per second off putting from a cinematic experience, like that's 393 00:22:21,600 --> 00:22:25,520 Speaker 1: my own personal reaction, But they also recognize the need 394 00:22:25,600 --> 00:22:29,520 Speaker 1: for innovation and how exciting it is to experiment. So 395 00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:33,800 Speaker 1: one of these pioneers was a guy named Douglas Trumbull, 396 00:22:33,880 --> 00:22:36,760 Speaker 1: who sadly passed away a couple of years ago, but 397 00:22:36,800 --> 00:22:39,960 Speaker 1: he was a legend in the film world. He created 398 00:22:40,080 --> 00:22:44,560 Speaker 1: amazing special effects in really influential movies, like he did 399 00:22:44,640 --> 00:22:48,160 Speaker 1: effects for Stanley Kubrick's two thousand and one A Space Odyssey. 400 00:22:48,440 --> 00:22:52,119 Speaker 1: He effects for Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. He worked on 401 00:22:52,359 --> 00:22:55,920 Speaker 1: tons of movies, and he came to it honestly because 402 00:22:55,960 --> 00:22:59,240 Speaker 1: his dad actually, briefly anyway, worked in visual effects. He 403 00:22:59,240 --> 00:23:02,359 Speaker 1: apparently did visual effects for the nineteen thirty nine classic 404 00:23:02,400 --> 00:23:06,160 Speaker 1: film The Wizard of Oz. So it's possible that Douglas 405 00:23:06,160 --> 00:23:09,520 Speaker 1: Trumbull didn't have blood in his veins but instead had celluloid. 406 00:23:09,760 --> 00:23:12,720 Speaker 1: It sounds like he was born to really work in 407 00:23:12,720 --> 00:23:16,000 Speaker 1: the film industry. But in the mid nineteen seventies, Trumbull 408 00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:19,760 Speaker 1: began to develop a cinematic technology he would call show scan, 409 00:23:20,160 --> 00:23:23,400 Speaker 1: and this tech would use seventy milimeter film thirty five 410 00:23:23,400 --> 00:23:27,760 Speaker 1: milimeter is standard in cinema, but there have been directors 411 00:23:27,800 --> 00:23:30,880 Speaker 1: who have worked in seventy milimeter, so his version used 412 00:23:30,880 --> 00:23:34,480 Speaker 1: seventy milimeter filment and a projection speed of sixty frames 413 00:23:34,480 --> 00:23:36,879 Speaker 1: per second. So the result was that the image on 414 00:23:37,000 --> 00:23:40,800 Speaker 1: screen had much greater clarity and far less motion blurb 415 00:23:41,080 --> 00:23:43,320 Speaker 1: than a film that was shot on standard twenty four 416 00:23:43,320 --> 00:23:46,760 Speaker 1: frames per second. But it also would eat through film 417 00:23:46,800 --> 00:23:48,840 Speaker 1: at two and a half times the speed of a 418 00:23:48,920 --> 00:23:53,400 Speaker 1: normal camera, So using Trumbull's method would definitely impact your budget. 419 00:23:53,680 --> 00:23:56,280 Speaker 1: You'd be spending a lot more money just on film 420 00:23:56,359 --> 00:23:59,600 Speaker 1: stock alone. But trumble felt that audience has had a 421 00:23:59,720 --> 00:24:02,919 Speaker 1: much stronger emotional reaction to films that were shot and 422 00:24:02,960 --> 00:24:06,199 Speaker 1: projected at higher frame rates. He actually did experiments with 423 00:24:06,240 --> 00:24:09,879 Speaker 1: this where people would respond with how they felt a 424 00:24:09,920 --> 00:24:13,240 Speaker 1: film impacted them, and Trumbull said that when you got 425 00:24:13,280 --> 00:24:16,440 Speaker 1: to these higher frame rates, people were making stronger emotional 426 00:24:16,480 --> 00:24:19,680 Speaker 1: connections to the stuff that they were seeing, and that 427 00:24:20,160 --> 00:24:23,520 Speaker 1: the experience meant that you had reduced some of the 428 00:24:23,640 --> 00:24:27,040 Speaker 1: artificiality of film. You make the images seem more realistic 429 00:24:27,160 --> 00:24:30,720 Speaker 1: and vibrant. So Trumbull created some short films to demonstrate 430 00:24:30,760 --> 00:24:35,679 Speaker 1: this technology, but his technological solution wouldn't really find a 431 00:24:35,760 --> 00:24:39,080 Speaker 1: place for itself in movie theaters. It did find its 432 00:24:39,080 --> 00:24:44,080 Speaker 1: way into simulator style rides, and Trumbull's advocacy for high 433 00:24:44,080 --> 00:24:47,200 Speaker 1: frame rates would find other supporters in film a couple 434 00:24:47,240 --> 00:24:50,680 Speaker 1: of decades later. Now, the economics of film were very 435 00:24:50,760 --> 00:24:53,720 Speaker 1: much in play in the nineteen seventies. In fact, it 436 00:24:53,720 --> 00:24:57,159 Speaker 1: wouldn't be until nineteen ninety six that a new technology 437 00:24:57,200 --> 00:25:00,840 Speaker 1: would start to chip away at the end edifice of 438 00:25:00,920 --> 00:25:05,960 Speaker 1: cinema and the domination of film, and that was digital filmmaking. 439 00:25:06,320 --> 00:25:09,480 Speaker 1: This would be the thing that would change the nature 440 00:25:09,600 --> 00:25:12,840 Speaker 1: of cinema for almost everybody. I mean, there are holdouts, 441 00:25:12,920 --> 00:25:16,280 Speaker 1: right Quentin Tarantinos still insists on shooting on film and 442 00:25:16,320 --> 00:25:20,400 Speaker 1: wants his films to be projected in film, not on digital, 443 00:25:20,440 --> 00:25:24,239 Speaker 1: Although there have been Tarantino films projective digitally, and I 444 00:25:24,280 --> 00:25:27,760 Speaker 1: respect him for it. I still prefer film myself, but 445 00:25:27,840 --> 00:25:30,959 Speaker 1: for a lot of people, digital filmmaking would be a 446 00:25:31,040 --> 00:25:34,440 Speaker 1: true game changer. Now. Some elements of digital information were 447 00:25:34,480 --> 00:25:37,000 Speaker 1: already making their way into film as early as the 448 00:25:37,040 --> 00:25:40,760 Speaker 1: early nineteen nineties, but that would be digital audio that 449 00:25:41,119 --> 00:25:43,920 Speaker 1: made its way into movies that became a thing in 450 00:25:44,200 --> 00:25:49,600 Speaker 1: film before digital cinematography did. Digital movies also didn't immediately 451 00:25:49,640 --> 00:25:53,199 Speaker 1: splinter off from film based movies. You had cases in 452 00:25:53,240 --> 00:25:57,240 Speaker 1: which someone took a film like something shot on film, 453 00:25:57,520 --> 00:26:01,040 Speaker 1: typically a classic film, and then use a film scanner 454 00:26:01,320 --> 00:26:05,399 Speaker 1: to transfer those images from film to digital. This is 455 00:26:05,480 --> 00:26:09,000 Speaker 1: often a first step for digital restoration of movies, so 456 00:26:09,040 --> 00:26:12,520 Speaker 1: if you've ever seen a digitally restored film, this is 457 00:26:12,600 --> 00:26:15,560 Speaker 1: part of that process, the earliest part, really. But you 458 00:26:15,560 --> 00:26:18,639 Speaker 1: could also take a digital recording and then transfer that 459 00:26:19,040 --> 00:26:21,960 Speaker 1: to film, like you could take something that was shot 460 00:26:22,080 --> 00:26:25,600 Speaker 1: on digital, transfer that to film, and then your finished 461 00:26:25,600 --> 00:26:29,520 Speaker 1: product can be shown in a normal film projector. Right, 462 00:26:29,560 --> 00:26:32,439 Speaker 1: you don't need a digital projector. You just take the 463 00:26:32,480 --> 00:26:35,240 Speaker 1: film that you've created and put it through that. But 464 00:26:35,320 --> 00:26:38,920 Speaker 1: the rise of digital projectors would really change things up. 465 00:26:39,359 --> 00:26:43,640 Speaker 1: Now you could both shoot and project on digital technology 466 00:26:43,640 --> 00:26:47,200 Speaker 1: without using film at all. I typically think of Star 467 00:26:47,280 --> 00:26:52,040 Speaker 1: Wars Episode one, The Phantomnace, as the beginning of that era. 468 00:26:52,440 --> 00:26:55,600 Speaker 1: There had been other films that had used digital cameras, 469 00:26:55,840 --> 00:26:58,800 Speaker 1: but it was George Lucas who was able to convince 470 00:26:59,119 --> 00:27:01,800 Speaker 1: a small hand full of theaters, only a few of them, 471 00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:06,080 Speaker 1: to install digital projectors in order to show his movie. 472 00:27:06,320 --> 00:27:08,080 Speaker 1: But this is the start of a trend, and it 473 00:27:08,160 --> 00:27:10,880 Speaker 1: was also the start of me not liking Star Wars anymore. 474 00:27:10,920 --> 00:27:13,160 Speaker 1: But then I'm an old gen X dofist, so don't 475 00:27:13,200 --> 00:27:15,120 Speaker 1: listen to me go on about that. If you love 476 00:27:15,119 --> 00:27:19,800 Speaker 1: Star Wars, by golly, keep loving Star Wars. Digital cinema, however, 477 00:27:20,280 --> 00:27:24,280 Speaker 1: has its own limits that are technologically dictated. So for example, 478 00:27:24,760 --> 00:27:28,479 Speaker 1: the bitrate for a digital camera matters a lot. So 479 00:27:28,560 --> 00:27:32,800 Speaker 1: what is bitrate? Basically, bitrate is how much data a 480 00:27:32,920 --> 00:27:36,800 Speaker 1: digital system can handle per second. So recording at a 481 00:27:36,880 --> 00:27:41,960 Speaker 1: higher bitrate means you're capturing more information per second of operation, 482 00:27:42,280 --> 00:27:45,240 Speaker 1: but it also means you're creating more data per second. 483 00:27:45,440 --> 00:27:48,480 Speaker 1: So you need adequate digital storage to hold onto all 484 00:27:48,520 --> 00:27:50,919 Speaker 1: that information, and you have to have the bandwidth to 485 00:27:50,960 --> 00:27:54,800 Speaker 1: be able to move that much information from capture to 486 00:27:54,880 --> 00:27:58,040 Speaker 1: storage at that timeframe. So there are still parameters that 487 00:27:58,080 --> 00:28:01,040 Speaker 1: filmmakers have to work within, but they would no longer 488 00:28:01,080 --> 00:28:04,240 Speaker 1: be confined to physical film stock if they just wanted 489 00:28:04,280 --> 00:28:07,600 Speaker 1: to switch to a purely digital approach. And some filmmakers 490 00:28:07,640 --> 00:28:11,280 Speaker 1: really embrace this wholeheartedly, and some preferred to stick with 491 00:28:11,320 --> 00:28:15,480 Speaker 1: film Tarantino. As I mentioned, still is with film. Also 492 00:28:15,600 --> 00:28:18,360 Speaker 1: just side note, On top of the aesthetic of film, 493 00:28:18,400 --> 00:28:22,160 Speaker 1: which I tend to prefer, I feel like film also 494 00:28:22,960 --> 00:28:27,239 Speaker 1: impacts the actual process of filmmaking in ways that go 495 00:28:27,359 --> 00:28:31,959 Speaker 1: beyond aesthetic. Like the physical limitations of film. It's cost, 496 00:28:32,200 --> 00:28:35,199 Speaker 1: you know, it's scarcity that means that directors have to 497 00:28:35,200 --> 00:28:38,000 Speaker 1: take a very particular approach to their work. They can't 498 00:28:38,040 --> 00:28:41,000 Speaker 1: just hit a button and delete the last eighteen takes 499 00:28:41,040 --> 00:28:45,360 Speaker 1: that they didn't like, right, They're actually committing stuff to film. 500 00:28:45,760 --> 00:28:48,959 Speaker 1: So it might mean that directors have to be satisfied 501 00:28:49,000 --> 00:28:52,080 Speaker 1: with a take that isn't totally what they envisioned, unless 502 00:28:52,080 --> 00:28:54,320 Speaker 1: they're Stanley Kubrick, in which case they'll just burn through 503 00:28:54,360 --> 00:28:57,280 Speaker 1: as much film as they absolutely need to. But these 504 00:28:57,360 --> 00:29:01,640 Speaker 1: kinds of limits can all contribute to that movie magic feeling. 505 00:29:01,840 --> 00:29:04,280 Speaker 1: Assuming that you got yourself a real kick ass editor, 506 00:29:04,320 --> 00:29:06,000 Speaker 1: at least you need to have one of those if 507 00:29:06,000 --> 00:29:10,800 Speaker 1: you're going to be like taking some consolidations as far 508 00:29:10,880 --> 00:29:15,120 Speaker 1: as how good the take was. But to me, like 509 00:29:15,440 --> 00:29:18,600 Speaker 1: that's all part of what makes movies special. Okay, we're 510 00:29:18,600 --> 00:29:21,160 Speaker 1: gonna get right back on frame rates. Before we do that, 511 00:29:21,280 --> 00:29:33,720 Speaker 1: let's take another quick break to thank our sponsors. Okay, 512 00:29:34,200 --> 00:29:38,480 Speaker 1: there's a whole discussion we could have about frame rates 513 00:29:38,600 --> 00:29:41,440 Speaker 1: for television, which is different. It's not really frame rates, 514 00:29:41,240 --> 00:29:45,840 Speaker 1: it's video rates. But you know, TV is just not 515 00:29:45,920 --> 00:29:48,280 Speaker 1: the same thing as film. It's a complicated topic all 516 00:29:48,320 --> 00:29:51,720 Speaker 1: by itself and deserves its own episode. It is worth 517 00:29:51,760 --> 00:29:54,360 Speaker 1: mentioning that TV and film have long had different recording 518 00:29:54,400 --> 00:29:57,360 Speaker 1: and playback speeds for images. In the case of television, 519 00:29:57,360 --> 00:30:00,320 Speaker 1: we're actually talking about video fields rather than in a 520 00:30:00,440 --> 00:30:04,160 Speaker 1: single photographic skills. And obviously the transition from film to 521 00:30:04,280 --> 00:30:07,240 Speaker 1: digital cinema would mean we're treading a little closer to 522 00:30:07,320 --> 00:30:10,560 Speaker 1: television technology than the old film stuff if we're staying 523 00:30:10,640 --> 00:30:14,760 Speaker 1: purely digital. But even with the move to digital, most 524 00:30:14,760 --> 00:30:18,280 Speaker 1: filmmakers stuck with twenty four frames per second. A few 525 00:30:18,760 --> 00:30:21,920 Speaker 1: did not. Peter Jackson, Ang Lee and James Cameron are 526 00:30:21,960 --> 00:30:25,600 Speaker 1: three notable directors who decided to work in higher frame rates. 527 00:30:25,640 --> 00:30:29,600 Speaker 1: So let's start with Peter or mister Jackson if you're nasty, 528 00:30:29,800 --> 00:30:33,760 Speaker 1: So Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, an unexpected Journey, would become 529 00:30:33,840 --> 00:30:38,440 Speaker 1: the first widely distributed major motion picture shot at and 530 00:30:38,480 --> 00:30:43,320 Speaker 1: then projected at forty eight frames per second. Now, most 531 00:30:43,880 --> 00:30:47,320 Speaker 1: cinemas projected the film at the standard twenty four frames 532 00:30:47,320 --> 00:30:50,840 Speaker 1: per second. This was obviously after editors had converted the 533 00:30:50,880 --> 00:30:53,400 Speaker 1: film from forty eight to twenty four frames per second. 534 00:30:53,400 --> 00:30:55,960 Speaker 1: Otherwise it would have played at half speed and would 535 00:30:55,960 --> 00:30:58,800 Speaker 1: have taken even longer. And I'm getting hives just thinking 536 00:30:58,840 --> 00:31:02,520 Speaker 1: about sitting through that film and it being twice as long. Anyway, 537 00:31:02,560 --> 00:31:04,880 Speaker 1: as I mentioned early on, I saw one of the 538 00:31:05,040 --> 00:31:09,040 Speaker 1: high frame rate screenings of this film. The thinking was 539 00:31:09,080 --> 00:31:11,640 Speaker 1: that the high frame rate would remove motion blur and 540 00:31:11,680 --> 00:31:15,680 Speaker 1: increase clarity, and that could potentially be critical for a 541 00:31:15,720 --> 00:31:19,480 Speaker 1: really immersive three D screening of the movie. That it 542 00:31:19,520 --> 00:31:21,960 Speaker 1: would have its effect on two D screenings, but it 543 00:31:21,960 --> 00:31:24,280 Speaker 1: would really be important for three D. You know, we 544 00:31:24,360 --> 00:31:27,120 Speaker 1: are accustomed to some motion blur on a flat screen, 545 00:31:27,200 --> 00:31:30,360 Speaker 1: but three dimensional images are different kettle of fish, really, 546 00:31:30,680 --> 00:31:32,800 Speaker 1: And while there are plenty of three D films that 547 00:31:32,840 --> 00:31:35,440 Speaker 1: were shot at twenty four frames per second, Jackson's goal 548 00:31:35,520 --> 00:31:39,240 Speaker 1: was to create something that was much more convincing, right, 549 00:31:39,480 --> 00:31:42,200 Speaker 1: And it was meant to be as if you were there, 550 00:31:42,240 --> 00:31:45,480 Speaker 1: and it did feel like I was there, not there 551 00:31:45,520 --> 00:31:48,280 Speaker 1: in Middle Earth, mind you. It made me feel like 552 00:31:48,320 --> 00:31:51,400 Speaker 1: I was on the set of the film because to me, 553 00:31:51,560 --> 00:31:55,080 Speaker 1: the clarity and the lack of blur made everything look artificial, 554 00:31:55,600 --> 00:31:58,160 Speaker 1: like the image was super clear and crisp, but it 555 00:31:58,200 --> 00:32:01,920 Speaker 1: meant that the clothing that acts were wearing look like costumes, 556 00:32:01,920 --> 00:32:04,840 Speaker 1: it didn't look like clothing, and that the sets looked 557 00:32:04,880 --> 00:32:07,560 Speaker 1: like sets, they didn't look like real buildings. It was 558 00:32:07,640 --> 00:32:09,720 Speaker 1: kind of like going to a play where all the 559 00:32:09,760 --> 00:32:13,800 Speaker 1: sets are purposefully made to emphasize their artificiality, and I 560 00:32:13,880 --> 00:32:16,880 Speaker 1: hated it. Now a lot of people describe the effect 561 00:32:16,960 --> 00:32:20,480 Speaker 1: of watching high frame rate footage as the Mexican soap 562 00:32:20,560 --> 00:32:24,080 Speaker 1: opera effect, meaning the stuff you see looks more like 563 00:32:24,200 --> 00:32:26,280 Speaker 1: the kind of images you would get with soap operas 564 00:32:26,360 --> 00:32:30,720 Speaker 1: or broadcast news or sports. There's nothing inherently wrong with 565 00:32:30,840 --> 00:32:33,880 Speaker 1: this look. It serves a purpose if you're watching a 566 00:32:33,920 --> 00:32:36,720 Speaker 1: sporting event, for example, that kind of clarity and lack 567 00:32:36,760 --> 00:32:40,640 Speaker 1: of motion blur it's incredible. But for a world that 568 00:32:40,800 --> 00:32:43,400 Speaker 1: was conditioned to see twenty four frames per second and 569 00:32:43,440 --> 00:32:47,000 Speaker 1: then associate that with the idea of cinema, it could 570 00:32:47,000 --> 00:32:49,760 Speaker 1: be jarring to some folks. When you crank things into 571 00:32:49,800 --> 00:32:52,520 Speaker 1: a higher gear or frame rate as it were not 572 00:32:53,120 --> 00:32:57,040 Speaker 1: bad necessarily, but jarring. So while I hated the look 573 00:32:57,080 --> 00:32:59,880 Speaker 1: of the Hobbit, that's really just my own reaction. Other 574 00:33:00,040 --> 00:33:02,720 Speaker 1: people might have found it really engaging and immersive, and 575 00:33:02,760 --> 00:33:06,040 Speaker 1: that's cool. Nothing I think can save the film from 576 00:33:06,120 --> 00:33:09,200 Speaker 1: its screenplay, but that's a different matter. But seriously, though, 577 00:33:09,280 --> 00:33:12,840 Speaker 1: was there anything guiding the decision to expand a simple 578 00:33:13,040 --> 00:33:17,880 Speaker 1: children's story into three epic films other than a desire 579 00:33:17,920 --> 00:33:19,880 Speaker 1: to cash in on the popularity of the Lord of 580 00:33:19,880 --> 00:33:23,920 Speaker 1: the Rings movies? But I digress. So Peter Jackson sets 581 00:33:24,000 --> 00:33:28,280 Speaker 1: the tone. Ang Lee then pushes things even further first 582 00:33:28,280 --> 00:33:33,120 Speaker 1: with his film titled Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk. Lee 583 00:33:33,200 --> 00:33:37,200 Speaker 1: shot this movie in three D and at a screamingly 584 00:33:37,320 --> 00:33:40,280 Speaker 1: fast one hundred and twenty frames per second. So the 585 00:33:40,320 --> 00:33:42,800 Speaker 1: film tells the story of a young soldier whose unit 586 00:33:42,880 --> 00:33:44,920 Speaker 1: is about to be honored at a football game. But 587 00:33:45,440 --> 00:33:48,040 Speaker 1: Lee's decision to shoot at one hundred and twenty frames 588 00:33:48,080 --> 00:33:51,240 Speaker 1: per second was a huge one. It was unprecedented at 589 00:33:51,240 --> 00:33:53,640 Speaker 1: that time for a major motion picture. I mean, sure, 590 00:33:53,760 --> 00:33:57,600 Speaker 1: you had people who are experimenting, but they weren't doing 591 00:33:57,640 --> 00:34:01,280 Speaker 1: a feature length film. Only five movie theaters in the 592 00:34:01,320 --> 00:34:04,440 Speaker 1: world had projectors that were capable of showing the film 593 00:34:04,480 --> 00:34:06,920 Speaker 1: at its native one hundred and twenty frames per second. 594 00:34:07,080 --> 00:34:09,080 Speaker 1: All other theaters had to use a version that had 595 00:34:09,080 --> 00:34:12,960 Speaker 1: been converted down to a lower frame rate, like The Hobbit. 596 00:34:13,080 --> 00:34:16,200 Speaker 1: Some critics said this high frame rate ultimately caused more 597 00:34:16,200 --> 00:34:19,080 Speaker 1: of a distraction than anything else, that it was very 598 00:34:19,120 --> 00:34:22,640 Speaker 1: hard not to compare Lee's work, which was undeniably crisp 599 00:34:22,680 --> 00:34:25,279 Speaker 1: and free of motion blur, as having that kind of 600 00:34:26,000 --> 00:34:30,239 Speaker 1: video effect. Lee would employ a high frame rate on 601 00:34:30,280 --> 00:34:33,439 Speaker 1: his film Gemini Man as well. While Billy Lynn's long 602 00:34:33,480 --> 00:34:37,160 Speaker 1: halftime walk got kind of a lukewarm reception, Jimini Man 603 00:34:37,239 --> 00:34:40,600 Speaker 1: was largely panned, but that was really more for story 604 00:34:40,640 --> 00:34:44,760 Speaker 1: problems than necessarily the technical decisions. Perhaps for those reasons, 605 00:34:44,840 --> 00:34:47,840 Speaker 1: Lee has since backed away from high frame rates. He 606 00:34:47,920 --> 00:34:50,600 Speaker 1: has said that he learned the hard way that audiences 607 00:34:50,719 --> 00:34:54,760 Speaker 1: just aren't ready for that yet. James Cameron has employed 608 00:34:54,840 --> 00:34:58,160 Speaker 1: high frame rate technology in Avatar The Way of Water, 609 00:34:58,640 --> 00:35:01,839 Speaker 1: the second of that Avatar films. This movie actually has 610 00:35:01,880 --> 00:35:05,280 Speaker 1: a variable frame rate, so some scenes are in standard 611 00:35:05,400 --> 00:35:09,040 Speaker 1: twenty four frames per second and occasionally it bumps up 612 00:35:09,040 --> 00:35:12,440 Speaker 1: to forty eight frames per second and Cameron explained his 613 00:35:12,560 --> 00:35:16,360 Speaker 1: decision in an interview at the Busan International Film Festival. 614 00:35:16,400 --> 00:35:19,719 Speaker 1: He said, quote, we're using it to improve the three 615 00:35:19,800 --> 00:35:23,120 Speaker 1: D where we want a heightened sense of presence, such 616 00:35:23,200 --> 00:35:26,480 Speaker 1: as underwater or in some of the flying scenes, for 617 00:35:26,560 --> 00:35:30,000 Speaker 1: shots of just people standing around talking. It works against 618 00:35:30,080 --> 00:35:33,320 Speaker 1: us because it creates a kind of hyperrealism and scenes 619 00:35:33,360 --> 00:35:37,080 Speaker 1: that are more mundane, more normal, and sometimes we need 620 00:35:37,120 --> 00:35:41,320 Speaker 1: that cinematic feeling of twenty four frames per second end quote. 621 00:35:41,600 --> 00:35:45,120 Speaker 1: So how did projectors compensate for this where you've got 622 00:35:45,120 --> 00:35:47,680 Speaker 1: a film where sometimes it's in twenty four phrames per 623 00:35:47,680 --> 00:35:50,479 Speaker 1: second and sometimes it's in forty eight frames per second. Well, 624 00:35:50,480 --> 00:35:53,440 Speaker 1: they didn't have to. This is because James Cameron created 625 00:35:53,480 --> 00:35:56,279 Speaker 1: an edit that is forty eight frames per second all 626 00:35:56,320 --> 00:35:59,120 Speaker 1: the way through the film, but the twenty four phrase 627 00:35:59,120 --> 00:36:02,920 Speaker 1: per second seconds of the movie had their frames doubled, 628 00:36:03,120 --> 00:36:05,400 Speaker 1: so in those sections you would see frame one of 629 00:36:05,440 --> 00:36:08,239 Speaker 1: a scene twice, then frame two twice, and so on. 630 00:36:08,440 --> 00:36:10,759 Speaker 1: For the forty eight phrames per second segments, it would 631 00:36:10,800 --> 00:36:12,919 Speaker 1: just be the single frame one, two, three, four, five, six. 632 00:36:12,960 --> 00:36:15,080 Speaker 1: You know, And was it effective? Well, I guess that 633 00:36:15,200 --> 00:36:17,680 Speaker 1: depends upon whom you ask. A lot of critics called 634 00:36:18,000 --> 00:36:21,600 Speaker 1: this film absolutely stunning, at least from a visual aspect, 635 00:36:21,719 --> 00:36:24,840 Speaker 1: like the technology was truly incredible and some of the 636 00:36:24,840 --> 00:36:29,880 Speaker 1: most amazing visuals ever accomplished on film. So the technical 637 00:36:29,920 --> 00:36:33,000 Speaker 1: aspects get a lot of praise, the story gets less. 638 00:36:33,040 --> 00:36:35,279 Speaker 1: So a lot of people say the story, like the 639 00:36:35,280 --> 00:36:38,600 Speaker 1: first Avatar film, is nothing to write home about. That 640 00:36:38,680 --> 00:36:43,360 Speaker 1: being said, I have not seen these movies yet, I 641 00:36:43,400 --> 00:36:46,480 Speaker 1: don't know if I ever will, so I don't have 642 00:36:46,520 --> 00:36:50,320 Speaker 1: a personal opinion on this one. I just never felt 643 00:36:50,640 --> 00:36:53,640 Speaker 1: the call to see Avatar, so I don't have a 644 00:36:53,800 --> 00:36:57,200 Speaker 1: personal opinion on that. I did stumble on a message 645 00:36:57,200 --> 00:37:00,279 Speaker 1: board and a thread in which gamers were talking about 646 00:37:00,280 --> 00:37:03,520 Speaker 1: the disconcerting effect of seeing a film switch between forty 647 00:37:03,520 --> 00:37:06,520 Speaker 1: eight frames per second to twenty four, But a lot 648 00:37:06,560 --> 00:37:09,360 Speaker 1: of folks on that thread also said I didn't notice anything, 649 00:37:09,480 --> 00:37:11,319 Speaker 1: and others were like, oh no, it was totally It 650 00:37:11,360 --> 00:37:14,200 Speaker 1: felt like the film was lagging once it went from 651 00:37:14,239 --> 00:37:17,040 Speaker 1: forty eight to twenty four frame rates and video games, 652 00:37:17,080 --> 00:37:19,239 Speaker 1: that's a huge deal. I'm not going to dive into 653 00:37:19,239 --> 00:37:23,160 Speaker 1: that beehive right now, because again, that's pretty a bunch 654 00:37:23,200 --> 00:37:25,880 Speaker 1: of topic that deserves its own episode, But it seems 655 00:37:25,920 --> 00:37:29,399 Speaker 1: to me that the frame rate issue is an ongoing one. 656 00:37:29,800 --> 00:37:33,440 Speaker 1: Some filmmakers are likely to continue pushing for the adoption 657 00:37:33,480 --> 00:37:36,560 Speaker 1: of higher frame rates for various reasons. And now that 658 00:37:36,640 --> 00:37:40,280 Speaker 1: you're not worried about eating up your project's entire budget 659 00:37:40,520 --> 00:37:43,440 Speaker 1: or supply of film just shooting a single scene at 660 00:37:43,440 --> 00:37:46,440 Speaker 1: a high frame rate, options are wide open. With more 661 00:37:46,480 --> 00:37:49,399 Speaker 1: theaters outfitted with projectors that can show films at higher 662 00:37:49,440 --> 00:37:52,640 Speaker 1: frame rates, that are new opportunities for directors to achieve 663 00:37:52,920 --> 00:37:57,360 Speaker 1: their vision. So will audiences respond to that? I guess 664 00:37:57,360 --> 00:38:01,279 Speaker 1: it seems it depends upon the execute, and I think 665 00:38:01,320 --> 00:38:04,319 Speaker 1: for some of us old folks, we might not ever 666 00:38:04,440 --> 00:38:07,280 Speaker 1: warm up to the high frame rate experience. This doesn't 667 00:38:07,360 --> 00:38:10,400 Speaker 1: mean that high frame rate is bad, it's just different. 668 00:38:11,200 --> 00:38:14,080 Speaker 1: It's also bad. I'm sorry it is bad. I'm old, 669 00:38:14,160 --> 00:38:16,680 Speaker 1: and I'm grouchy, and I do not like the look 670 00:38:16,719 --> 00:38:19,799 Speaker 1: of forty eight frames per second. Now, if you'll excuse me, 671 00:38:20,680 --> 00:38:23,040 Speaker 1: need to go outside and yell at a passing cloud. 672 00:38:23,640 --> 00:38:26,240 Speaker 1: By the way, if you are fascinated with frame rates 673 00:38:26,239 --> 00:38:29,880 Speaker 1: and particularly the mechanical elements of shooting on film, I 674 00:38:29,920 --> 00:38:32,120 Speaker 1: have a couple of videos I really highly recommend you 675 00:38:32,200 --> 00:38:34,800 Speaker 1: check out because I think they are so well done. 676 00:38:35,040 --> 00:38:37,200 Speaker 1: The first is the one I mentioned already, the engineering 677 00:38:37,200 --> 00:38:42,200 Speaker 1: guy who created the video how a film Projector Works. 678 00:38:42,800 --> 00:38:46,000 Speaker 1: And then the second video is by the slow Mo guys, 679 00:38:46,280 --> 00:38:49,240 Speaker 1: and that video is titled how a movie film camera 680 00:38:49,400 --> 00:38:53,040 Speaker 1: works in slow Motion. Both of those videos are really 681 00:38:53,040 --> 00:38:57,040 Speaker 1: good at showing how film projectors and film cameras work 682 00:38:57,080 --> 00:39:00,760 Speaker 1: from a mechanical perspective, and it is just mind blowing 683 00:39:00,800 --> 00:39:03,799 Speaker 1: to me how remarkable this technology is and how elegantly 684 00:39:03,920 --> 00:39:07,960 Speaker 1: it all works together. In both of those videos, the 685 00:39:08,080 --> 00:39:11,799 Speaker 1: technology being used is for sixteen millimeter film, so the 686 00:39:11,840 --> 00:39:14,400 Speaker 1: projector and the camera in each of those it's a 687 00:39:14,520 --> 00:39:20,239 Speaker 1: sixteen millimeter, but the actual mechanical process is pretty much 688 00:39:20,280 --> 00:39:22,879 Speaker 1: the same no matter what kind of film is being used. 689 00:39:22,920 --> 00:39:25,600 Speaker 1: It's just obviously the cameras and projectors have to be 690 00:39:25,760 --> 00:39:28,800 Speaker 1: larger if they're handing like thirty five millimeter or seventy 691 00:39:28,840 --> 00:39:32,279 Speaker 1: millimeter prints. But yep, that's it for this episode. I 692 00:39:32,320 --> 00:39:36,880 Speaker 1: hope you found it entertaining and informative and maybe you know, 693 00:39:37,040 --> 00:39:40,400 Speaker 1: maybe you really like high frame rate films, which again, 694 00:39:40,480 --> 00:39:43,520 Speaker 1: nothing wrong with that. I joked about it being bad, 695 00:39:43,640 --> 00:39:47,000 Speaker 1: but that is a joke. It's just very unappealing to 696 00:39:47,080 --> 00:39:50,200 Speaker 1: me on an aesthetic level. But that's just my own opinion, 697 00:39:50,320 --> 00:39:53,040 Speaker 1: and my opinion only matters to me. So if you 698 00:39:53,160 --> 00:39:56,319 Speaker 1: love it, love the heck out of it, y'all. If 699 00:39:56,320 --> 00:39:59,200 Speaker 1: you hate it like I do, cool, we'll go see 700 00:39:59,200 --> 00:40:02,520 Speaker 1: a twenty four frame second movie and we'll just enjoy 701 00:40:02,560 --> 00:40:05,560 Speaker 1: ourselves that way. Unless it's Adam Sandler. There's just no 702 00:40:05,680 --> 00:40:09,080 Speaker 1: saving that for me. All right. I hope all you 703 00:40:09,200 --> 00:40:12,279 Speaker 1: out there are doing well, and I'll talk to you 704 00:40:12,360 --> 00:40:22,960 Speaker 1: again really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For 705 00:40:23,080 --> 00:40:27,920 Speaker 1: more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, 706 00:40:28,040 --> 00:40:33,879 Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.