WEBVTT - High Frame Rates and the Soap Opera Effect 0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:12.360 Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, 0:00:12.440 --> 0:00:16.160 and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. 0:00:16.160 --> 0:00:20.119 I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the 0:00:20.200 --> 0:00:23.320 tech are you? So? Today I wanted to talk about 0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:26.960 cinematic frame rates because I think it's a fascinating subject 0:00:26.960 --> 0:00:32.519 that combines technology, psychology, physiology, and, as Doc Terminus would say, 0:00:32.560 --> 0:00:35.120 any other ology you can think of. Also, a big 0:00:35.680 --> 0:00:37.720 shout out to y'all out there. If any of y'all 0:00:37.720 --> 0:00:41.159 know who Doc Terminus is, I might be narrow casting. 0:00:41.720 --> 0:00:46.240 The standard cinematic frame rate is twenty four frames per second, 0:00:46.360 --> 0:00:48.880 and we'll get to the reasons why in just a moment. 0:00:48.960 --> 0:00:53.320 But this means that traditionally, filmmakers would capture twenty four 0:00:53.479 --> 0:00:58.440 images twenty four still photographs on film per second, and 0:00:58.480 --> 0:01:02.080 then play those pictures back at that same speed. This 0:01:02.280 --> 0:01:06.560 is what creates the illusion of movement. As Quentin Tarantino 0:01:06.600 --> 0:01:09.840 has pointed out in various interviews, film really has no 0:01:09.959 --> 0:01:13.000 movement in it at all, because it really is just 0:01:13.040 --> 0:01:16.000 a series of still photographs, and when they are projected 0:01:16.080 --> 0:01:19.600 onto screens at a speed of twenty four images per second, 0:01:19.920 --> 0:01:22.920 we get the illusion that things are actually moving around 0:01:22.959 --> 0:01:26.120 in front of us. And to Tarantino, at least, this 0:01:26.240 --> 0:01:30.080 element of film is intrinsic in the experience, you know, 0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:34.120 the magic of movies. I'm somewhat inclined to agree with them. 0:01:34.200 --> 0:01:38.560 Not that I haven't enjoyed digital films projected digitally, I have, 0:01:39.160 --> 0:01:44.279 But there is something special about film, I would argue, 0:01:44.640 --> 0:01:47.720 And part of the magic that Tarantino is talking about 0:01:47.880 --> 0:01:51.320 is inside of us. This isn't some sort of Disney 0:01:51.440 --> 0:01:54.000 version in which the magic was inside you all along. 0:01:54.120 --> 0:01:57.440 I mean that for films to work, they have to 0:01:57.600 --> 0:02:01.680 because of the way our brains work. Vision is a 0:02:01.720 --> 0:02:04.600 really complicated topic, and most of what we would have 0:02:04.680 --> 0:02:08.040 to focus on really is happening inside of our brains, 0:02:08.080 --> 0:02:12.040 not our eyeballs. So, for example, let's take this idea 0:02:12.160 --> 0:02:16.000 of the persistence of vision. So say that you get 0:02:16.000 --> 0:02:20.360 yourself a cardboard tube, and you cover one end of 0:02:20.360 --> 0:02:23.359 the tube, you know, with cardboard paper or something like that, 0:02:23.720 --> 0:02:26.600 and you cut a slit in the end so that 0:02:26.760 --> 0:02:28.360 you know, if you hold the tube up to your eye, 0:02:28.480 --> 0:02:30.880 you get a very narrow view of whatever's in front 0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:32.440 of you. Well, if you were to do that and 0:02:32.480 --> 0:02:35.280 then to turn your head quickly so that you're getting 0:02:35.320 --> 0:02:38.560 a really quick pan of your surroundings. Your brain would 0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:41.920 actually take little slices of information and stitch them together 0:02:42.440 --> 0:02:45.520 in a bigger picture in your brain. So that's kind 0:02:45.560 --> 0:02:47.919 of like how some digital cameras will let you take 0:02:47.919 --> 0:02:51.600 a panoramic shot right by taking a series of photographs 0:02:51.639 --> 0:02:53.919 where you just line up the edges and you keep 0:02:53.960 --> 0:02:56.320 taking them and it stitches it together in a big 0:02:56.360 --> 0:02:59.919 panoramic image. But obviously for us, you have to do 0:03:00.080 --> 0:03:02.760 it much much faster, and it's just using your brain. 0:03:03.040 --> 0:03:04.840 So your brain can hold on to an image for 0:03:04.919 --> 0:03:08.440 around one thirtieth of a second, and that's not a 0:03:08.440 --> 0:03:12.560 hard and fast rule, but that's a general typical experience. 0:03:12.800 --> 0:03:14.680 So that's why you need to turn your head quickly 0:03:14.760 --> 0:03:17.680 to get this effect. If you were moving much more slowly, 0:03:17.960 --> 0:03:20.920 then your brain isn't retaining the earlier information to let 0:03:21.000 --> 0:03:25.359 you stitch together that bigger picture. This is possibly why 0:03:25.400 --> 0:03:28.919 we also get that illusion of motion on screen when 0:03:28.919 --> 0:03:31.480 the projector shows us one image. Our brain holds on 0:03:31.520 --> 0:03:33.959 to that information as the next picture is coming up, 0:03:34.200 --> 0:03:37.200 and it's our noggins that piece this all together to 0:03:37.240 --> 0:03:39.560 create the illusion of movement seems like all of us 0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:43.720 should also get an Academy award too, because without our brains, 0:03:43.800 --> 0:03:47.480 films just wouldn't work, even for Adam Sandler movies. That 0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:51.120 was a dig. Now, I should say that the persistence 0:03:51.120 --> 0:03:54.120 of vision theory isn't necessarily the whole story. In fact, 0:03:54.320 --> 0:03:57.480 there are those who criticize this theory, and they have 0:03:57.600 --> 0:04:01.240 some very thoughtful objections. This isn't just people arguing for 0:04:01.400 --> 0:04:04.720 arguing's sake. For example, they say the theory appears to 0:04:04.800 --> 0:04:09.320 describe an effect that should manifest as our brains perceiving 0:04:09.520 --> 0:04:12.320 just a series of still images, but not an actual 0:04:12.400 --> 0:04:16.000 illusion of motion, and that it would be akin to 0:04:16.200 --> 0:04:19.360 flipping through a sequence of photos at a slower rate, 0:04:19.480 --> 0:04:23.480 like if you were just taking a stack of photographs 0:04:23.480 --> 0:04:25.680 and you look at the top line and you then 0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:27.480 put it aside and you look at the next one, 0:04:27.480 --> 0:04:29.560 and that you know, that wouldn't be fast enough for 0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:33.320 us to create an illusion of motion. And the argument 0:04:33.360 --> 0:04:37.080 here is saying that persistence of vision only would describe 0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:41.000 us seeing a sequence of pictures, but not the feeling 0:04:41.040 --> 0:04:45.600 of something actually moving. So there is some debate about 0:04:45.880 --> 0:04:50.720 the physiology behind this illusion of motion. I should also 0:04:50.800 --> 0:04:53.680 mention flicker. Flicker is an important part of this too. 0:04:54.080 --> 0:04:57.120 And if you were to project a sequence of photographs 0:04:57.279 --> 0:05:01.040 and you weren't masking the transition of one image to 0:05:01.080 --> 0:05:03.560 the next, you would get a lot of blur on 0:05:03.600 --> 0:05:05.880 your screen, to the point where you might not even 0:05:05.920 --> 0:05:08.039 be able to tell what you're looking at. So to 0:05:08.200 --> 0:05:14.520 counter this, inventors created shutters for projectors, and the shutters 0:05:14.560 --> 0:05:16.680 they would use would be in the form of a wheel. 0:05:16.839 --> 0:05:19.880 So imagine a disc, right, but one side of the 0:05:19.960 --> 0:05:22.839 disk extends further outward than the other side. It's like 0:05:22.880 --> 0:05:25.919 it has a blade on it, so that half the 0:05:26.000 --> 0:05:30.000 disc extends out significantly. The other half of the disc 0:05:30.240 --> 0:05:33.520 ends earlier. And when you spin this and you have 0:05:33.640 --> 0:05:39.680 it positioned between the projector lamp and the film, then 0:05:39.960 --> 0:05:43.200 the blade part blocks the light from the lamp, and 0:05:43.240 --> 0:05:46.159 it does so just at the moment that the projector 0:05:46.320 --> 0:05:50.320 advances to the next image on the film. And so 0:05:50.920 --> 0:05:56.559 this very careful choreography happens where the light goes through 0:05:56.800 --> 0:06:00.880 and illuminates a full image on the film and then 0:06:01.040 --> 0:06:04.200 is shut off by this shutter. It's blocked by the 0:06:04.240 --> 0:06:08.599 shutter while the projector pulls the film downward so that 0:06:08.960 --> 0:06:11.640 the next image is in place to be shown to 0:06:11.720 --> 0:06:16.240 the people watching the movie. And this is happening incredibly fast. 0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:18.839 Like I said, standard would be twenty four frames per second, 0:06:19.000 --> 0:06:23.120 So with a single bladed shutter, that shutter is turning 0:06:23.240 --> 0:06:27.640 twenty four times a second. Now, the issue here is 0:06:27.680 --> 0:06:33.719 that blocking the lamplight introduces flicker. That's why some people 0:06:33.800 --> 0:06:37.640 refer to films as flicks. It's from the flicker that 0:06:37.640 --> 0:06:41.600 would be created by the use of a shutter, especially 0:06:41.600 --> 0:06:44.880 if you were watching like films that were on lower 0:06:44.920 --> 0:06:48.960 frame rates and the shutters not moving as fast because 0:06:48.960 --> 0:06:53.400 it doesn't have to turn as quickly to cover the transitions, 0:06:53.520 --> 0:06:56.039 you get a lot more noticeable flicker. You needed to 0:06:56.040 --> 0:06:58.279 get up to around at least sixteen frames per second 0:06:58.279 --> 0:07:01.760 to reduce it to a point where it wasn't just now. Interestingly, 0:07:02.400 --> 0:07:05.920 modern projectors have shutters that have multiple blades on them 0:07:06.000 --> 0:07:08.880 so that when they do one full rotation, it actually 0:07:08.920 --> 0:07:13.800 blocks the light more than once two or three times. Typically. Why, well, 0:07:13.840 --> 0:07:17.240 this helps you get around to sixty or seventy flicks 0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:21.120 per second where you hit the flicker fusion threshold. And 0:07:21.160 --> 0:07:23.520 I'm not making this up. This is a point where 0:07:23.520 --> 0:07:26.680 our brains just perceive a persistent brightness from the projector. 0:07:26.760 --> 0:07:29.280 We don't actually see the flicker anymore. It's too fast 0:07:29.320 --> 0:07:32.920 for us to notice it's still there, but we can't 0:07:32.960 --> 0:07:35.760 see it. We can't perceive it ourselves. I guess we 0:07:35.840 --> 0:07:39.120 see it, we just don't perceive it. It's an interesting distinction. 0:07:39.440 --> 0:07:42.640 To learn more about this, I really recommend the engineer 0:07:42.840 --> 0:07:46.800 Guy's video How a film Projector Works. It's an absolutely 0:07:46.840 --> 0:07:50.960 phenomenal YouTube video and it will really make you appreciate 0:07:51.000 --> 0:07:53.960 the mechanics inside a projector and how elegant it all 0:07:54.000 --> 0:07:57.760 works together to create this effect that we're used to, 0:07:57.920 --> 0:08:01.760 this cinematic effect. But again, that shutter is important to 0:08:01.880 --> 0:08:07.280 reduce blur, and by creating multi bladed shutters where you're 0:08:07.320 --> 0:08:12.119 seeing the same image illuminated two or three times before 0:08:12.160 --> 0:08:14.880 it moves to the next image in the film, it 0:08:14.960 --> 0:08:19.960 means that that flicker no longer is perceptible. So getting 0:08:19.960 --> 0:08:22.760 back to frame rate, twenty four frames per second is 0:08:22.800 --> 0:08:26.400 the standard, but some filmmakers have experimented with different frame rates. Now, 0:08:26.680 --> 0:08:29.560 if you shoot at a higher frame rate, like say 0:08:29.720 --> 0:08:32.360 forty eight frames per second, but you're still projecting your 0:08:32.400 --> 0:08:35.080 film at the standard twenty four frames per second, and 0:08:35.120 --> 0:08:38.600 you haven't converted the film like it's still at forty 0:08:38.600 --> 0:08:41.160 eight frames per second, well, then you would get slow motion. 0:08:41.920 --> 0:08:44.800 Everything would move half as fast as it did when 0:08:44.840 --> 0:08:47.320 you were shooting it. If you were shooting a sequence 0:08:47.360 --> 0:08:49.720 at one hundred and twenty frames per second but playing 0:08:49.720 --> 0:08:52.880 it back at twenty four, then the action on screen 0:08:52.920 --> 0:08:56.120 will be five times slower than what happened in real 0:08:56.160 --> 0:08:58.440 life while you were filming it. So if the sequence 0:08:58.480 --> 0:09:02.200 took ten seconds for you to film than the film version, 0:09:02.320 --> 0:09:05.120 the projected version of that scene will take fifty seconds, 0:09:05.120 --> 0:09:07.600 and so on. Now you could also do the opposite. 0:09:07.720 --> 0:09:10.080 You could shoot a sequence at one frame rate and 0:09:10.160 --> 0:09:13.400 project it at a higher frame rate, and that will 0:09:13.440 --> 0:09:16.839 make the action that's on screen speed up considerably. It 0:09:16.920 --> 0:09:19.680 might also look really jerky, depending on how low a 0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:22.120 frame rate you used when you were shooting the scene, 0:09:22.280 --> 0:09:26.320 because there's more time that's passing between each sequential shot 0:09:26.800 --> 0:09:29.280 in that sequence. Right, if you shot a sequence at 0:09:29.280 --> 0:09:31.000 twelve frames per second and you played it back at 0:09:31.040 --> 0:09:33.600 twenty four frames per second, everything would move twice as 0:09:33.640 --> 0:09:36.360 fast on screen as it did in real life. Now 0:09:36.400 --> 0:09:38.800 you can also shoot at a higher frame rate and 0:09:39.200 --> 0:09:43.440 project at that same frame rate upon screening, So you 0:09:43.440 --> 0:09:45.520 could shoot a movie at forty eight frames per second 0:09:45.720 --> 0:09:47.720 and then play it back also at forty eight frames 0:09:47.760 --> 0:09:50.480 per second. That's what Peter Jackson did with the Hobbit films, 0:09:50.679 --> 0:09:53.440 at least for some of the film releases. You know, 0:09:53.520 --> 0:09:57.120 there were others where a conversion process had to be 0:09:57.200 --> 0:09:59.679 done so that the forty eight frames were converted down 0:09:59.720 --> 0:10:02.360 to two twenty four frames. Essentially means I mean literally 0:10:02.480 --> 0:10:05.079 ditching half the frames that were shot in order to 0:10:05.120 --> 0:10:08.559 make this work. And that's because a lot of theaters 0:10:08.880 --> 0:10:12.960 didn't have projectors capable of showing a film at forty 0:10:13.000 --> 0:10:15.280 eight frames per second. But for those that did, you 0:10:15.280 --> 0:10:17.440 could get that experience of a film that was shot 0:10:17.480 --> 0:10:19.440 at forty eight frames per second and then projected at 0:10:19.480 --> 0:10:21.880 forty eight frames per second. This meant that you were 0:10:21.880 --> 0:10:25.560 seeing more information per second, like literally twice as much 0:10:25.679 --> 0:10:29.000 information per second as someone who was seeing the twenty 0:10:29.040 --> 0:10:32.880 four frame per second version. And more information being packed 0:10:32.960 --> 0:10:37.079 into every second would result in a few different effects 0:10:37.160 --> 0:10:40.240 like reduced motion blur. Everything would be much more crisp 0:10:40.280 --> 0:10:43.440 and clear and there'd be less blur as things were moving, 0:10:43.520 --> 0:10:46.160 even if things were moving quickly, there was also more 0:10:46.200 --> 0:10:49.880 clarity in the image, and in my opinion, it created 0:10:49.960 --> 0:10:53.480 a worse viewing experience. I saw the first two Hobbit 0:10:53.520 --> 0:10:56.560 films in high frame rate and in three D, and 0:10:56.640 --> 0:10:59.200 my experience was so unpleasant that I never bothered to 0:10:59.200 --> 0:11:01.520 watch the third film at all. Still haven't seen it. 0:11:01.679 --> 0:11:04.280 And keep in mind, the Hobbit was my favorite book 0:11:04.320 --> 0:11:07.520 as a kid, but a combination of factors, including the 0:11:07.600 --> 0:11:11.000 high frame rate, contributed to me forming a negative opinion 0:11:11.120 --> 0:11:14.360 about the films. And was I just being snobby? Was 0:11:14.360 --> 0:11:17.320 I just resisting what Peter Jackson was saying was going 0:11:17.320 --> 0:11:19.160 to be the future of film? Could I just not 0:11:20.000 --> 0:11:23.080 see the improvements or something else going on? Is something 0:11:23.360 --> 0:11:27.600 fundamentally human that impacts perception playing a part in this? 0:11:28.120 --> 0:11:29.920 That's kind of what we're going to talk about today. 0:11:30.400 --> 0:11:33.280 And first, of course, we need to talk about some history. 0:11:33.360 --> 0:11:35.280 And we're not going to walk through the entire history 0:11:35.320 --> 0:11:37.520 and evolution of film, because I've already done that in 0:11:37.679 --> 0:11:41.160 other episodes. And there's an awful lot in fact, just 0:11:41.280 --> 0:11:45.400 the transition from still photography to creating a moving picture 0:11:45.760 --> 0:11:48.400 has so many different steps in it. So we're going 0:11:48.480 --> 0:11:51.280 to skip ahead to the early days of actual cinema, 0:11:51.320 --> 0:11:54.720 when folks like Thomas Edison had invented cameras and projectors 0:11:54.960 --> 0:11:57.240 or really slapped his name on a patent after one 0:11:57.280 --> 0:12:00.000 of his engineers invented it. And in those early days 0:12:00.280 --> 0:12:02.760 you had folks in France who were experimenting with cameras 0:12:02.800 --> 0:12:06.000 and projectors that worked at around sixteen frames per second. 0:12:06.400 --> 0:12:10.199 Edison felt the sweet spot was really forty six frames 0:12:10.240 --> 0:12:13.480 per second, an interesting number that he arrived at. He 0:12:13.600 --> 0:12:15.520 just assumed that at forty six, where I guess he 0:12:15.920 --> 0:12:19.079 determined that forty six was what you needed in order 0:12:19.200 --> 0:12:22.320 to get a point where you didn't have flicker being 0:12:22.320 --> 0:12:27.520 distracting and you had a good smooth representation of action. Now, remember, 0:12:27.840 --> 0:12:30.880 projectors used the shutter to block light from the projector 0:12:30.880 --> 0:12:33.040 in order to transition from one image to the next, 0:12:33.040 --> 0:12:36.000 which meant the shutter was blocking light at least once 0:12:36.040 --> 0:12:38.880 per frame, and at lower frame rates it really is 0:12:38.960 --> 0:12:42.760 noticeable and it becomes distracting. That's why Edison thought a 0:12:42.840 --> 0:12:44.920 rate of forty six frames per second would be fast 0:12:45.000 --> 0:12:47.320 enough for flicker to no longer really be an issue, 0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:49.520 and we wouldn't even notice it. Now. As I mentioned 0:12:49.559 --> 0:12:52.480 earlier there, that's a little bit slower than the sixty 0:12:52.600 --> 0:12:56.240 or seventy flicks per second that typically we would say 0:12:56.240 --> 0:13:00.640 reaches the flicker fusion threshold. But it's much closer to 0:13:00.760 --> 0:13:04.160 the right number than sixteen frames per second. But that's 0:13:04.200 --> 0:13:07.360 interesting because then you get into people saying, well, we 0:13:07.480 --> 0:13:10.560 have a workaround, which is again the multi bladed shutter. 0:13:10.600 --> 0:13:14.000 If you have a shutter with three blades and you're 0:13:14.040 --> 0:13:19.520 projecting your sixteen frame per second film and you're allowing 0:13:19.600 --> 0:13:23.880 one full rotation of the shutter per frame, that means 0:13:23.960 --> 0:13:27.920 each frame of your film is displayed three times in 0:13:27.960 --> 0:13:30.439 a row before it goes to the next one. Remember 0:13:30.480 --> 0:13:33.320 this is not a fraction of a second. But the 0:13:33.440 --> 0:13:36.120 end result of that is you get forty eight frames 0:13:36.120 --> 0:13:39.800 per second of projected film. Yeah, you're only showing sixteen 0:13:39.880 --> 0:13:43.600 separate images every second, but the shutter is multiplying each 0:13:43.679 --> 0:13:46.880 frame three times, and then you get kind of forty 0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:50.280 eight frames per second effect, and you get less flicker, 0:13:50.760 --> 0:13:54.680 not smoother motion, but less flicker. Now, why were people 0:13:54.960 --> 0:13:58.600 kind of gravitating towards sixteen frames per second even though 0:13:58.760 --> 0:14:00.559 Edison was saying, no, no, no, you should be doing 0:14:00.559 --> 0:14:03.920 forty six. It all has to come down to money. 0:14:04.320 --> 0:14:06.800 And speaking of money, we're gonna take a quick break 0:14:06.800 --> 0:14:08.880 to thank our sponsors and then we'll come back and 0:14:08.920 --> 0:14:11.920 I'll tell you more about how money plays a big 0:14:11.960 --> 0:14:24.320 part in the evolution of cinema. Okay, we're back, and 0:14:24.360 --> 0:14:27.000 now it's time to talk about that dalla dalla bill, y'all. 0:14:27.320 --> 0:14:33.040 So film costs money, right, Film stock, the actual raw 0:14:33.160 --> 0:14:37.280 material you use to shoot upon, is a thing you 0:14:37.360 --> 0:14:40.120 have to purchase. And then on top of that, once 0:14:40.160 --> 0:14:43.160 you shoot film, you have to process it before you 0:14:43.160 --> 0:14:46.080 can display it, like you have to develop the film 0:14:46.280 --> 0:14:49.800 and you have to transfer the negative to make a master. 0:14:50.400 --> 0:14:54.760 All this kind of stuff is costly. Right, the more 0:14:54.800 --> 0:14:57.040 film you shoot, the more expensive it's going to be. 0:14:57.280 --> 0:15:00.120 And if you're shooting at a higher frame rate, it 0:15:00.160 --> 0:15:03.360 means you're consuming film faster than you would if you 0:15:03.400 --> 0:15:05.800 were using a lower frame rate. You could think of 0:15:05.840 --> 0:15:09.200 it this way, if you're spending bookoos of cash for 0:15:09.360 --> 0:15:12.160 every foot of film that you have to purchase for 0:15:12.280 --> 0:15:15.200 your movie, and then you're given the option to either 0:15:15.280 --> 0:15:19.600 tell your story with sixteen photographs per second or choosing 0:15:19.720 --> 0:15:23.480 forty six photographs per second, you're likely to go with 0:15:23.520 --> 0:15:26.320 the sixteen. It's going to take up less film for 0:15:26.400 --> 0:15:29.400 you to shoot a second of footage unless you're part 0:15:29.440 --> 0:15:32.000 of the lustrous money bags family, I guess. But yeah, 0:15:32.200 --> 0:15:36.240 film was a limited and costly resource, and for that reason, 0:15:36.320 --> 0:15:39.520 or at least primarily for that reason, a lot of 0:15:39.600 --> 0:15:43.680 early filmmakers gravitated towards sixteen frames per second in those 0:15:43.760 --> 0:15:46.680 early days of filming, and they relied on projectors to 0:15:47.000 --> 0:15:50.840 kind of smooth things out by using multi bladed shutters. 0:15:51.160 --> 0:15:54.720 Now I say gravitated towards sixteen frames per second, but 0:15:54.880 --> 0:15:57.680 even saying gravitated as being a bit generous because early 0:15:57.720 --> 0:16:02.200 film cameras and projectors were frequently hand cranked. They didn't 0:16:02.240 --> 0:16:05.680 have an electric or even spring loaded motor in them, 0:16:06.080 --> 0:16:09.520 and a steady camera operator might manage to keep a 0:16:09.560 --> 0:16:13.880 fairly regular rotational speed while literally cranking the camera or 0:16:13.920 --> 0:16:17.200 the projector, but usually there was some variation in there, 0:16:17.240 --> 0:16:21.400 so you're talking more like sometimes between ten and eighteen 0:16:21.520 --> 0:16:24.880 frames per second, with sixteen being the goal. And then 0:16:24.920 --> 0:16:29.280 there were also filmmakers who were purposefully experimenting with undercranking, 0:16:29.360 --> 0:16:33.000 which means you're recording more slowly than the projection rate 0:16:33.040 --> 0:16:36.720 will be, or overcranking, where you're recording a faster frame 0:16:36.800 --> 0:16:39.600 rate than the projection rate should be. And like I 0:16:39.640 --> 0:16:44.800 said earlier, this kind of translates into faster or slower 0:16:44.840 --> 0:16:47.280 action on screen, and it can also make things a 0:16:47.280 --> 0:16:51.800 little jerky, depending upon how erratic the changes are. So 0:16:51.960 --> 0:16:54.720 if you watch those early silent films, you might notice 0:16:54.720 --> 0:16:58.600 that the action is erratic, it's inconsistent in its speed, 0:16:58.760 --> 0:17:01.040 and that's because during the record arding frame rate was 0:17:01.040 --> 0:17:03.480 a little bit variable, and if it's played back on 0:17:03.560 --> 0:17:07.000 modern equipment, well, the playback speed is not varying at all. 0:17:07.280 --> 0:17:10.800 Now you could, I guess, try to digitally convert everything 0:17:10.880 --> 0:17:15.639 so that it maintained a consistent playback speed in conjunction 0:17:15.760 --> 0:17:18.600 with whatever was recorded, but one it would probably look 0:17:18.640 --> 0:17:21.760 really weird, and two it might have been that the 0:17:21.800 --> 0:17:26.320 director intended for those different frame rates in order to 0:17:26.359 --> 0:17:30.040 create a specific effect on the film itself. But yeah, 0:17:30.040 --> 0:17:33.000 we have to come back around to variable frame rates 0:17:33.160 --> 0:17:35.760 because that will play a part in our discussion toward 0:17:35.840 --> 0:17:38.440 the end. But the silent film era had a lot 0:17:38.440 --> 0:17:40.760 of different frame rates that were used both for filming 0:17:40.760 --> 0:17:43.720 and for projection, and often those frame rates tended towards 0:17:43.720 --> 0:17:47.719 sixteen frames per second or thereabouts because one it seemed 0:17:47.720 --> 0:17:51.600 to be about the lowest you could go without affecting 0:17:52.080 --> 0:17:56.040 perception of the film negatively. And it also allows you 0:17:56.080 --> 0:17:58.000 to save as much money as you could on film 0:17:58.040 --> 0:18:01.359 stock because you're not chewing through it. Super movie houses 0:18:01.359 --> 0:18:03.719 would sometimes take advantage of all this. They would actually 0:18:03.760 --> 0:18:07.240 play movies back at a higher frame rate than what 0:18:07.440 --> 0:18:10.440 was shot because if you can play a movie back 0:18:10.440 --> 0:18:13.680 at a faster frame rate, the screening takes less time. Right, 0:18:13.760 --> 0:18:16.840 you get through your film faster, and you might be 0:18:16.840 --> 0:18:19.080 able to fit in an additional seating at the end 0:18:19.080 --> 0:18:21.359 of the day and sell more tickets that way. But 0:18:21.440 --> 0:18:25.360 things would trend towards standardization because of a new technological 0:18:25.400 --> 0:18:29.600 development for film, which was adding sound to it. So 0:18:29.640 --> 0:18:32.560 here's the thing. The way sound on film would work 0:18:32.880 --> 0:18:36.680 like early on, there was an attempt to pair films 0:18:36.720 --> 0:18:40.160 with things like a record album and you would start 0:18:40.200 --> 0:18:43.280 the two at the same time. But this was tricky. 0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:46.440 You could easily have an issue where things were out 0:18:46.480 --> 0:18:49.120 of sync and then it just becomes distracting. The big 0:18:49.160 --> 0:18:52.959 development on film was optical sound in that there's an 0:18:53.000 --> 0:18:57.399 optical track, a light based track that holds the sound information, 0:18:57.520 --> 0:19:01.399 and this track runs a long side the actual image 0:19:01.400 --> 0:19:04.520 is captured on film. There's a very narrow band where 0:19:04.560 --> 0:19:09.760 the optical track lives, and within a projector, there's a 0:19:09.880 --> 0:19:14.200 separate lamp from the actual film lamp that beams light 0:19:14.359 --> 0:19:17.000 through this narrow band on the side of the strip 0:19:17.000 --> 0:19:19.639 of film, and you have a photosensitive detector that's on 0:19:19.720 --> 0:19:23.320 the opposite side, and the photosensitive detector picks up light 0:19:23.359 --> 0:19:28.159 that's coming through this optical band of information, and the 0:19:28.280 --> 0:19:31.879 light that's passing through ends up being converted into an 0:19:31.920 --> 0:19:35.359 electrical current through this photo detector, and that sends it 0:19:35.400 --> 0:19:38.119 to an amplifier, which then can go to speakers and 0:19:38.160 --> 0:19:40.960 then you can get sound playing back. I've also done 0:19:40.960 --> 0:19:43.080 episodes about this, so I'm not going to go further 0:19:43.160 --> 0:19:46.280 into detail, but it is cool now. In a projector, 0:19:46.600 --> 0:19:49.280 this means that the bit that you are seeing and 0:19:49.320 --> 0:19:52.680 the bit you are hearing are actually offset on the 0:19:52.680 --> 0:19:55.879 physical film itself, because you are you talking about two 0:19:55.920 --> 0:19:59.000 different lamps typically, So that means that if you were 0:19:59.040 --> 0:20:03.359 to freeze time, the bit that you would see on 0:20:03.480 --> 0:20:07.200 screen would be from one lamp showing through the picture 0:20:07.480 --> 0:20:11.119 on the film. The sound that you would somehow be 0:20:11.160 --> 0:20:13.680 able to hear while you have frozen time would be 0:20:13.720 --> 0:20:16.800 going through a separate lamp a little further down in 0:20:16.840 --> 0:20:19.439 the film, so they're offset from each other. If this 0:20:19.520 --> 0:20:21.560 weren't the case, then everything would look like a really 0:20:21.720 --> 0:20:25.600 badly dubbed movie and the words wouldn't match characters' mouths. 0:20:25.640 --> 0:20:28.880 But more importantly, for frame rates, this meant the industry 0:20:29.440 --> 0:20:34.280 had to establish a solid standard, because audiences could tolerate 0:20:34.359 --> 0:20:37.040 some variation in playback speeds as far as images go, 0:20:37.160 --> 0:20:39.480 but for sound it's a different thing. Folks were not 0:20:39.920 --> 0:20:42.119 lining up to watch a picture in which Clark Gable 0:20:42.200 --> 0:20:44.520 was going to sound like a chipmunk or something. So 0:20:44.560 --> 0:20:48.160 in nineteen twenty nine, the industry agreed upon a standard 0:20:48.200 --> 0:20:51.760 frame rate of twenty four frames per second. This was 0:20:51.840 --> 0:20:55.000 low enough to still be somewhat economical when it came 0:20:55.040 --> 0:20:58.239 to film stock, and it also represented a number that 0:20:58.359 --> 0:21:02.040 was easily divisible that editors happy, right because a full 0:21:02.119 --> 0:21:05.119 second of your footage would be twenty four frames. If 0:21:05.160 --> 0:21:07.680 you wanted to edit down to a half second, you're 0:21:07.680 --> 0:21:09.960 talking about twelve frames. A third of the second was 0:21:10.000 --> 0:21:13.199 eight frames and so on. So this made precise edits 0:21:13.359 --> 0:21:17.560 really possible and easy to do mathematically. Twenty four frames 0:21:17.560 --> 0:21:20.600 per second also allowed for some decent audio fidelity with 0:21:20.680 --> 0:21:23.520 your optical tracks. If you went with a lower frame rate, 0:21:23.840 --> 0:21:26.399 you would get lower quality audio to the point where 0:21:26.680 --> 0:21:29.960 it would be distracting to an audience. So by using 0:21:29.960 --> 0:21:32.679 twenty four frames per second as the standard, then a 0:21:32.720 --> 0:21:35.760 projector outfitted with a double bladed shutter, which means each 0:21:35.800 --> 0:21:38.320 frame of film would be projected twice, you would get 0:21:38.320 --> 0:21:40.640 the effect of a forty eight frames per second projection 0:21:40.760 --> 0:21:44.679 speed with each frame repeated a single time. Right. So, 0:21:44.760 --> 0:21:46.960 for half a century, twenty four frames per second was 0:21:47.000 --> 0:21:53.720 a practically unassailable standard. It defined cinematic esthetic. At twenty 0:21:53.720 --> 0:21:56.719 four frames per second, there's still motion, blur and potentially 0:21:57.080 --> 0:22:00.639 some flicker depending upon the projector and the shutter. Twenty 0:22:00.680 --> 0:22:04.080 four frames per second met the technical, economic, and psychological 0:22:04.119 --> 0:22:07.600 thresholds to be a practical way to capture stories on film. 0:22:08.040 --> 0:22:11.720 Some folks, however, were not satisfied with this. They really 0:22:11.760 --> 0:22:14.680 wanted to push the technological envelope, which is super cool, 0:22:14.880 --> 0:22:17.720 even if I personally find deviations from twenty four frames 0:22:17.760 --> 0:22:21.560 per second off putting from a cinematic experience, like that's 0:22:21.600 --> 0:22:25.520 my own personal reaction, But they also recognize the need 0:22:25.600 --> 0:22:29.520 for innovation and how exciting it is to experiment. So 0:22:30.000 --> 0:22:33.800 one of these pioneers was a guy named Douglas Trumbull, 0:22:33.880 --> 0:22:36.760 who sadly passed away a couple of years ago, but 0:22:36.800 --> 0:22:39.960 he was a legend in the film world. He created 0:22:40.080 --> 0:22:44.560 amazing special effects in really influential movies, like he did 0:22:44.640 --> 0:22:48.160 effects for Stanley Kubrick's two thousand and one A Space Odyssey. 0:22:48.440 --> 0:22:52.119 He effects for Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. He worked on 0:22:52.359 --> 0:22:55.920