Amateur talking pictures and recording (1933)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

CONCLUSION 203 is insignificant when compared with the high production cost of the film, and incidentally the rentals. But for amateur talking pictures the question is different, and it is the film cost which is troublesome. It is something of a pity that the present tendency in sound-on-disc for home purposes is to run at 24 pictures per second, since this is totally unn< sary. If the picture was good enough at 16 per second (or (A) 24 Pictures in 7 Second jTS 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 J22 23 24 (B)01 4 5 7 8 10 11 13 n 16 17 19 20 2 23 (O hzSec \ .1 J ?4.Sec \\l 4|5 7 8 ]0 11 13 14 16 17|19J20 22!?3 /6 Pictures in / Second Fin. SO. Film Compression even lower as the 14 picture per second as standard in 9-5 mm. film) why raise it to 24 per second when we have the sound recorded on a disc which is quite distinct from film speed ? The real reason behind this was, of course, that most of the film subjects for amateur consumption were printed for professional purposes at the speed of 24 pictures per second. As a matter of fact, however, this is by no means necessary, since it has been found possible to compress a 61m.