American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1934)

112 American Cinematographer • July 1934 RIDDLE ME THIS The Riddle: \t has been suggested thot the development of a really siient camera would be made easier if the standard toking and projecting speed were reduced from 24 frames per second (the present standard) to 20, 18, or even the old standard of 16. What is your opinion? WILLIAM A. REES, A.S.C.: I do not believe that any appreciable advantage would result from such a change. At the present speed, we get a smoother picture; and while the slower speed would probably enable us to crowd more action into a given footage, this is offset by the present technique of direction and cutting, which makes for a quick tempo. Moreover, if the speed were reduced, the sound-quality would suffer far more than could be offset by any gains in camera-silence. JOSEPH AUGUST, A.S.C.: I don't see that anything worth while would be gained by such a change. You must remember that in the old days, before sound was thought of, even though the "standard speed" was 16 pictures per second, most of us were shooting at 20 or 24, in order to get a smoother picture and to compensate for the way the theatres used to crowd the pictures through. When sound came, and forced both cinemotographers and exhibitors to standardize on the present 24-frame speed, it was a distinct advantage. DWIGHT W. WARREN, A.S.C.: I don't believe it would be worth while. The present standard of 90 feet per minute seems ideal from every viewpoint. Also, it is not undesirably fast: I recall that before sound came we nearly always photographed at about this speed, and, in a survey I made of projection in our studio (Educational) and a number of local theatres, I found projection-speeds varying from that up to 105 feet per minute. I think the present speed is entirely satisfactory, and that there could be no appreciable gain from reducing it. JOHN 0. AALBERG, Chief of Sound Projection, RKO Studio: 1 don't see that there would be anything gained by such a change — and much would be lost. The cost of making such a change would be tremendous and any gains made in reduced camera-noise would be more than offset by losses in sound-frequency. Personally, I have always regarded the present 24 frames per second speed as an ideal compromise. FREDERIC McALPIN, Head of Sound Dept., Harman-lsing Studio: I can't see any benefit in such a change, and several definite drawbacks. It is well known that most of the noise comes from the intermittent movement: now if we reduce the speed at which this mechanism operates, we will actually tend to increase the camera-noise problem, for the sound will be broken down into a series of distinct clicks. From the sound technician's viewpoint, the ideal (as long as we must have the noise-producing intermittent movement) would be to speed the action until the sound becomes a sustained hum, which we could "cancel out" much more easily than we could eliminate the clickety-click of a slowworking intermittent. HAROLD MARZORATI, A.S.C.: Such a change would be tremendously expensive, and, so for as I can see, of little practical benefit. In my experience with high-speed cameras, I have noticed that a properly designed camera varies little in the amount of noise it makes, regardless of speed. The speed cameras used in trick work make a good deal of noise, of course; but if the noise is analyzed, it will be found that by far the greater part of it comes from the gearboxes used to speed the movement up to eight or ten times normal speed, and that the camera itself makes little more noise at 240-frames than at 24. The problem, therefore, seems one of camera design rather than of speed. ROY OVERBAUGH, A.S.C.: I see very little against such a change, and many possible advantages. Outside of the initial expense of making the change, it seems to me the result would be clear profit. It is very probable that a slower-running camera could more easily be made silent; and aside from that, there would be considerable savings in film and the like. STANLEY CORTE, A.S.C.: Regardless of speed, noise is noise — and a camera that is noisy at our present speed of 24 will scarcely be less so at 16. On the other hand, a camera which is satisfactorily silent at 16, should be just as quiet at 24. It is simply a problem of evolving a design or principle which will give us accurate operation without noise: and sooner or later, I'm sure the engineers will do it. JEROME ASH, A.S.C.: Reducing the speed ought to help. Most of our present cameras were really designed to operate at 16 frames per second, and the present speed of 24 is really over-running them considerably. In the process, a good deal of noise and vibration are developed: of the two, I believe the vibration is the worst offender. If a really efficient method of insulating the cameras so that this vibration would not be transmitted to the tripod, and so to the floor, could be developed, I believe we would be a lot closer to the really silent camera. GEORGE MEEHAN, A.S.C.: I don't believe the speed has much bearing on the case. A camera that is silent at 16 should be just as silent at 24. Besides, the cost of such a change would probably be prohibitive. WESLEY C. MILLER, Chief Transmission Engineer, MGM Studio: In my opinion, a speed of 20 frames per second would be an ideal compromise. It would economize on film, and give the cameraman more exposure; at the some time, it would not affect the sound-quality: true, it would cut off some of the higher frequencies — but the cut-off would be well above the range now being utilized. With such modifications as changes in the frame size and positioning, which have been proposed, we could get a much more economical utilization of the film-area, thereby saving enough to go far toward offsetting the cost of the change. Continued on Page 120