I forgot to mention that, if you look at my film frame comparison page, Showscan is 5-perf 70mm (second from the bottom).
Exactamundo. Believe it or not, I wrote that all out in my first long post- and deleted the ENTIRE graph. It just sounded wayyyyyy too freakin’ dense and confusing for those not intimately involved in the industry. You are correct, the camera negative is 65mm wide, and the release print stock is 70mm wide, with the (now) digital soundtrack taking up the remaining 5mm of film width.
As for what coven said. First of all, I’m jealous that you’ve met the famed and brilliant Denny Clairmont. Hot damn. 
Now. If you have a shutter that is taking a 1/48th of a second image, passing twice as much film through that shutter will not change the shutter rate/angle. You’re using a standard 180 degree shutter, be it butterfly or half-disk. If you shoot at 12fps with a 180 degree shutter, you are using a shutter that is 180 degrees. You are not altering the shutter ANGLE by raising the frames per second rate. The two are not connected, although altering one may allow you to alter the other. Here. Try this.
You shoot a scene that is well lit at 24fps. The iris is at a 5.6 Your shutter is 180 degrees. You have normal blur and movement, etc.
You shoot identical scene, but now at 48 fps. To compensate for the speed with which the film is moving, you have to open up one stop. It’s a 1:1 ratio. For every full doubling of fps, you lose one full stop. However, the shutter angle has not been changed. Yet.
Now, you shoot the same scene. The shutter has been reset to 90 degrees. You are allowing HALF the moment of exposure, because the shutter angle is now half what it was. Half the moment of exposure to show light onto that frame of film, you need twice the light. You open up to an f.4
As for the ShowScan/clarity issue, yes I agree. There is more random ( read-grain, particulate capture on silver halide that shifts frame to frame in precise alignment ) information fed to your brain when it sees 60 pictures per second opposed to 24 pictures per second. Logical. However, you are not actually increasing the RESOLUTION of the film stock. Shoot 60 frames in a second, each frame is no higher in resolution than at 24 fps- or at 12 fps. The frame, taken alone, captures what it can. It is a set thing. Slower fine grain stock renders finer resolution, higher-speed stocks render slightly less so.
In the days before Vision 500 and T-Grain stocks, the difference was palatable and tough on the eyes. Now, you can shoot a dimly lit interior or dark exterior and have rick blacks, and not much apparent grain.
Clear? -pant pant-
At least we aren’t watching human live shows shows at 8 frames per second, like many anime. Thank you, Hanna and Barbera, for churning out well-written shows at the cost of animation quality…
I think you misunderstood my post, I’ll try again. Yes, if you increase the frame rate without increasing the intensity of lighting used you must open up the iris. Yes, you are not changing the actual shutter ANGLE, be it butterfly or half disc. You are changing the effective shutter SPEED. For each exposed frame the shutter disc makes one full rotation, 180 degrees open, 180 degrees mirror (or closed). The rotating shutter is mechanically married to the pulldown claws. When shooting at 24fps each frame is therefore exposed to 1/48th of a second of light. When shooting at 48fps each frame is exposed to 1/96th of a second of light. As you are capturing a smaller duration of time, you will of necessity have less motion blur on each frame shot. At 150fps each frame will be exposed to 1/300th of a second of action, making each frame considerably sharper, so I stand by what I said. Less motion blur gives you an effectively sharper image (ie- a baseball passing through the frame- at 24 quite blurry, at 150fps quite sharp). The decrease in motion blur achieved by over-cranking can be matched by changing the shutter angle. 24fps@ 90< = 48fps @180<.
Agreed.
But, what if it’s not a crystalled motor but a constant-speed motor, as in an Arri M, Arri S or early 16 BL’s??
( I know. I’m just yankin’ yer chain. )
I assume “well-written” is meant as sarcasm. (Come on, have you seen the average episode of Herculoids or Super Friends?)
Well, when Hanna Barbera struck out on their own they were successful with well-written shows such as Huckleberry Hound and Yogi, before having that monster hit–what was it? Oh yeah-- The Flintstones, which served as a bridge between The Honeymooners and The Simpsons. The Flintstones did last six years in prime time. Hanna/Barbera had good ideas with Scooby, but they had a couple of characters too many (Fred and Daphne added nothing to the show). Then HB went downhill from there and just became an 8-frame cartoon machine.
You do know that Hanna-Barbera cartoons are not “anime”?
You may be yankin’ my chain, but I freely admit I have no idea how those work. I’m off to investigate! Thanks Cartooniverse!