# Silent Movie Speeds **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [August 23, 2007, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silent-movie-speeds/416663 "2007-08-23T17:12:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Quint](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/76d3ee/32.png) [@Quint](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2007, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silent-movie-speeds/416663/1 "2007-08-23T17:12:09Z")
Just to add my 2 cents to [this](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_067.html) column, hand cranked movies needed to be done at a remarkably consistent speed in order to assure consistent exposure of the film. However, skilled cameramen of the day would often change speeds during a shot, compensating for the speed change by adjusting the iris on the lens. From **The Parade’s Gone By** by Kevin Brownlow: > [@](#): > > Many veterans aver that if talking pictures had not banished the crank… films would still be ground by hand. For cranking, besides being reliable, had an added advantage; it allowed the cameraman to slow down or speed up the action during shooting. > If an actor took a long time to mount a horse, the cameraman could slow down. The actor would then appear to leap nimbly into his saddle. As the horse galloped away, the cameraman would return to normal, adjusting the exposure so that the density of the shot would remain even. In today’s cinematography this technique is referred to as _ramping_, and was all the rage from about 1995 to 2005. The funny thing is, the technique pretty much disappeared with the advent of sound, not resurfacing until the film **Raging Bull** in 1981. ---
**Author:** ![Hobohob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Hobohob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hobohob)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2007, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silent-movie-speeds/416663/2 "2007-08-24T17:04:42Z")
Cecil’s column is now outdated. The “stretch printing” that was in 1991 “tedious and expensive and many film labs hate to do it” is no longer used. Digital processing gets the speed right on the first try. As noted, taped versions are better, and that’s partly due to the interlace of standard TV format. Instead of every other frame being used twice, you can have the extra frame have half it’s interlaced lines from one cel and half from the next, smoothing it all out. Other digital automatically enhancements remove most spots and lines caused by projection dust. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2007, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silent-movie-speeds/416663/3 "2007-08-27T20:45:03Z")
Brownlow later returned to the issue in greater detail in [this classic article](http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm) for _Sight and Sound_ from 1980. The site hosting it, [The Silent Film Bookshelf](http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/), also has a good selection of articles from the original period discussing speeds. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2007, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silent-movie-speeds/416663/4 "2007-08-27T21:41:16Z")
[QUOTE=Hobohob] As noted, taped versions are better, and that’s partly due to the interlace of standard TV format. Instead of every other frame being used twice, you can have the extra frame have half it’s interlaced lines from one cel and half from the next, smoothing it all out. [/QUOTE] This is true for the US TV format, which is roughly 30fps. My understanding is that in Europe–where 25fps broadcasting was standard–films are simply sped up slightly for broadcast at the higher rate; the increase is nearly imperceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Quint](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/76d3ee/32.png) [@Quint](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2007, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silent-movie-speeds/416663/5 "2007-08-28T04:15:04Z")
[QUOTE=bonzer] Brownlow later returned to the issue in greater detail in [this classic article](http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm) for _Sight and Sound_ from 1980. The site hosting it, [The Silent Film Bookshelf](http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/), also has a good selection of articles from the original period discussing speeds. [/QUOTE] Wow. Thank you for that terrific link **bonzer**. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2007, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silent-movie-speeds/416663/6 "2007-08-28T07:10:21Z")
[QUOTE=CJJ\*] This is true for the US TV format, which is roughly 30fps. My understanding is that in Europe–where 25fps broadcasting was standard–films are simply sped up slightly for broadcast at the higher rate; the increase is nearly imperceptable. [/QUOTE] I don’t think that can be correct - speeding up a 25fps film for broadcast at ~30fps is an increase of 20 percent. That can’t be unnoticeable - when I accidentally encoded a DVD with audio sampled at 44.1kHz, it expected 48kHz and the encoder apparently just sped everything up so that the samples came through at the expected rate - the result was a DVD where everything was bustling around too fast and the soundtrack was distinctly perky and chirpy - and that was only an increase of about 9 percent. I believe it’s true that the US TV system is something like 29.65fps and 30fps movie reels are sometimes slowed down a bit to fit, but that’s a much smaller change ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2007, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silent-movie-speeds/416663/7 "2007-08-28T13:36:04Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] I don’t think that can be correct - speeding up a 25fps film for broadcast at ~30fps is an increase of 20 percent. That can’t be unnoticeable - when I accidentally encoded a DVD with audio sampled at 44.1kHz, it expected 48kHz and the encoder apparently just sped everything up so that the samples came through at the expected rate - the result was a DVD where everything was bustling around too fast and the soundtrack was distinctly perky and chirpy - and that was only an increase of about 9 percent. I believe it’s true that the US TV system is something like 29.65fps and 30fps movie reels are sometimes slowed down a bit to fit, but that’s a much smaller change [/QUOTE] You seem confused. US TV is approximately 29.97fps (originally 30, to sync. with 60Hz power, but slightly reduced in 1953 to solve a problem with color). European TV is 25fps (to sync. with 50Hz power). Theatrical sound film is 24fps. (US TV sound film is often 30fps.) In Europe, speeding up of 24fps to 25fps is regarded as acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2007, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silent-movie-speeds/416663/8 "2007-08-28T13:52:24Z")
Ah, gotcha. I saw ‘30fps’ and ‘25fps’ and ‘sped up’ and misunderstood the rest. Sorry.