Visual difference -- video vs. film

I’ll be damned. I stand corrected.

I presumed a 30 fps rate for the film so as to avoid various unsightly artifacts (think of what happens when a computer monitor with a 70 Hz refresh rate is shot with an NTSB camera - that sort of thing). While I don’t have time to read the whole patent ap now (I have saved a copy) I read enough to see that they had apparently tried 30 fps film, didn’t like the result, and rigged up a 24 fps system that did work.

You Wiki article is also quite interesting.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Dan Einstein, Television Archivist at the UCLA Film & Television Archives, on the kinescope films in their collection: “I would say that most or all of ours are 24 frames/second.”

When I was a kid, watching Python and other 1960s-1970s BBC productions on PBS, I was always struck by that…how the interior shots and the exterior shots had a totally different quality to them.

Okay! Okay! I’m convinced! :smiley:

Composed a perfectly good reply and my log-in timed out ! Lemme try again.

From 1987 to 2002 I worked as a professional camera operator and Steadicam Operator. Countless music videos, commercials and episodic t.v. shows that I personally operated camera on were filmed at 29.975 fps. You may not have heard of it, but that does not mean it did not happen. All the time. For many years.

It has to do with resolving 24 images per second into a 30 image per second video edit and broadcast. Also, shooting at 29.975 eliminated the so-called “roll bar” seen on video monitors. ( Parenthetically, broadcast video cameras had the same issue until a “phase” button was invented. That allowed you to slowly pulse the framerate up and down until the bar went away. Similarly, film cameras have a “phase” or “sync” button that allows you to roll the bar out. Sadly, you have to do it WHILE rolling film. Costly endeavor in the aggregate !! )

Most cameras have pre-set speeds in addition to being able to dial in any speed in a huge range. Typically, 1 fps to 150 fps and fractions thereof. However, 24 fps, 29.975 fps, 30 fps are pre-sets that do not need to be “dialed in”.

Cartooniverse

Sorry for the additional posting. Keep getting timed out.

In the U.K. and anywhere in the world where the power system is on a 50 Hz cycle instead of the 60 Hz cycle used in the United States, motion picture cameras do not shoot at 24 fps. They shoot at 25 fps. This has to do with using a power supply instead of a battery to establish " crystalled synch ". Instead of a crystal oscillating at 50 hz, my colleagues overseas plug the camera into a power supply, to the wall.

A 50 Hz cycle means that perfect synch is easier at 25 fps than 24 fps.

You began as a camera operator in 1987. What was the standard frame rate for the period 1947 to 1987? I know for certain that 24 fps was the standard for filmed television shows in the 1960s because I’ve worked with those materials.

It may be apocryphal but I’ve read that the reason Brit-Coms like Monty Python and Fawlty Towers did this was because 70s-era video equipment (as opposed to film cameras) required a lot of power and it rains everyday :wink: in Britain! (i.e. water & electricity not mixing well).

I think the difference is more that US TV tended to use film for both interior and exterior shots, or all videotape for productions that didn’t have any exterior shots. Video cameras were big and heavy and were carted around in trucks for sports events and the like. Too expensive for sitcoms.

It’s apocryphal. Truly portable broadcast-quality video cameras weren’t available in the U.S. or Britain until the late 1970s.

I do not know. The quote of yours I used in my post referred directly to the 1990’s. I worked as a professional camera operator during the entire decade. I did not mean to imply that I had professional knowledge prior to 1987.

Try 1976. The RCA TK-76 was the first self-contained color hand-held camera. It was introduced and put into heavy use that very year.

If you scroll down to “Ruxton Productions” on that page and click the link, you will see the actual Steadicam Universal Model I that I purchased from the owner of Ruxton, in 1987. Serial # 022. Made in April, 1976 by Cinema Products. The programmer card read " TK-76" on it.

Not arguing with you Cartooniverse, but the TK-76 and its associated control pack and recorder were far from what we’d call “truly portable” today, and much, much bigger and more cumbersome than the 16mm sound cameras that were available at the time. IIRC, it was more than a decade before we had self-contained portable camcorders that you could carry on your shoulder.

Just as another off-topic reminiscence, I remember taking a Sony 1/2" reel-to-reel Porta-Pak to my local public TV station in the early 1970s. Even though it was B&W, low res (about 300 lines, I think), and the separate recorder had a complex threading path, the engineers there were amazed to see such a tiny video camera and recorder. All their equipment was many times larger and more expensive.

I know you know this, so this is general information for people unfamiliar with film cameras.

Most 16mm film cameras at the time did not record sound. (I don’t think there are any modern 16mm cameras that do.) Broadly speaking, there are two types of film cameras: ‘silent’, and ‘MOS’. Most people might assume that a ‘silent’ camera isn’t used when recording sound. Actually ‘silent’ means that the camera itself is very quiet, which it needs to be so that its noise is not picked up on the microphone. ‘MOS’ means ‘motor only shot’, though I prefer the other story about the German director who would say ‘Mit Out Sprechen!’. You know what they say: ‘If the legend sounds better than the truth, print the legend.’ An MOS shot is one in which audio is not recorded. MOS cameras, since they are not intended for use with sound, are noisy.

When recording sound there are two ‘systems’. Single-system sound records sound directly on the film, either by exposing the sound track to light (Movietone system) or by recording a magnetic track. Double-system sound records the image on film as usual, and the audio is recorded on a separate tape recorder such as a Nagra. A sound-capable double-system camera either generates a synch tone or pulse and is joined to the audio recorder by a synch cord, or both the camera and the recorder have synchronous motors so that they don’t need to be physically connected. The famous slate with clap-boards is used to provide a synch point. When the sticks come together they are recorded on the film, and the sound is recorded onto the tape. The tape is resolved onto 16mm film (or 35mm film, or super-8 film, depending on what you’re shooting) that is covered in iron oxide (this is called ‘fullcoat’) so that there is a frame-for-frame correspondence between the image and the sound. The image and sound of the ‘clap’ are aligned in a synchroniser (gangs of two or more sprockets) to keep the image and sound together.

Super-8 cameras, which most consumers were familiar with at the time, were originally silent – not ‘silent’. That is, they did not record sound. (BTW: 8mm and super-8 differ in that while they both use 8mm film, super-8 has smaller sprockets to make room for a larger image.) In 1973 super-8 film and cameras gained single-system sound. A magnetic stripe was added to the edge of the film, and the sound was recorded onto it. The sound was displaced three inches from the image. There were also double-system super-8 cameras.

Single-systems had advantages and disadvantages. Since the sound and image were together, they didn’t have to be synched. This was good for ‘home movies’ and for newsgathering, but made editing somewhat problematic. You could either edit for image and lose a second of audio, or edit for sound and have an extra second of image that you don’t want. Or you could copy the film onto fullcoat and edit as double-system.

Auricon made single-system cameras, and I think Cinema Products made some too. I think the Bolex 16 Pro had single-system, but I’d have to look that up. These cameras were used in newsgathering because the film with audio could be processed and aired quickly, without having to synch the image and audio – much like video. But much footage was shot on MOS cameras such as the Arriflex 16St or 16M. These cameras sound a bit like a blender, but since sound was not recorded it didn’t matter. If you look at old footage of events with a lot of reporters, you’ll often see someone holding an Arri 16 above the heads of the crowd or mounted on a tripod. The Beaulieu R16 was often used for documentary work. The R16 was not particularly quiet, but was quiet enough so that it could be used with an audio recorder in noisier areas. This was a double-system camera that used a Pilotone generator and cable to join it to the tape recorder. It was lighter than an Arri, and could accept 200-foot external magazines. (The usual external load in other cameras is 400 feet – about 11 minutes.) A battery was contained in the hand grip, and the Automatic model had auto-exposure. This last feature made it useful in situations where a shot had to be made quickly, such as in a war zone. (I’ve seen several R16s in footage taken during the Vietnam war.)

So in a nutshell: Audio was generally not recorded onto the film, though single-system cameras could do it. Single-system is good for newsgathering and home movies, but can cause problems when editing a narrative film. Silent cameras are used when recording sound (onto a synched audio recorder).

Johnny: thanks for providing the additional detail. Since the early portable video systems were often used for Electronic News Gathering (ENG), their direct film competitors for that purpose were generally the single-system 16mm cameras, which is why I mentioned them. CP did make a sound version of the CP-16; I used one in college.

It’s not in my ACM, but from what I found googling the Bolex 16 Pro was offered in double-system and single-system versions. My ACM also lists a single-system Mitchell 16mm.

As I said, late 1970s. I remember the Bicentennial and the Carter administration were among the first things covered by the network news divisions using portable video cameras.

Totally agree. When I started shooting Industrial videos in the early to mid 1980’s, it was a Ikki 79D or E or EAL going to a 3/4" cassette machine. Big honkin’ cable- a 26 pin? 24-pin? Big thing.