Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Since 2009-07-21
It would have been a film camera. There were no video cameras back then.

True enough. I guess I'm stuck with the modern lingo. I know very early movie cameras were hard cranked, but the video quality of this film is very smooth, with none of that usual "hurried" motion one often expects with movies of that vintage. It's all the more remarkable in that the film was shot not on a stage with a stationary movie camera, but on the street. It's like an early version of a mobile video van!

I love seeing the footage because it is unrehearsed, unlike many films of that vintage. You really get the sense your transported back in time, 100 years ago.

57 posted on 11/28/2009 7:48:58 AM PST by 6SJ7 (atlasShruggedInd: ON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: 6SJ7

It IS remarkable. I’m guessing the people who transferred this footage projected it close to or at its original speed, maybe 16 frames per second. I read recently that before the standard 24 frames per second was established, cinematographers actually did NOT always stick to the 16 fps speed. There was no standard and some actually cranked the camera at 18, 19, even 20. Also, projectionists supposedly avoided 16 fps for fear that the nitrate based film might be susceptible to combustion! Others might correct me on the details here.


61 posted on 11/28/2009 9:11:47 AM PST by Since 2009-07-21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson