20251217: (incomplete viewing)
As he was fighting the guy in the ladder, I noticed the fast movement which ChatGPT had mentioned previously. So I explored that comment. I first started with my hypothesis on it. I thought perhaps the filmmakers needed to save frames so filmed at low frames per second (fps). Then when played back, the action would appear sped up, probably 1.5x. In its reply, ChatGPT revealed that in addition to variable projection speed, there was also variable recording speed (because cameras were also hand-cranked). It wasn't until synchronized sound that films were standardized to 24 fps. As such, a film shot at 16 fps and projected at 24 fps, would exactly be playing at 1.5x. Overall, silent films look fast for the following reasons:
- they were shot slower (~14-16 fps in the 1890s to 1900s, ~16-20 fps by the 1910s)
- projected inconsistently
- later standardized incorrectly
- modern viewers assume 24 fps is natural
Rating: 3.8/5
20251218: (full viewing)
The one I watched yesterday is about 19 minutes long. Watching the full version, there's some snippets or titles missing here and there, but also the other version runs at about 30% faster than the version I watched today (possibly between 26% to 29%). Note that while the version I watched today has color but no sound, so I used the sound from the other video to supplement. I played the other version at 0.75 in order to get close to the correct playspeed (a multiplier of 0.8 would likely have been closer).
While I noted the other viewing as an "incomplete viewing," it's actually close to the full runtime, with perhaps anywhere between 30 seconds and 1 minute missing from the full 25 minute runtime after adjusting for playspeed.
Instant Comments:
1: As he's cleaning, there are various sound effects. This reminds me of a YouTube short I saw where two guys were doing live piano and sound effects over an old cartoon.
1: Wow, this swinging ladder bit is quite the stunt
1: Oh wow. A fall. amazing.
2: oic, this old man is saying he has to sell his wife's ring or starve, but at the end of the bit reveals he has a bunch of money in his pockets. so really he's just trying to get more out of pawning off the ring
1: Smile. Breaking it to evaluate it... I'm just expecting a long lead up to "No this is not worth $2"
1: Smile. Puts the loop in but uses the other eye
1: oh wow. the parts moving around on the table
1: Smile. that ending.
1=20251217, 2=20251218
Watched an incomplete clip 20251217 (YouTube)
Watched 20251218 (YouTube) (color) (no sound)
The Pawnshop (1916) Charles Chaplin. 25 min
Relevant Links:
The Pawnshop (IMDb.com)
The Pawnshop (RottenTomatoes.com)
The Pawnshop (Wikipedia.org)
As he was fighting the guy in the ladder, I noticed the fast movement which ChatGPT had mentioned previously. So I explored that comment. I first started with my hypothesis on it. I thought perhaps the filmmakers needed to save frames so filmed at low frames per second (fps). Then when played back, the action would appear sped up, probably 1.5x. In its reply, ChatGPT revealed that in addition to variable projection speed, there was also variable recording speed (because cameras were also hand-cranked). It wasn't until synchronized sound that films were standardized to 24 fps. As such, a film shot at 16 fps and projected at 24 fps, would exactly be playing at 1.5x. Overall, silent films look fast for the following reasons:
- they were shot slower (~14-16 fps in the 1890s to 1900s, ~16-20 fps by the 1910s)
- projected inconsistently
- later standardized incorrectly
- modern viewers assume 24 fps is natural
Rating: 3.8/5
20251218: (full viewing)
The one I watched yesterday is about 19 minutes long. Watching the full version, there's some snippets or titles missing here and there, but also the other version runs at about 30% faster than the version I watched today (possibly between 26% to 29%). Note that while the version I watched today has color but no sound, so I used the sound from the other video to supplement. I played the other version at 0.75 in order to get close to the correct playspeed (a multiplier of 0.8 would likely have been closer).
While I noted the other viewing as an "incomplete viewing," it's actually close to the full runtime, with perhaps anywhere between 30 seconds and 1 minute missing from the full 25 minute runtime after adjusting for playspeed.
Instant Comments:
1: As he's cleaning, there are various sound effects. This reminds me of a YouTube short I saw where two guys were doing live piano and sound effects over an old cartoon.
1: Wow, this swinging ladder bit is quite the stunt
1: Oh wow. A fall. amazing.
2: oic, this old man is saying he has to sell his wife's ring or starve, but at the end of the bit reveals he has a bunch of money in his pockets. so really he's just trying to get more out of pawning off the ring
1: Smile. Breaking it to evaluate it... I'm just expecting a long lead up to "No this is not worth $2"
1: Smile. Puts the loop in but uses the other eye
1: oh wow. the parts moving around on the table
1: Smile. that ending.
1=20251217, 2=20251218
Watched an incomplete clip 20251217 (YouTube)
Watched 20251218 (YouTube) (color) (no sound)
The Pawnshop (1916) Charles Chaplin. 25 min
Relevant Links:
The Pawnshop (IMDb.com)
The Pawnshop (RottenTomatoes.com)
The Pawnshop (Wikipedia.org)
No comments :