I believe we all will agree that when a moving object has been photographed for reproduction as a motion picture, if it is to appear upon the screen in all respects as the original object appeared to the "eye" of the camera, the speed of its projection must be exactly the same as was the speed of its taking- the same as the camera speed when it was "shot." We will, I think, all heartily agree that any departure from perfect synchronization of the taking, or camera speed, and the speed of reproduction, or projection, must, and inevitably will cause the moving object to appear differently upon the screen than it appeared to and was photographed by the camera, hence under such conditions the spectator cannot and will, not see the moving object as the camera "saw" it.

We, therefore, conclude that for best effect it is always necessary that there be perfect synchronization between taking and projection speed, but this conclusion would, in some cases, lead us astray. It is a fact well recognized by projectionists and theatre managers that some isolated scenes may be considerably improved by a projection speed well in advance of taking speed. Such scenes are, for the most part, racing and similar scenes, where the original action, while perfectly natural, still appears more exciting and better to the theatre audience if the action be made more rapid, provided the increase be not sufficient to make it appear unnatural.

It is precisely this point which makes it difficult to convince projectionists and theatre managers that synchronization of taking and projection speeds should prevail. The instant we admit that these gentlemen should be permitted to speed up projection over taking speed, we open wide the gates for abuse, because it is then left to the judgment of every one of the many thousands of theatre managers and protectionists as to what scenes should be over-speeded and how much the speed should be accelerated. A moment of thought should convince you that this is a very serious matter indeed.

The producer is presumed to employ directors and cameramen of recognized ability, upon whose judgment we may depend in the matter of what speed of action will produce the best possible effect. These gentlemen usually carefully rehearse each scene, often at very large expense, in order that the artistic effect may be exactly right. I have myself often watched the "shooting" of a scene with a sharp command to "cut" when it was half through because some actor had moved too fast or too slowly and thus marred the artistic effect, causing a re-take. I mention this as indicating the importance directors place on the matter of speed, particularly in certain scenes, or scenes of a certain class.

After taking, the various scenes of a production are carefully scrutinized by other men, who are supposed to be expert in the matter of judging effects, before the positive prints are finally made an the production released for theatrical use.

Surely, therefore, we have the right to presume that, except for news reels, events over which the agents of the producer can have no control in the matter of speed, such as faces of various sorts, and productions where freak speeds are purposely used, all moving objects in any production are "shot" at the speed of action best calculated to produce maximum artistic effect, hence if the projection speed be perfectly synchronized with camera speed, the action will be exactly what it should be and the production will, insofar as action is concerned, have one hundred percent value to all those who witness its reproduction upon a screen.

But right there comes the rub. Except for a comparatively very few super productions, put out by a certain producer, which were accompanied by a cue sheet instructing the projectionist at exactly what projection speed each scene should be run, the projectionist has never had and does not now have any guide to correct projection speed except insofar as he is able to judge of it by watching the action of each individual scene.

The motion picture industry has, ever since its inception, labored under the handicap of having its finished product interpreted upon the screen by men who were either possessed of no manner of competency entitling them to undertake so important a function, or who labored under the limitations of a time schedule which took from them all power to interpret the action of the various scenes correctly. The abuses in this direction have been so glaring that one state, Colorado, enacted a statute forbidding the projection of any motion picture at a greater rate than eighty feet of film per second. That law still is in force.

To judge of what speed of action will produce the highest and best artistic effect, one must be equipped with very real skill and training. Even with adequate skill and training it would very often be impossible to judge of the best possible effect until one had projected and watched a scene several times at different speeds. That this is true is proven by the fact that directors very often rehearse scenes several times, changing the speed of action to get the best effect.

And now, gentlemen, I ask you to consider what percentage of motion picture projectionists have sufficient skill to be intrusted with so very important a business as this. I also ask you to consider, from your own knowledge, what percentage of projectionists have made, or are making any adequate effort to train themselves in the matter of judging action. I also ask you to consider what percentage of them are projecting under the limitations of an iron-bound time schedule which takes from them all control of projection speed.

All this leads up to the fact that failure to adopt some adequate means for securing the synchronization of camera and projection speed operates to place the entire finished product of the motion picture industry at the mercy of the theatre manager and projectionist, insofar as has to do with speed of action of all moving objects.

The theatre manager may, and very often does alter the action tempo of an entire production, either by forcing the projectionist to jam through too much film in a given "schedule" time; by not supplying enough film footage to fill up the time of the schedule at proper projection speed, or by direct orders to the projectionist to run at excess speed.

Very often this is carried to an extent which causes the action to appear ridiculous and farcical.

On the other hand the projectionist may sadly mar the effectiveness of many scenes by permitting the projector to pound along at set, unvarying speed, throughout a production in which the taking speed of scenes varies widely. This is, in fact, a very common source of injury to the artistic effect of productions, the projectionist excusing it by pointing to the time schedule, which may or may not be a valid excuse, because often it would be possible for a projectionist to gain on one scene what might be lost on another.

Camera speed is presumed to be standard- one and the same thing all the time. Cameramen vehemently declare it to be so, or at least that the possible variations are very slight. On the other hand projectionists, to whom the task of reproducing the scenes before the public is intrusted, are a unit in declaring this to be untrue.

Many of our best projectionists are emphatic in saying that taking speed varies all the way between sixty (60) and eighty-five (85) feet per minute. Personally. I am of the opinion that this is correct, with the notation that but very little "shooting" is done at so low a speed as that first named. The opinion of competent projectionists is that seventy-five (75) feet per minute is the speed most used by cameramen, though there is much variation as between seventy and eighty.

Whether it is possible to adopt and compel cameramen to use some unvarying taking speed I do not know, but certainly if it could be done, without injury in other directions, it would operate to enormously improve that which the public sees upon the screen, because we could then demand that the projector be operated at standard taking speed, and would have a cogent argument behind that demand.

When the producer, who has expended huge sums of money and tremendous effort in perfecting a production, finally looks at it in the finished state in his screening room, I wonder if he realizes that but relatively very few theatre audiences will ever see it exactly as he has seen it?

He is filled with pride as he looks upon some fine bit of acting- a death bed scene, for instance. He declares it to be a marvel of artistry, and that it will "bring tears to their eyes," which would be quite true did the audiences see it as he has seen it.

But the finely acted scene will bring no tears to the eyes of the vast majority of audiences. To some it may actually bring laughter, because by the speed-em-up process, brought about for any one of the reasons before named, the actors who portrayed the scene so artistically before the camera will be transformed into swift-moving travesties on the original. Instead of the daughter giving her dying mother a fond embrace and a loving kiss, she is made literally to grab the mother, yank her head up, dab their lips together and scuttle away as though it were a deuced nuisance and she was glad it was over with. The whole effect the director has striven so hard to attain is entirely altered and utterly ruined.

I have asked before, and I again ask, does the producer really take the slightest interest in the way his productions are placed before the public? It would seem not. Certainly he well knows that they are literally robbed of all artistic beauty in thousands of theatres every day, for no other reason that failure to project them at camera speed, and thus duplicate the original action. For some reason, which the ordinary mind cannot comprehend, the producer does not seem to be in any way interested in this man-handling of his product, or if he is he does not make even the smallest protest. In all the great mass of printed and written advertising matter sent out by producers, I have never seen one word of comment on the importance of projecting the picture at taking speed. In all the many articles in various trade and other papers, which emanated from the offices of producers, I have yet to find one single word of protest against the ruinous process of overspeeding, or a word of caution as to the importance of synchronization of taking and projection speed. In all the thousands of articles sent out by producers for publication in newspapers and magazines, for general consumption by the public, I have yet to see a single word tending to educate the public to demand 100 percent value for its money by insisting on proper projection speed. There is never a word heard in any of the many speeches made by producers and their representatives upon the importance of so projecting the picture that it will duplicate the original scene in action.

The Projection Department I have had the honor of conducting in one of the trade papers for twelve years past has, during all that time, literally battled against the OUTRAGE of over-speeding. During all that time it has not had even the slightest aid or encouragement from any producer of motion pictures in this matter, except that Wm. V.D. Kelley did once say to me: "The work you are doing in fighting over-speeding is good." That is absolutely all the apparent interest producers have taken in my attempt to suppress this great evil.

Trade papers are not secret affairs. The producers all know of them, and are not at all slow to utilize their columns to the full extent of their ability for setting forth the excellence of their product, but when it comes to utilizing those same columns to tell the exhibitor how much finer those same products would appear to the public if they were projected at proper speed, they are very conspicuous by their silence.

Frankly I am unable to understand this. If the producer does not care how his product appears before its buyer- the public, then why in the name of Heaven does he employ high grade talent all through the process of its making, and guard every step in the making with utmost care. One would suppose that when such great pains are taken to rehearse scenes sometimes a dozen times, until they appear exactly as the director desires them to appear, both the director and the producer would strongly object to anything in the way of an almost universal practice which tends to change the action and lower the quality of what has been so carefully worked out, down to its smallest detail.

One would even suppose that the various "stars," and actors of other grade, would strongly object to being made to appear before the public as animated jumping jacks, by having their actions speeded up to, in extreme cases, pretty nearly double what it really was. But in all my experience I have never known of any actor, of high or low grade, voicing even the very smallest objection.

I once sat next to one of the really big stars in a theatre. She was watching one of her own productions, without the knowledge of any one that she was present. The "schedule" was about right for seven reels, but the projectionist was given eight reels all rather overloaded, and one somewhat less than loaded, which he must jam through in the allotted time. The 'star' was made to move around like mad, and the whole of her work was ruined. I fully expected her to be indignant, but not so. She merely giggled and remarked: "Isn't it awful the way they run them?" It did not seem to occur to her that she could possibly do anything to stop such butchery of her work, by calling the attention of the public to it in some of the many "interviews" printed in newspapers as coming from her.

What is needed is a campaign on the part of producers, stars and all those having influence, to educate not only the projectionist and the exhibitor, but the public as well on the bad effect of non-synchronism of taking and projection speed. Once let the public understand the matter and the reason behind the ridiculously fast moving actors, and it will call a halt.

I am sure all trade papers would be glad to lend every assistance possible, and a few articles in the Sunday editions and magazines on the subject would cost nothing but the effort of preparing and presenting them. This would help to advise the public on the injury done to productions by the exhibitor and projectionist who fail to project at taking speed, or approximately so.

The real solution of course is to compel a really unvarying standard camera speed, and then so construct projectors that they will operate at that speed only, but this is, I fear, impracticable. I even am not sure that it would, for several reasons, be desirable, but surely variations in camera speed can, with proper effort, be confined within close limits, and this would help very greatly.

In this connection allow me to once more call your attention to the fact that under present conditions of high screen brilliancy in a very large percentage of our high grade theatres, and in some which are not high grade, it is entirely impossible to synchronize projection speed with any camera speed less than seventy (70) feet of film per minute, and sixty five (65) is an absolute minimum. In fact in very many theatres seventy (70) feet is the minimum projection speed possible without flicker, especially on the lighter (less dense) scenes.

It is quite true that the high grade, competent projectionist, who thoroughly understands the optical train of his projector, and how to get the best possible optical balance in his projector rotating shutter, can project at a considerably lower speed, before encountering flicker, than can the incompetent projectionist who has the same screen brilliancy, but who has no knowledge beyond the mere operation of the projector mechanism.

However, since we must perforce deal with both classes, it follows that until exhibitors wake up to the importance of high grade skill and knowledge in their projection rooms, we must, for the best effect, adopt a taking speed enabling the low grade projectionist to project at that speed without flicker.

As the matter now lies the projectionists of pretty nearly all high grade theatres would be compelled to over-speed any production taken at the speed of sixty per minute, which is the standard adopted by this society, since at sixty per minute there would be a terrible flicker, even with the best possible condition as to optical balance of the projector rotating shutter. As a matter of fact the screen brilliancy in some theatres is such that productions having many light scenes must be projected at close to eighty feet per minute in order to avoid flicker.

You may therefore see, gentlemen, that while the standard of taking and projection speed adopted by this society may have been quite correct when it was adopted, due to increased screen brilliancy it is now entirely too low, and should be changed.
 

Mr. Richardson: If that is true, then the speed must be very, very much slower. It means that instead of keeping projection speed at camera speed you would turn over the whole thing to men who know nothing at all about artistry and the man in the projector room, and the ultimate effect of this is ridiculous. Do you mean to say such a thing is good for the industry? If the director doesn't know what is best in such matters, it is unfortunate, because I know of no one else who does. If you can educate and oblige the projectionist to project at taking speed, the result would be enormous improvement. I think the camera speed can be promoted reproduced flicker.

F.H. Richardson, "Importance of Synchronizing Taking and Camera Speeds," Transactions of S.M.P.E., No. 17, 1924, pages 117-123. (meeting of October 1-4, 1923).

© 1998, David Pierce, on editing and revisions (if any)

Return to the Silent Film Bookshelf Home Page