Re: Nitrateville General Jack-Assery: A Load of Jitter-Judde
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:09 pm
Looked over at Nutrateville today and saw Rodney Sauer has joined the silly-ass argument today trying to justify the slowing down the speeds on silent films that apparently cause this so-called “Blu-Ray Jitter-Judder”. He says that variable speeds was common practice, “especially in the first-rate houses”, and it is perfectly historically correct….
Well, again, he shows his ignorance and bias towards slower speeds here. Actually, a “first-rate” house (I’m assuming he means a “first-run” house, but considering his other misinformation, who expects him to actual know the correct terminology) like, say, the Capitol Theater in Manhattan, would be more likely to cut a film for time than mess with speed changes, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt there and say, yes, when projectionists had time to monitor a film that closely, they might do a bit of rheostat adjusting, but it was rarer than he thinks, and I knew several silent-era projectionists who told me exactly that.
Where Sauer starts spreading it pretty thick is when he brings up FOUR HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE (1921) as an example of needed rheostat-turning. He says the tango-sequence is “woefully undercranked” and benefits from a bit of slowing. Hmm, the Producers and Director of the film apparently disagree with Sauer, I quote the actual cue-sheet for the film:
'The correct speed is 12 1/2 minutes per 1,000 ft.- not any slower- and mark off, then make sure and hold it. Speedometer should be used and film should be run registering 86 revolutions per minute.” (Actual Speed: 21 1/2 fps.).
So the folk that made the film want it at one specific speed, the tango sequence is deliberately undercranked because Ingram wanted it that way, to give it energy when run at the proper speed, but why would Sauer listen to the people who made the damn thing, he thinks they’re wrong.
And you know, I just realized that being over here now, I can truly speak my mind about how lame I think the Mont Alto Orchestra’s scores are, truly lame, poncy, energy-sucking scores, designed to make any film boring, and certainly comedy-killing. Hi Rodney!
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Well, again, he shows his ignorance and bias towards slower speeds here. Actually, a “first-rate” house (I’m assuming he means a “first-run” house, but considering his other misinformation, who expects him to actual know the correct terminology) like, say, the Capitol Theater in Manhattan, would be more likely to cut a film for time than mess with speed changes, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt there and say, yes, when projectionists had time to monitor a film that closely, they might do a bit of rheostat adjusting, but it was rarer than he thinks, and I knew several silent-era projectionists who told me exactly that.
Where Sauer starts spreading it pretty thick is when he brings up FOUR HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE (1921) as an example of needed rheostat-turning. He says the tango-sequence is “woefully undercranked” and benefits from a bit of slowing. Hmm, the Producers and Director of the film apparently disagree with Sauer, I quote the actual cue-sheet for the film:
'The correct speed is 12 1/2 minutes per 1,000 ft.- not any slower- and mark off, then make sure and hold it. Speedometer should be used and film should be run registering 86 revolutions per minute.” (Actual Speed: 21 1/2 fps.).
So the folk that made the film want it at one specific speed, the tango sequence is deliberately undercranked because Ingram wanted it that way, to give it energy when run at the proper speed, but why would Sauer listen to the people who made the damn thing, he thinks they’re wrong.
And you know, I just realized that being over here now, I can truly speak my mind about how lame I think the Mont Alto Orchestra’s scores are, truly lame, poncy, energy-sucking scores, designed to make any film boring, and certainly comedy-killing. Hi Rodney!
RICHARD M ROBERTS