4 ms·

The film has been played on endless repeat, with "original sound", since the 1970s, at Disneyland's Main Street Cinema. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Stree

The film has been played on endless repeat, with "original sound", since the 1970s, at Disneyland's Main Street Cinema. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street_Cinema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street_Cinema It would be interesting to see if anyone has made remarks on the sound quality and whether the flutter has been noticeable over the past 50+ years.

djmips 3y ago
It certainly has been noticeable. It just gets mentally filed under 'old timey' sound.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  "filed under 'old timey' sound" A little flutter was an unavoidable part of our audio for a very long time. I think producers sometimes add a little flutter even to modern music productions to make them sound less digital. At least that is my assumption from the number plugins that are available for that purpose and from the obsession producers and mixing engineers have with vintage tape machines.
- m463 3y ago
  and people just must have been more frenetic in old-time movies, moving faster and more jerkily not a hand-cranked/fps mismatch I kind of wonder if the cameramen cranked slower sometimes to save film
  - madaxe_again 3y ago
    Undercranking was generally used for dramatic effect, but I definitely have read about it being used to allow longer takes with a fixed film reel length - if you undercrank by 10%, you get 10% more time before you have to stop and reload.
    - deredede 3y ago
      It's even better due to the way percentages work - if you undercrank by 10% you get a bit over 11% more time (after 100% of the original time, you still have 10% of the reel left, but you keep undercranking, so by the end of the 10% extra time, you still have 1% of the reel left, etc.).
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    If a flywheel was used, the erratic nature of hand cranking would be smoothed out. I bet a governor system could be devised to make the speed correct.
  - thrdbndndn 3y ago
    I never understand why playing at wrong FPS for these old-time footage is a thing. It was so obviously wrong. (By that I meant in "professional" settings, like a commercial release. You see people stretching 4:3 videos to 16:9 all the time on YouTube, Tiktok etc. but at least Warner Bros. isn't going to do that. However the FPS incorrectness used to be prevalent even in the industry.)
    - callalex 3y ago
      Well, tv stations these days speed up the playback of older shows by a few percent so they can fit more commercials in than the original creator provided time for. I’m so glad I haven’t payed for cable in a very long time.
      - toast0 3y ago
        If you're lucky they speed up the playback. If you're not, they cut to commercial on a schedule, damn the content. Doesn't matter if you miss the punchline of the joke that was being setup this whole time. Of course, it's worse with online tv with ad breaks. The online ads cut in 2-5 seconds before or after the program break, so it interrupts the content, and if you skip back to try it again, they play another ad, also inserted incorrectly. To make it even worse, the ads are usually at a different framerate and resolution from the content, so you get a new resync and a new hdcp handshake, so there goes another few seconds of content; unless you set your player to fixed resolution and framerate which isn't ideal. I'm in prime circumstances to be a couch potato in front of the tv, but it's so damn frustrating, it's not worth it. You can't even channel surf, because tuning a new channel takes too long, so you've got to plan your changes.
    - toast0 3y ago
      > I never understand why playing at wrong FPS for these old-time footage is a thing. It was so obviously wrong. Old-time footage isn't always at 24 fps, but once the film industry standardized hard on 24 fps, not standard film becomes very hard to use correctly, even in a projection environment --- projectors were engineered around 24 fps all the time, and likely can't be adjusted. Tv of course was fixed at 60 fields per second (or close enough) or 50 in Europe. Even today, a US market tv is going to do terrible things with a 50 fps signal (although I gather EU market tvs work at 50 and 60 and probably 24). If your old-time film was shot at 22.3 fps, you don't have good options to show it, except on a computer with a VRR display, and even then, I don't know if the whole chain will actually be fine with it. Options are: pretend it is 24 fps and it plays a bit fast and you can use your 24fps pipeline; show some frames twice and have nasty judder; interpolate 24 fps from the data you have which is kind of terrible and only recently a real option.
  - sgtnoodle 3y ago
    If they cranked slower, maybe the film would overheat and burn from the lamp?

djmips 3y ago

It certainly has been noticeable. It just gets mentally filed under 'old timey' sound.

weinzierl 3y ago
"filed under 'old timey' sound" A little flutter was an unavoidable part of our audio for a very long time. I think producers sometimes add a little flutter even to modern music productions to make them sound less digital. At least that is my assumption from the number plugins that are available for that purpose and from the obsession producers and mixing engineers have with vintage tape machines.
m463 3y ago
and people just must have been more frenetic in old-time movies, moving faster and more jerkily not a hand-cranked/fps mismatch I kind of wonder if the cameramen cranked slower sometimes to save film
- madaxe_again 3y ago
  Undercranking was generally used for dramatic effect, but I definitely have read about it being used to allow longer takes with a fixed film reel length - if you undercrank by 10%, you get 10% more time before you have to stop and reload.
  - deredede 3y ago
    It's even better due to the way percentages work - if you undercrank by 10% you get a bit over 11% more time (after 100% of the original time, you still have 10% of the reel left, but you keep undercranking, so by the end of the 10% extra time, you still have 1% of the reel left, etc.).
- WalterBright 3y ago
  If a flywheel was used, the erratic nature of hand cranking would be smoothed out. I bet a governor system could be devised to make the speed correct.
- thrdbndndn 3y ago
  I never understand why playing at wrong FPS for these old-time footage is a thing. It was so obviously wrong. (By that I meant in "professional" settings, like a commercial release. You see people stretching 4:3 videos to 16:9 all the time on YouTube, Tiktok etc. but at least Warner Bros. isn't going to do that. However the FPS incorrectness used to be prevalent even in the industry.)
  - callalex 3y ago
    Well, tv stations these days speed up the playback of older shows by a few percent so they can fit more commercials in than the original creator provided time for. I’m so glad I haven’t payed for cable in a very long time.
    - toast0 3y ago
      If you're lucky they speed up the playback. If you're not, they cut to commercial on a schedule, damn the content. Doesn't matter if you miss the punchline of the joke that was being setup this whole time. Of course, it's worse with online tv with ad breaks. The online ads cut in 2-5 seconds before or after the program break, so it interrupts the content, and if you skip back to try it again, they play another ad, also inserted incorrectly. To make it even worse, the ads are usually at a different framerate and resolution from the content, so you get a new resync and a new hdcp handshake, so there goes another few seconds of content; unless you set your player to fixed resolution and framerate which isn't ideal. I'm in prime circumstances to be a couch potato in front of the tv, but it's so damn frustrating, it's not worth it. You can't even channel surf, because tuning a new channel takes too long, so you've got to plan your changes.
  - toast0 3y ago
    > I never understand why playing at wrong FPS for these old-time footage is a thing. It was so obviously wrong. Old-time footage isn't always at 24 fps, but once the film industry standardized hard on 24 fps, not standard film becomes very hard to use correctly, even in a projection environment --- projectors were engineered around 24 fps all the time, and likely can't be adjusted. Tv of course was fixed at 60 fields per second (or close enough) or 50 in Europe. Even today, a US market tv is going to do terrible things with a 50 fps signal (although I gather EU market tvs work at 50 and 60 and probably 24). If your old-time film was shot at 22.3 fps, you don't have good options to show it, except on a computer with a VRR display, and even then, I don't know if the whole chain will actually be fine with it. Options are: pretend it is 24 fps and it plays a bit fast and you can use your 24fps pipeline; show some frames twice and have nasty judder; interpolate 24 fps from the data you have which is kind of terrible and only recently a real option.
- sgtnoodle 3y ago
  If they cranked slower, maybe the film would overheat and burn from the lamp?