Can we get a short primer...

Technically-oriented discussion of classic films on everything from 35mm to Blu-Ray
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

telical

  • Posts: 455
  • Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:46 pm

Can we get a short primer...

PostThu Jul 28, 2011 7:11 am

On what we would be looking for if we were a lost film scout starting out?
I've never studied film stock and so I don't know if I should only focus on 16 MM and
28 MM, etc. Are lost silent films often found on old pathe nitrate stock, and so
on.

Maybe something like this exists online (or maybe it should).

I know in dealing with the public, there often isn't information out there that
we think is obvious. Such as, do they public even know that 80% of silent
films are lost, etc.

--
Robert Pearson
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
Offline
User avatar

silentfilm

Moderator

  • Posts: 6801
  • Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:31 pm
  • Location: Dallas, TX USA

Re: Can we get a short primer...

PostThu Jul 28, 2011 11:09 am

I don't think that you can eliminate any film stocks, except for maybe 8mm and Super 8mm. Paul Gierucki discovered The Thief Catcher on 16mm from an antiques dealer. Forum member Thomas States has purchased a big collection of 28mm cartoons. And forum member Darren Nemeth has found a lot of 35mm nitrate clips that were sold for toy projectors.

"Lost" films do show up on eBay, but if they are nitrate you will be competing with David Shepard, Serge Bromberg and other unidentified collectors. If you are looking for 16mm films, you will need a projector and rewinds to inspect your films. You will be handicapped by not knowing which films were commonly available and which films are very rare and possibly not in an archive.
Offline
User avatar

Christopher Jacobs

Moderator

  • Posts: 1407
  • Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:53 pm
  • Location: Grand Forks, North Dakota

Re: Can we get a short primer...

PostThu Jul 28, 2011 12:10 pm

The best and probably most likely way to find a "lost" film is to discover a 35mm nitrate print. There were also some old 35mm diacetate prints made for nontheatrical circulation in the 20s and 30s, and it's possible that 35mm safety film prints made in the 1940s and 50s could be the best surviving material on a few titles. Early home movie and nontheatrical formats like 28mm, 16mm, and 9.5mm are more likely to yield abridgements or excerpts of features, although many complete short films and a number of complete features features survive in one or more of those formats (often slightly more or less complete or in slightly different versions) that do not survive in the original 35mm. You should find a chart of the film date codes that are printed along the edges of film. It's more likely for a film printed in a common format like 16mm to be rare or unique if the print itself was made in the 1920s, 30s, or 40s. Prints made for television and college/library rentals from the 1950s onward will almost never be considered "rare" let alone "lost," even though such prints may still be relatively rare chances to view the films (as the original materials may be locked away in studio and archival vaults with no screening copies easily available and never released to home video). Films tied up with current rights problems were sometimes available in TV packages 50-60 years ago, and 16mm prints of those are certainly prized by collectors even if they're not officially lost films.

It actually is entirely possible that certain lost films might show up in 8mm prints from the Kodascope library. These would have been printed during the 1930s or 40s from the 35mm negatives, and are extremely rare. Those that do survive have usually (though not necessarily) also survived in 16mm prints. The 8mm format was invented in the early 1930s, but gained its greatest popularity in the 1950s and 60s. Most 8mm prints for collectors were made from 8mm negatives reduced from 16mm finegrain masters made from 16mm reduction negatives made from 35mm prints (or finegrain positives) made from the 35mm negatives. A number of 8mm prints used 16mm Kodascopes as the masters for the 8mm negatives. Super 8 copies would have been printed the same way but the Super 8 format was not introduced until the mid-1960s, so any films surviving on Super 8 probably have a 99.999% chance of existing in a better format, whereas a 1930s or 40s vintage standard 8mm print could very well be unique.
Online
User avatar

Jim Reid

  • Posts: 1057
  • Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:16 am
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Can we get a short primer...

PostThu Jul 28, 2011 2:46 pm

Excellent post, Christopher! It's all right there.
Offline
User avatar

telical

  • Posts: 455
  • Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Can we get a short primer...

PostThu Jul 28, 2011 3:20 pm

Thanks. I have a few more areas I'm interested in.

I am especially in films made in the 1910s and 1920s that may have never had copies
made for the home market. What would these films physically look like?

I imagine that for films over 1 hr that are described as "three reeler," one would
actually be finding three reels to find the complete film?

--
Robert Pearson
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
Online
User avatar

Jim Reid

  • Posts: 1057
  • Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:16 am
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Can we get a short primer...

PostThu Jul 28, 2011 3:53 pm

telical wrote:I imagine that for films over 1 hr that are described as "three reeler," one would
actually be finding three reels to find the complete film?


"Three reelers" are referring to 1000ft 35mm reels which run 10 minutes at sound speed. A three reeler would be about a half-hour long. Obviously, silent films running at a slower speed would be a bit longer.
Offline
User avatar

Christopher Jacobs

Moderator

  • Posts: 1407
  • Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:53 pm
  • Location: Grand Forks, North Dakota

Re: Can we get a short primer...

PostThu Jul 28, 2011 9:42 pm

One reel of 35mm film was originally standardized at 1000 feet by the late 1890s, although by the mid-1910s many if not most theatres had projectors that would hold 2000-foot reels (still the standard for theatres that use a pair of projectors with changeovers instead of one projector with the whole film wound onto a platter). Thus a "three-reeler" would look like one-and-a-half reels if mounted on the double-size 2000-foot reels. If you found a "three-reeler" on three full 2000-foot reels, it would technically be referred to as a six-reeler (mounted on three double-size reels) and would run about an hour at 24 fps and could run close to an hour and a half if from the 1910s and intended to run closer to 16 or 18 fps. Also note that in the early 1910s, a three-reeler could well be considered a "feature," as the slower projection speed at that time would make three reels last 40-50 minutes instead of the half-hour or so they'd run at 24 fps.

Another quick note about Super 8 -- I used to have a 50-foot (about 3 minutes worth) Super 8 abridgement of TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE that included a couple of shots and a title card or two that I didn't see in many 16mm prints or any video editions until the latest restoration put out by Flicker Alley! It's possible in such a case that the preprint had been cut up to make home editions or use as clips in a documentary, and never reassembled by the time someone wanted to put the entire movie out on video. Thus, although unlikely, even a Super 8 print might have been made from a source that has since become lost.

If you haven't already found them, you should check out the websites at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/ and
http://www.filmsound.org/
all of which together will probably give you more information than you wanted to know about film size and image shape formats, early color formats, and all sorts of sound formats.
Offline

pookybear

  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:49 am

Re: Can we get a short primer...

PostSat Aug 06, 2011 9:39 pm

telical,

Nothing quite like finding something that has once been lost and seeing for the first time in decades. But before you go
running to the hills and closets of the world looking for film treasures. You need to know about film stocks and how to care
for prints and of course proper storage. Simple web searches will give you answers in this regard. Just look up nitrate
film stock and diacetate + triacetate film stocks as well. Lots of information out there on these.

Generally speaking I think triacetate was 1948 and later.
Diacetate started in 1907 and hit the market place in 1911 with Pathe and 1912 with Edison for use in the home markets.
Nitrate stock was used for most other film sizes not just 35mm the earlier you go the less standardization in film sizes.
The last Nitrate was made in 1952 in the US and by 1954 elsewhere. After this point saftey stocks took over.

Film finds can come on any size film too so never over look anything. I have two "master" postives sitting on 28mm stock right
now in my collection. But finds can and do turn up all the time. Having close ties with archive staff is also helpful.

Pookybear
Offline
User avatar

Bob Birchard

  • Posts: 616
  • Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:03 am

Re: Can we get a short primer...

PostFri Aug 19, 2011 9:48 am

Christopher Jacobs wrote:One reel of 35mm film was originally standardized at 1000 feet by the late 1890s, although by the mid-1910s many if not most theatres had projectors that would hold 2000-foot reels (still the standard for theatres that use a pair of projectors with changeovers instead of one projector with the whole film wound onto a platter). Thus a "three-reeler" would look like one-and-a-half reels if mounted on the double-size 2000-foot reels. If you found a "three-reeler" on three full 2000-foot reels, it would technically be referred to as a six-reeler (mounted on three double-size reels) and would run about an hour at 24 fps and could run close to an hour and a half if from the 1910s and intended to run closer to 16 or 18 fps. Also note that in the early 1910s, a three-reeler could well be considered a "feature," as the slower projection speed at that time would make three reels last 40-50 minutes instead of the half-hour or so they'd run at 24 fps.


I'm going to respectfully disagree with Chris on some of the points above.

1) A "reel" by definition in the motion picture industry is a 1,000 foot reel, which may opntain less than 1,000 feet of 35mm film--though sometime a given film mught have slightly more than 1,000 feet in a single reel. Irvin Willat, who supervised editorial for Thomas Ince before he became a director said that in general footage on a reel was kept to 980 feet or less so as not to overfiill a reel.


2) Although some projectors were equipped to handle larger loads, the standard of "double reels" (or 2,000 footers) for projection was not formalized in the industry until 1937. So, a film like "Gone With The Wind" is a 24-reeler, though because it was released after 1937 it shipped on (for various technical reasons) something like 16 double reels. But, and this gets a little complicated, Double reel # 1 would consist of reels one and two (as some labs/studios would designate) OR Reel 1A and Reel 1B as others would designate. These reels were always spliced together in "positive assembly" at the lab or the film exchange before shipping--after 1937. A film like "It Happened One Night" (1934) would have shipped on 10 single reels at the time of its initial release. At the time of its 1948 reissue, it would have shipped on 5 double reels, but it still would have been designated as a 10-reel picture.

3) The reasons for maintaining the 1,000 reels long after double-reel projection became standard had a lot to do with A) storage--vaults were generally set up to handle 1,000 reels; B) Ease of working--it is a lot tougher for an editor, sound editor, negative cutter or lab technician to hand wind ganged 2,000 foot reels than 1,000 reels; and C) tradition

4) It is really only in recent years--maybe the last 10 of 15 that--again largely for technological reasosns--that labs have routinely joined the A & B negative reels nefore printing. Optical sound tracks are now also recorded in 2,000 foot lengths. So today, and for the past several years--but not that long--it has become more common to refer to a 10,000 foot film as a 5-reeler (because of the printing units in which the negative is mounted) rather than a 10 reeler. The real change occurred primarily with the switch from film based to digital based sound editing technologies because it fanally became practical for sound editors to assemble their work in the longer "double-reel" format.
Offline
User avatar

Christopher Jacobs

Moderator

  • Posts: 1407
  • Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:53 pm
  • Location: Grand Forks, North Dakota

Re: Can we get a short primer...

PostFri Aug 19, 2011 10:27 am

Bob Birchard wrote:
Christopher Jacobs wrote:One reel of 35mm film was originally standardized at 1000 feet by the late 1890s, although by the mid-1910s many if not most theatres had projectors that would hold 2000-foot reels (still the standard for theatres that use a pair of projectors with changeovers instead of one projector with the whole film wound onto a platter). ...


I'm going to respectfully disagree with Chris on some of the points above.

1) A "reel" by definition in the motion picture industry is a 1,000 foot reel, ...

3) The reasons for maintaining the 1,000 reels long after double-reel projection became standard had a lot to do with A) storage--vaults were generally set up to handle 1,000 reels; B) Ease of working--it is a lot tougher for an editor, sound editor, negative cutter or lab technician to hand wind ganged 2,000 foot reels than 1,000 reels; and C) tradition

4) ... today, and for the past several years--but not that long--it has become more common to refer to a 10,000 foot film as a 5-reeler (because of the printing units in which the negative is mounted) rather than a 10 reeler. The real change occurred primarily with the switch from film based to digital based sound editing technologies because it fanally became practical for sound editors to assemble their work in the longer "double-reel" format.


I wouldn't so much say you're disagreeing, as adding what should be included as an "asterisk" from the production side of the business. On the exhibition side, all my years working in theatres (mid 1980s-mid 2000s), the managers, projectionists and staff referred to films as "five reels" or "six reels" and even older managers who'd worked in theatres since the 50s and 60s didn't really know what I was talking about when I might happen to refer to them as 10-reelers or 12-reelers (which to them were super-epics up to three hours long, at 20 minutes per reel). The leaders were always marked "1A" and "1B" at the heads and tails, rather than "1" and "2" and always came in cans holding two, three, or four 2000-foot reels. By the 1990s and the switch from acetate to polyester film, the "A" and "B" were rare and it was just simple numbering of the 2000-foot reels (which were usually printed in longer segments and cut up onto 2000-foot reels, as sometimes the head or tail of another reel was left on a reel before or after the actual reel's head or tail, really confusing the person who had to splice them all together, as it made it look as if a reel was missing from the can and there was a duplicate of another reel).

Even older small-town theatres had projectors with reel magazines designed for 2000-foot reels, and I expect that this was standard practice for many years before Hollywood officialy standardized the distribution on 2000-foot reels. It's just that before the mid or late 30s the theatres had to assemble the 1000-foot reels onto 2000-foot "house reels" before running them (and thus cutting the number of changeovers in half), the same way I had to assemble the 2000-foot reels onto the huge 6000-foot reels used at one theatre I worked at (which let most films run with just one changeoover, and short kiddie-shows of up to about 75 minutes or so fit onto one packed reel. The local Masonic Temple had a 1913 model Simplex Standard that held 2000-foot reels, but if they ever did run a feature they'd have to have a break between reels, about every 20-30 minutes (and the projector was designed so the lamphouse could slide over and project intermission slides while the operator was changing the reel).

Return to Tech Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron