Things I wanna know before I kick the bucket!

[1mach1]

Because we were first. When Edison came up with a practical light bulb he didn't have the materials to make a filament to stand higher voltage. By the time that advancement happened 120 volt was the standard. It was also thought to be safer to use than 240 volts. Europe and a lot of the rest of the world was farther behind in widespread electrical distribution so they were able to take advantage of the lower distribution cost of higher voltage.

Well I'll be. Thanks for the info, man. Great answer!

 

[2jakes]

I’d like to know the reason why silent films actors are moving
faster than real time? Was this mostly for laughs or something else?

I’ve read that this scene from "Sherlock Jr" resulted in Keaton breaking
his neck, though he wouldn't realize until years later when a routine
medical revealed a callous had grown over the decade old fracture.

 

[1mach1]

I’d like to know the reason why silent films actors are moving
faster than real time? Was this mostly for laughs or something else?

I’ve read that this scene from "Sherlock Jr" resulted in Keaton breaking
his neck, though he wouldn't realize until years later when a routine
medical revealed a callous had grown over the decade old fracture.

Now that, for sure, can be answered by the movie guru herself @LizzieMaine

 

[vitanola]

Well, before about 1912 film speed was more-or-less standardized at about 16 frames per second, after it was standardized at 18 frames per second. During the silent era, projectors were hand cranked, and a good operator would aim for a natural appearance of movement, although when comedies were projected a talentwd operator would key the speed of certain scenes to both the action and to the audience mood, enhancing the comic effect. With the coming of Talkies, film speed was standardized at 24 frames per second, and projectors were operated with fixed speed motors, so that when silent films are projected on post-1927 machines everything is unnaturally sped up

 

[Zombie_61]

I have a copy of Buster Keaton's The General (1926) on DVD that has been corrected to play at the proper speed. One of the first things I noticed when I watched it the first time was that "The Great Stone Face" wasn't so stone-faced after all. His facial expressions are more nuanced than most actors of the era, but they're there and they add a new dimension to his performance if you've only seen his movies at the incorrect speeds.

 

[2jakes]

Now that, for sure, can be answered by the movie guru herself @LizzieMaine

Great answer about early film speeds.
But she looks different somehow!

 

[1mach1]

View attachment 115115
Great answer about early film speeds.
But she looks different somehow!

 

[LizzieMaine]

By about the mid-twenties, most films were being shot between 22-24 fps -- some of the late Keatons were shot very close to modern speed. There were usually instructions to projectionists printed on the leader for each reel of film specifying the appropriate speed. Custom projectors are available today that offer a variety of speeds, but this isn't as satisfactory as having a continuous rheostat control.

16fps was about as slow as you could safely run nitrate film in front of a carbon-arc lamp without the risk of it catching fire, and some of the movement toward faster speeds was motivated as much by safety concerns as by directoral technique. There were also nickel-nursing theatre managers who insisted on overcranking the projector to squeeze in an extra show each day -- especially when showing an unusually long feature.

The real problems began when most silent films were being shown on 16mm sound projectors. These offered only two fixed speed choices -- 16fps and 24fps -- which compromised the quality of a lot of film. They were either too fast or too slow when shown. Something like Keaton's "Steamboat Bill Jr." or Fairbanks' "Robin Hood" is intolerable when shown at 16fps, but they're right about where they should be when shown at the modern "sound speed." On the other hand, running early Griffith or Keystone films at 16 is just a bit too slow, but showing them at 24 makes them look ridiculous. So without specialized equipment, you really can't screen those films properly.

 

[2jakes]

By about the mid-twenties, most films were being shot between 22-24 fps -- some of the late Keatons were shot very close to modern speed. There were usually instructions to projectionists printed on the leader for each reel of film specifying the appropriate speed. Custom projectors are available today that offer a variety of speeds, but this isn't as satisfactory as having a continuous rheostat control.

16fps was about as slow as you could safely run nitrate film in front of a carbon-arc lamp without the risk of it catching fire, and some of the movement toward faster speeds was motivated as much by safety concerns as by directoral technique. There were also nickel-nursing theatre managers who insisted on overcranking the projector to squeeze in an extra show each day -- especially when showing an unusually long feature.

The real problems began when most silent films were being shown on 16mm sound projectors. These offered only two fixed speed choices -- 16fps and 24fps -- which compromised the quality of a lot of film. They were either too fast or too slow when shown. Something like Keaton's "Steamboat Bill Jr." or Fairbanks' "Robin Hood" is intolerable when shown at 16fps, but they're right about where they should be when shown at the modern "sound speed."

On behalf of all us here at the Lounge,
Thank You LizzieMaine!

 

[Zombie_61]

On behalf of all us here at the Lounge,
Thank You LizzieMaine!

I'll second that. I have learned more from reading Miss Lizzie's posts than I learned in high school, and the information she shares is far more interesting.

 

[2jakes]

I'll second that. I have learned more from reading Miss Lizzie's posts than I learned in high school, and the information she shares is far more interesting.

What I love about her is that she has the
ability to share her information and not come across as a "know-it-all".
That is so refreshing.

 

[1mach1]

Why hasnt there been more advances in commercial jet flight times? The technical is there, but I'm not sure why its not executed. Expense perhaps?

 

[Fading Fast]

Why hasnt there been more advances in commercial jet flight times? The technical is there, but I'm not sure why its not executed. Expense perhaps?

You might just be about to get your wish as I recently read an article (link below) that said several supersonic efforts (the first ones since the Concord shut down) are in the preparation stage for commercial flight.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supersonic-flight-prepares-for-takeoff-again-1522850332

 

[Fading Fast]

Before going, I'd like to know why I find streetcars very attractive and a wonderful visual add to a cityscape, but find buses, overall, boring despite there being (historically) some very cool bus designs and despite that fact that busses and streetcars have a decent amount of visual overlap.

 

[GHT]

Before going, I'd like to know why I find streetcars very attractive and a wonderful visual add to a cityscape, but find buses, overall, boring despite there being (historically) some very cool bus designs and despite that fact that busses and streetcars have a decent amount of visual overlap.

I do so agree with that, furthermore, and I need to clarify a definition, what you call trolley buses we call trams, our definition of trolleys is a bus that looks like it has an internal combustion engine, but instead it has two pick ups on the bus roof called booms, that supply it's power source. I love trolley buses.
And you are right about some buses being cool. London had The Routemaster, such an iconic design and one that Londoners and tourists alike love so much that a route was preserved to run the old bus, at least it was before I left London. The new Routemaster isn't bad either.

What I would like to know, if I used a laser light do you think I could attract Catwoman?

 

[Zombie_61]

Before going, I'd like to know why I find streetcars very attractive and a wonderful visual add to a cityscape, but find buses, overall, boring despite there being (historically) some very cool bus designs and despite that fact that busses and streetcars have a decent amount of visual overlap.

You were probably a streetcar driver in a past life who lost your job when those newfangled buses came along, and you're still holding a grudge.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Buses smell bad. Streetcars make too much noise. Take your pick.

 

[Edward]

Why hasnt there been more advances in commercial jet flight times? The technical is there, but I'm not sure why its not executed. Expense perhaps?

Concorde was the big advance: New York from London in three and a half hours instead of eight. Thing is, Concorde could carry a maximum of 100 passengers and a flight of that distance required just over 89,000 litres of fuel. By comparison, the Boeing 747 could take 400 people from London to New York in eight hours, using just 59,000 litres of fuel. Result was that Concorde cost an awful lot to run, so not many could afford it - and of those who could, why pay double for Concorde what would get you a business class flight in a 747, just to shave ten hours off a return journey? The crash didn't kill Concorde - the balance sheet did.

And you are right about some buses being cool. London had The Routemaster, such an iconic design and one that Londoners and tourists alike love so much that a route was preserved to run the old bus, at least it was before I left London. The new Routemaster isn't bad either.
View attachment 115358 View attachment 115359

The originals still run on part of the Number 15 Route - the section between St Paul's and the Strand. Many others are in private hands now, and common seen on the roads ferrying wedding guests between ceremony and reception venue.

The new ones are a nice piece of design - though unfortunately far less fuel efficient and much more expensive than were advertised. They are also unsuitable for many busy routes (such as the 25) because they replicate two of the major problems of the bendy buses, to whit the driver doesn't have sufficient control to prevent overcrowding with the multiple points of entry, and also they are notorious for fare dodging.

 

[2jakes]

Buses smell bad. Streetcars make too much noise. Take your pick.

Lizzie--you need to sit in the front seats
of the bus.
The winos and beatniks usually drift
towards the rear of the bus.

Sit near the bus driver's area. Especially
in the hot summer months.
You can take advantage of the tiny
indoor air fan.

On streetcars:

 

[2jakes]

What I wanna know is why is it when you
board an almost empty bus, the person
getting in has to seat next to you.
Not sure which is worse--- Venus wearing strong perfume to cover the stench of not having bathed in days or Mars who
hasn't bathed and smells like an ashtray
that has been dipped in pee.

Here's what I did:
I'd pull on the cord to signal the bus driver to stop at the next corner.
I'd make my way up to the driver and
asked if such and such street was coming
up (I knew already) the driver said not yet. I then would sit down.

The next stop, another passenger would get on board.

Guess where they would pick to sit down?