Old Film Flicker

[Cougar Keegan]

First off, looks like a great community here, kudos.. hope I'm asking this in the right forum.. (this was my best guess, of course :) ).

 

What causes the flicker effect in old, specifically 1940s-60s motion pictures?

 

I have heard it's a symptom of deterioration. Maybe that's partly true..

 

But to me, it has always looked 99% like an exposure issue.

 

My best guess has always been that these cameras did not have precise motors and occassionally the shutter would stick for a microsecond, thus creating uneven exposure.

 

(and I'm not even talking about the extreme issues found in crude, early/hand-crank stuff).

 

I see this happening all the time in films... becoming less common as the films get closer to the era of modern cameras. Seems more noticeable in B&W.

 

So... here's my REAL questions:

 

1) am I even right?

 

2) if so, what brought an end to the previously common flicker in films? like, what technological development? did manufacturing and electronics just perfect film motors enough that it ceased to be an issue?

 

I am just curious because I would love to know, if I went looking for a working vintage camera, what model/era/type of camera would have this effect and why.

[Stephen Williams]

First off, looks like a great community here, kudos.. hope I'm asking this in the right forum.. (this was my best guess, of course :) ).

 

What causes the flicker effect in old, specifically 1940s-60s motion pictures?

 

I have heard it's a symptom of deterioration. Maybe that's partly true..

 

But to me, it has always looked 99% like an exposure issue.

 

My best guess has always been that these cameras did not have precise motors and occassionally the shutter would stick for a microsecond, thus creating uneven exposure.

 

(and I'm not even talking about the extreme issues found in crude, early/hand-crank stuff).

 

I see this happening all the time in films... becoming less common as the films get closer to the era of modern cameras. Seems more noticeable in B&W.

 

So... here's my REAL questions:

 

1) am I even right?

 

2) if so, what brought an end to the previously common flicker in films? like, what technological development? did manufacturing and electronics just perfect film motors enough that it ceased to be an issue?

 

I am just curious because I would love to know, if I went looking for a working vintage camera, what model/era/type of camera would have this effect and why.

 

Hi,

 

I think you need to go to much older films that were developed by hand. I have tried to cause flicker by hand cranking, it really does not work unless you have a very small shutter angle.

 

Stephen

[Paul Bruening]

Can you provide more details about the circumstances under which you've spotted flickering? Was it an old print on a projector? Was it a DVD? Was it on TV? What was the age of the movie? What were some titles? Are you sure what you're asking about? Sometimes people say flicker when they might mean jitter. I'm not implying anything. Just fishing for more information. Folks here can give you some fantastic answers but could use more info to arrive at a good answer.

[John Sprung]

I restored an early hand crank camera (Ensign Cinematograph, circa 1895 - 1910). It turns out that you can't get flicker by cranking at erratic speeds. You get abnormal motion long before you get sufficient exposure variation. And the variation you get is spread out over several frames. Flicker requires frame to frame variation, or projection using a single blade shutter. You can make flicker in video post by blacking over every other frame, or blacking two frames out of every three.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Cougar Keegan]

Can you provide more details about the circumstances under which you've spotted flickering? Was it an old print on a projector? Was it a DVD? Was it on TV? What was the age of the movie? What were some titles? Are you sure what you're asking about? Sometimes people say flicker when they might mean jitter. I'm not implying anything. Just fishing for more information. Folks here can give you some fantastic answers but could use more info to arrive at a good answer.

 

Thanks.. mostly I see it on DVDs.

 

After a quick search I found an example... this is from Hiroshima Mon Amour, 1959:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aV5UFQMlnM...feature=related

 

The very first shot has a good, obvious example of what I'm referring to. The way the exposure kind of pulsates a bit from frame to frame.

 

I see this in a lot of movies from the 40's, 50's, 60's and probably into the 70's and beyond if I looked for it. Sometimes I notice it a slight bit on TV, even, like on some law and order episodes that were shot on 16mm.

[Paul Bruening]

Your example shows it clearly. I haven't noticed it before. I'll keep an eye out for it, now.

[John Hoffler]

if you are editing in Final Cut I found an effect that simulates that look somewhere online. I used it when I shot a 1920's-style slapstick in B&W on HD. It's a post effect, so it's not as good as the real deal and it compresses your image a little (just overexpose by 1/2 a stop and you'll be fine), but if you can find it, it could give you the look you're going for.

 

i think the effect on those older films is caused by the shutter.

Edited August 13, 2008 by John Hoffler

[Stephen Williams]

Your example shows it clearly. I haven't noticed it before. I'll keep an eye out for it, now.

 

Hi,

 

Probably the adjustable shutter of the camera is worn and gittering. Happens most when the shutter angle is reduced, Mitchells that have not had any attention for a long time do this.

 

Stephen

[John Sprung]

The very first shot has a good, obvious example of what I'm referring to. The way the exposure kind of pulsates a bit from frame to frame....

It looks a little longer than frame to frame, maybe 3-8 frames. Ideally, the thing to do is get this into an editing system where you can go thru it frame by frame. It's most prominent in the mid to high end. It might be a processing issue, or on color film, it might result from storing the reels on edge.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Dominic Case]

Forget abour camera variation. As pointed out elsewhere, you'd see speed anomalies together with any flicker.

 

You could be looking at at slight age fading: even in b/w film, fading is possible, though usually minimal.

 

But don't forget that you are not looking directly at the negative, but at a print (or, strictly, a telecine transfer from a print). So the performance of the printer is up for question.

 

In a continuous printer, if the running speed of the printer varies, you will get exposure variation (and it's quite pronounced because of the high gamma of print stock.). And of course it won't have any effect on the speed of the action. 24 frames is still 24 frames. Similarly, if the light source in the printer varies at all, then you'll see that in the density of the print - also magnified as a result of the high gamma of the print stock.

 

And as John points out, processing variablility is also a suspect.

 

There is quite a lot to attend to in the lab to get it right. :blink:

[John Butler]

I think I know what the OP is talking about. I have seen this in a lot of low budget films, sometimes it borders on severe. The beginning scenes of Baz Luhrmann's Strictly Ballroom, for example are very flickery.

[Dominic Case]

The beginning scenes of Baz Luhrmann's Strictly Ballroom, for example are very flickery.

But Strictly Ballroom isn't a 1940s to 60s film that the question is about. Nor was it a particularly low budget film. Baz? Low budget? I don't think so!

[nick lines]

in the first shot of that video, you can see the buildings jumping around aswell. It could be due to the film bouncing around and not being perfectly even for each capture. Prob because its made on 1940's equipment. So i would think that if the film is bouncing around the exposure could be slightly different?

 

I think when you see it in Strickly ballroom its obviously intentional, to give it that old home movie feel.

 

my two cents.

[Stephen Williams]

in the first shot of that video, you can see the buildings jumping around aswell. It could be due to the film bouncing around and not being perfectly even for each capture. Prob because its made on 1940's equipment. So i would think that if the film is bouncing around the exposure could be slightly different?

 

I think when you see it in Strickly ballroom its obviously intentional, to give it that old home movie feel.

 

my two cents.

 

Hi,

 

Cameras were totally steady in the 1940's the Bell & Howell gate was designed around 1908, the Mitchell movement 10 years later. Panavision cameras made today are based on that Mitchell movement, no one has ever designed a steadier movement since.

 

Stephen

[Cougar Keegan]

Hi,

 

Probably the adjustable shutter of the camera is worn and gittering. Happens most when the shutter angle is reduced, Mitchells that have not had any attention for a long time do this.

 

Stephen

 

Thanks... after pointing me in that direction I have done some more research and to augment your point, I believe the effect is caused by a shutter closed narrow and 'backlash' movement between the fixed and moving shutter blades. (found in Hands-On Manual for Cinematographers by David Samuelson, pg. 142.)

[Hal Smith]

I've read that the flicker in old films is often caused by bad prints, the camera originals can be quite good. I'll post a the question over on 35mmforum.com and get some opinions from serious 35mm collectors.

[Dominic Case]

I've read that the flicker in old films is often caused by bad prints, the camera originals can be quite good.

With respect Hal, I think that is exactly what I said - about 7 messages up from here.

[Cougar Keegan]

I've read that the flicker in old films is often caused by bad prints, the camera originals can be quite good. I'll post a the question over on 35mmforum.com and get some opinions from serious 35mm collectors.

 

 

Thanks! Keep me posted. I am especially interested to discern between shutter backlash flicker and flicker from poor and/or aged prints.

 

With respect Hal, I think that is exactly what I said - about 7 messages up from here.

 

Yep, thanks!

[David Desio]

Have you tried creating it while shooting? Maybe try putting a small fan right in front of the lens, turn it on and shoot through it. May simulate the shutter flicker.

[John Sprung]

Have you tried creating it while shooting? Maybe try putting a small fan right in front of the lens, turn it on and shoot through it. May simulate the shutter flicker.

That'll get you a beat frequency between your frame rate and the fan speed. That frequency could be very high or very low, so it would be best to have some way of adjusting the fan speed to get one you like. It's also a lot more steady than what you'd get chemically or from a loose variable shutter blade. It won't quite be the same as what we see in the clip above.

 

It's also mainly a film thing. With a video camera, you'd get more of a roll bar than flicker.

 

 

-- J.S.

[Hal Smith]

I've read that the flicker in old films is often caused by bad prints, the camera originals can be quite good. I'll post a the question over on 35mmforum.com and get some opinions from serious 35mm collectors.

The gist of the posts there was cheap print production was the biggest problem. Also with very early films where hand cranked cameras were used inexperienced cameramen wouldn't hold constant speed which effected exposure time of the individual frames and caused flicker.

 

A interesting factoid from the posts on 35mmforum.com was that some early films, where hand cranked cameras were in use, would actually be filmed at various frame rates intentionally. The print would be distributed with instructions telling the projectionist running a hand cranked projector where to speed up and slow down the projector's speed! This was true of "Birth of a Nation".

[K Borowski]

in the first shot of that video, you can see the buildings jumping around aswell. It could be due to the film bouncing around and not being perfectly even for each capture. Prob because its made on 1940's equipment. So i would think that if the film is bouncing around the exposure could be slightly different?

 

I think when you see it in Strickly ballroom its obviously intentional, to give it that old home movie feel.

 

my two cents.

 

If you want to knock '40s technology, do a little research and get it right! There was only primitive color (except for Kodachrome that was pretty good), and it was so expensive practically only the military and Hollywood could use it!

 

78 RPM records were quite primitive, as was sound-recording in general. Hollywood resorted still to actually running the sound signals to a special lab through cables under the streets and exposing soundtracks straight onto soundtrack film instead of running it through any other generation loss, because of all the issues.

 

Televisions and cathode ray tubes were very very primitive, quite expensive, and only available in B&W. A lot of things, like cigarette filters, were still being made out of asbestos.

 

There was no FM radio.

 

There was practically no sound mixing techniques available. You had to mix sound over a record lathe (cutter) needle in *real time*.

 

No copying machines. Computers had to be programmed one line of code at a time, on punchcards.

 

No electric typrewriters. The density of the letters would vary if your pinky fingers weren't strong, and you really had to *hit* the keys to get them to work.

 

Medical films were already migrated to safety base, ironically due to my "beloved" hometown, we had a hospital fire due to bad nitrate X-rays here that prompted the change. However, inflammible nitrate film was still used as raw stock, lab stock, and print stock in practicallly all 35mm prints throughout the '40s, with only a gradual changeover occuring in the mid '50s because nitrate looked better, even though you had to risk your life to project it.

 

Speaking of projectors, they used dangerous carbon arc lamps with these nitrate prints that would burn under water. You had to constantly vary the lamps throughout projection, and IIRC, throw in fire retardant throughout projection to minimize the risk of a fire. And you had to clean them meticulously because nitrate crumbled during projector jams, it didn't snap cleanly. On of those crumbled film chunks could kill you.

 

 

So, from that list, there was a lot of primitive issues in the '40s, however camera steadiness was *not one of them*. If anything, it got worse with consumer cameras until reaching rock bottom in the '70s.

 

The '40s had the invention of the V2 Rocket, the atomic bomb, and if anything, a *perfection* of camera movements. The mitchell movement of that era is basically the 35mm gold standard to this day. The Auricon movement of the '50s is the gold standard of 16mm, to this day.

 

So again, be careful to make generalizations about the past. . .

[K Borowski]

The gist of the posts there was cheap print production was the biggest problem. Also with very early films where hand cranked cameras were used inexperienced cameramen wouldn't hold constant speed which effected exposure time of the individual frames and caused flicker.

 

Again Hal, I think that Dominic already has a detailed description of 35mm print issues described in a nutshell.

 

 

It is interesting to think that, with "Birth of a Nation" it was possible to vary print projection, but that it cannot (or will not due to cost) be feasible today. Kinda sad actually. I remember Ebert was advocating 48fps projection back in the early 2000s when everyone was talking about digital "killing" film, and he said that, instead of throwing money into digital, people should invest half that in improving film quality. . .

 

Of course it, sadly, never happened, just as Showscan never really reached its full potentials. Even IMAX only uses 48fps for 3D stuff, which, IMHO, is a great way to burn twice as much film stock in an already prohibitively expensive medium, needlessly.

[Stephen Williams]

Thanks... after pointing me in that direction I have done some more research and to augment your point, I believe the effect is caused by a shutter closed narrow and 'backlash' movement between the fixed and moving shutter blades. (found in Hands-On Manual for Cinematographers by David Samuelson, pg. 142.)

 

Hi,

 

When testing Mitchells for flicker I am very happy when I see results between +/- 0.25-0.5% a frame. +/-1% a frame is the point where flicker becomes obvious. I have seen cameras that require a major overhaul flicker +/- 4% a frame. With a worn camera it's quite usual to remove the adjustable shutter blade, or replace the entire shutter with a spinning mirror like the Fries 35R3 conversion.

 

Stephen

[John Brawley]

Also with very early films where hand cranked cameras were used inexperienced cameramen wouldn't hold constant speed which effected exposure time of the individual frames and caused flicker.

 

 

Hi Hal.

 

I think Dominic killed this one already and he know's what he's talking about....

 

From my own personal experience as an inexperienced hand cranked operator, so can I.

 

I once some footage on a hand cranked Devry camera for a re-creation of the 100th anniversary of the arrival of motion pictures in Australia. We did quite a bit of testing in the lead up to make sure it would work. The first motion picture footage to be shot in Australia, was at the 1896 Melbourne Cup, by a Lumiere cameraman.

 

Being a bit hard to get the original camera, we found the oldest serviceable camera we could and shot footage with it from the same positions as the original footage 100 years later. With modern stocks, processing and telecine you could *barely* tell it was hand cranked. In case the hand crank didn't work, we shot a bunch of stuff through the base with the film loaded backwards in a bell and howell, along with some regular super 16.

 

This footage actually looked more like what you associate with as *vintage* It has the blotchiness of exposure variation.

 

Uneven hand cranking speed would not cause flicker. It might cause general overexposure or underexposure.

 

You may also want to look at the recent feature Dr Plonk which was shot in a similar manner and didn't ever really flicker either.

 

jb