In article
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Yes, that's correct, but because Lester was filming more frames per
second than was standard (24 fps being standard), the result was
a slight slowdown of real-time performance upon playback---this
works out to about four percent, if my mathematician has done his
homework. And because the visuals were projected at a slower rate,
the studio versions of the songs (to which the Beatles were miming)
also had to be slowed to match lip movements.
My impression from a modest number of viewings of "AHDN" (in the
neighborhood of 200) suggests that *only* the songs used in the
final sequence were slowed; the rest of the film appears to use
normal release-speed versions of the songs.
>Also, the difference in
I don't think my answer implies that at all. The video images in
the Director's (Victor Spinetti's) control booth are not, of
course, matted in (modern cinematic effects allow this to be done
digitally and seamlessly nowadays, but pre-"2001", to use a handy
demarcation, such detailed matting was not really possible).
What I believe happened (and this is gleaned from Richard Lester's
infamous 1970 interview with J. Philip diFranco) is that Lester
filmed the stage scene at the La Scala Theatre and used a closedcircuit
system to broadcast it to television monitors on the set,
so that the Director and crew would appear to be viewing real-time
video of the Beatles' performance.
Had Lester filmed video output in the control room at normal 24 fps
speed, there would have been what he called a "by-line"---a video
flutter, where the picture on the monitor appears to be unstable.
Lester says, "You know the difference in terms of synch, if you
photograph television tubes, unless you shoot on twenty-five
frames instead of twenty-four, which is what we did. So this entire
stuff in the La Scala is done on twenty-five frame synch motors".
Lester then touches on how he "did all the punching of all the
faders and all this" by himself, since his background in TV
production was extensive (in Philadelphia, then in England
after he emigrated---this prior to his first short feature
in 1960). He was quite proud of having designed a naturallooking
video output which would not exhibit any of the
heebie-jeebies inherent in filming video at normal shutter
speeds.
>The difference between 24 and 25 FRAMES per second would not explain why all
Well, as I mentioned, the La Scala sequence required that the
prerecorded session music be slowed to match the minimal film
slowing. Lester took great pains to design this entire sequence
to *look* authentic, whether the camera was trained on the Beatles
on stage or in the control room; he was more interested in minimizing
visual incongruities, interestingly, than audio!
Lester said he filmed each song performed at the film's finale
at least *twice*. When shooting, Lester did not yet know where
he would cut away to the control room, with producers scripted
to *seem to* fret over camera placement and framing; it appears
that by filming the entire sequence at 25 fps Lester retained
the option to cut to close ups wherever he wanted, rather
than at predetermined moments where "slow" footage happened to
exist.
You may also note that occasionally the careful filmmakers
mismatch a scene (this pointed out to me by eagle-eyed longtime
rmb'er Jay C. Smith). The long-shot will show the Fabs
on stage in front of the light-up sign "Beatles"; the close-up
of the video monitor, purporting to be the same portion of
the performance, shows the Fabs singing in front of the
multiple-exposure stop-motion backdrops, a prop no longer
really there! This suggests to me that Lester was mixing
his two performances of each song, quite by accident, but
that both would have been filmed at 25 fps.
--
Click here to return to saki's index.
>(saki) wrote:
>
>> I don't think it was off-key, but it *was* slow, as were the other
>> songs filmed during this sequence at the La Scala. According to
>> Lester, they were filmed at 25 frames per second (fps) instead of
>> 24 fps, to facilitate easy transference to video for the studio
>> monitors seen on-screen. This slows down the playback performance.
>
>A clarification(?) - The filmed 'performances' were mimes to early mixes
>of the studio tracks for the album, in some cases minus vocal and other
>overdubs, not live performances for the movie.
>frame rate would have been done to reduce screen flicker when the
>television monitors were filmed. Your answer implied that the images on
>the monitors were dropped in later - not possible in 1964...
>the new songs for the movie were at the wrong speed, i.e. too slow, thus
>'out of key' (no digital gear back then...), even for ones when no 'tv'
>moitors were in-shot.
"When you play the game of life/You've got trouble, you've got strife...."
[email protected]
Click here to return to the rmb home page.