Electrical Engineering - 60 Hz Vs 50 Hz

Author

60 Hz Vs 50 Hz

shree

2006-03-08, 10:21 pm

In USA supply is in 60 Hz whereas in other country it is 50 Hz why this
is so?

Charles Perry

2006-03-08, 10:21 pm

sQuick

2006-03-08, 11:21 pm

Rich256

2006-03-08, 11:21 pm

shree wrote:
> In USA supply is in 60 Hz whereas in other country it is 50 Hz why this
> is so?
>

Most likely 60 came to the U.S. because Westinghouse (Tesla) found it
produced the least flicker in lamps.

One thought is that the 50 cycles were originated by AEG in Germany
which controlled the European market.

Phil Scott

2006-03-09, 12:21 am

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-09, 3:21 am

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 02:14:07 -0000, "sQuick" <squickdrill@hotmail.com>
Gave us:

>
>"shree" <shreeauro@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1141868903.861010.153110@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>This is due to the geo-magnetic properties of the soil in the USA.
>

If you are not joking, then you are retarded.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-09, 3:21 am

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:44:25 GMT, Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> Gave us:

>shree wrote:
>
>Most likely 60 came to the U.S. because Westinghouse (Tesla) found it
>produced the least flicker in lamps.
>
>One thought is that the 50 cycles were originated by AEG in Germany
>which controlled the European market.

More likely because 3600 rpm generator speed is easily divided up in
the 360 degrees that make up a full circle. The windings, and many
other aspects of system design are quite a bit easier.

Beachcomber

2006-03-09, 12:21 pm

> More likely because 3600 rpm generator speed is easily divided up in
>the 360 degrees that make up a full circle. The windings, and many
>other aspects of system design are quite a bit easier.

The math may be easier, but to say a particular frequency was chosen
because merely a set of mathematical calculations was easier is
nonsense.

The book Networks of Power: Electrification of Western Society
1880-1930 by Thomas Parker Hughes is a detailed account of why
different electrical systems were chosen in different parts of the
world (and initially in the USA).

Included in the book is a discussion of frequency. As another poster
has pointed out, 50 Hz was indeed chosen by the German Industrialists
who dominated the sale of electrical equipment at the turn of the
century and the rest of Europe followed in lock step.

50 Hz has the advantage of being slightly more efficient for the
transmission of power (less inductive reactance) considering a given
set of transformers and transmission equipment.

In the USA, at the turn of the century when carbon lamps were still
common (and frequencies were still not standardized), the lower
wattage bulbs produced a noticeable flicker (as the filament cooled at
25, 32 or 50 Hz) and it was found that a 60 Hz system minimized or
eliminated this. The lower frequencies, however, were better suited
for motors, electric railways, etc. given the technology of the time.
Many dual systems existed.

Incidentally, there were many "oddball" frequencies in use (other then
50 or 60 Hz), mostly in isolated US towns that had their own central
station power plants in the early 1900's.

New York had sections of the city that offered only residential DC up
through the twenties and thirties. Special DC appliances such as
radios were sold exclusively for these districts.

In the US, Standardization of frequency was a consequence of having to
interconnect all of these distant systems with much of the leadership
and pioneering work done by Samuel Insull and the Public Service
Company (later Commonwealth Edison) of Chicago.

Many transmission advances can also be attributed to scientists and
engineers in Europe, where the first long distance DC transmission
system was invented and where such critical devices such as the
transformer were invented.

Beachcomber

Michael Moroney

2006-03-09, 12:21 pm

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:44:25 GMT, Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>Most likely 60 came to the U.S. because Westinghouse (Tesla) found it
>produced the least flicker in lamps.

The story I heard was that when it was time to decide on a frequency to
use, Tesla thought of the requirements for a moment and came up with
60 Hz. At the time, the large motors and generators operated most
efficiently at low frequencies, but low frequencies would cause light
flickering. If the story is true, Tesla decided 60Hz was as slow as it
could be to avoid flicker. Note that even today, there are some electric
railroads that use 25 Hz power in the US, and I think 16 2/3 Hz is used
for some railroads in Europe.

For a while, different frequencies were used. Niagara Falls generated 25
Hz (maybe still does on the Canadian side), and I've seen a turn of the
last century generator that produced 40 Hz.

sQuick

2006-03-09, 1:21 pm

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:ijiv02dm2iojmq2o5quhqcclqolionugg1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 02:14:07 -0000, "sQuick" <squickdrill@hotmail.com>
> Gave us:
>
>
> If you are not joking, then you are retarded.

I was serious, I'm sure that is correct.

sQuick..

Bud--

2006-03-09, 2:21 pm

sQuick wrote:
> "Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
> news:ijiv02dm2iojmq2o5quhqcclqolionugg1@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> I was serious, I'm sure that is correct.
>
> sQuick..
>

But in heavy iron mining areas it is not uncommon to use 50 Hz or even
25 Hz to lower the impedance of distribution lines.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-09, 3:21 pm

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:01:33 -0000, "sQuick" <squickdrill@hotmail.com>
Gave us:

>
>"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
>news:ijiv02dm2iojmq2o5quhqcclqolionugg1@4ax.com...
>
>I was serious, I'm sure that is correct.
>
>sQuick..
>
Said "geo-magnetic properties" of soils vary from place to place to
place all over the world, and that in much smaller chunks that one the
size of our country.

What you have said makes NO sense at all, considering that the soils
(there are none) in So Cal, and those back east differ by orders of
MAGnitude.

I doubt it was a consideration at all regarding the entire country.
It MAY have been a consideration in the locale where these things were
being engineered.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-09, 3:21 pm

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:27:20 -0600, Bud-- <remove.BudNews@isp.com>
Gave us:

>sQuick wrote:
>
>But in heavy iron mining areas it is not uncommon to use 50 Hz or even
>25 Hz to lower the impedance of distribution lines.

Which ALSO has NOTHING to do with the "geo-magnetic properties of
the soil".

sQuick

2006-03-09, 4:21 pm

"Bud--" <remove.BudNews@isp.com> wrote in message
news:5834$4410700e$4213eba1$11993@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> sQuick wrote:
>
> But in heavy iron mining areas it is not uncommon to use 50 Hz or even 25
> Hz to lower the impedance of distribution lines.
>

I think you will find this is done to prevent acid rain in the area.

sQuick..

Bud--

2006-03-09, 6:21 pm

Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:01:33 -0000, "sQuick" <squickdrill@hotmail.com>
> Gave us:
>
>
>
> Said "geo-magnetic properties" of soils vary from place to place to
> place all over the world, and that in much smaller chunks that one the
> size of our country.
>
> What you have said makes NO sense at all, considering that the soils
> (there are none) in So Cal, and those back east differ by orders of
> MAGnitude.
>
> I doubt it was a consideration at all regarding the entire country.
> It MAY have been a consideration in the locale where these things were
> being engineered.

But in iron mining areas the soils have a high iron concentration. Every
thing turns red from the dust.

bud--

daestrom

2006-03-09, 8:21 pm

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:vkiv0292s53lqbeiusn4cqu23ui3kq77su@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:44:25 GMT, Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> Gave us:
>
>
> More likely because 3600 rpm generator speed is easily divided up in
> the 360 degrees that make up a full circle. The windings, and many
> other aspects of system design are quite a bit easier.

And why do you suppose 3600 rpm is chosen? To get 60hz? A circular
argument, 60 hz because of 3600 and 3600 because of 60 hz.

Europeans find it easier to use 50 hz since their generators spin at 3000
RPM. Why do you suppose their generators run at 3000 RPM and ours at 3600
RPM??

daestrom

Rich256

2006-03-09, 9:21 pm

daestrom wrote:
>
> "Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
> news:vkiv0292s53lqbeiusn4cqu23ui3kq77su@4ax.com...
>
> And why do you suppose 3600 rpm is chosen? To get 60hz? A circular
> argument, 60 hz because of 3600 and 3600 because of 60 hz.
>
> Europeans find it easier to use 50 hz since their generators spin at
> 3000 RPM. Why do you suppose their generators run at 3000 RPM and ours
> at 3600 RPM??
>
> daestrom
>

That is a question that really can't be clearly answered. Similar to
asking why do they drive on the left side of the road in UK and the
right side in the U.S.?

I put it down to a couple different individuals a hundred years ago
making a WAG estimate of what should be used. As I said in another post
those at Westinghouse decided to use 60 and those at AEG in Germany
decided to use 50. Each had more or less a monopoly in their local
market and it became the standard for their areas.

Don Kelly

2006-03-10, 2:21 am

----------------------------
"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:vkiv0292s53lqbeiusn4cqu23ui3kq77su@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:44:25 GMT, Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> Gave us:
>
>
> More likely because 3600 rpm generator speed is easily divided up in
> the 360 degrees that make up a full circle. The windings, and many
> other aspects of system design are quite a bit easier.
-------
Now, that is as silly as the geomagnetic reasons offered by sQuick.

.

Windings and system design are no easier at 60Hz than at 50 Hz. Differences
occur but aren't related to the number of degrees in a circle and not
increasing or decreasing the effort of design and construction.

Also, The original generation at Niagara (Westinghouse/Tesla) was at 25Hz
to add to the confusion - actually better for the desired motor speed ranges
of the day. Some of this plant was still in use after WW2. Flicker was
terrible.

--

Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-10, 4:21 am

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:24:52 GMT, "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> Gave us:

>Now, that is as silly as the geomagnetic reasons offered by sQuick.

.

Not at all as silly. You HAVE to give me that. Now have a look at my
logic. Far better than his.
>
>Windings and system design are no easier at 60Hz than at 50 Hz.

Not true. I can divide up a 3600 rpm 60Hz rotor across 360 degrees in
MY HEAD.

Whereas at 50 Hz and 3000 rpm,. the calculation of segmenting up a
rotor for winding becomes a problem one doesn't or isn't able to do in
one's head.

> Differences
>occur but aren't related to the number of degrees in a circle and not
>increasing or decreasing the effort of design and construction.

Sure there is a difference. The design cycle is a LOT faster when
the engineer can flip the numbers off in his head like that. The 50Hz
design REQUIRES a calculation tool, and more though, hence more time
involved.

>Also, The original generation at Niagara (Westinghouse/Tesla) was at 25Hz
>to add to the confusion - actually better for the desired motor speed ranges
>of the day. Some of this plant was still in use after WW2. Flicker was
>terrible.

Which is why it is only still used in some light rail applications.

shree

2006-03-10, 6:21 am

many thanks to you.this was a doubt for long time.now it is clear.
thank you. shree

BFoelsch

2006-03-10, 8:21 am

"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:E48Qf.128994$sa3.103479@pd7tw1no...
> ----------------------------
> "Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
> news:vkiv0292s53lqbeiusn4cqu23ui3kq77su@4ax.com...
this[color=darkred]
> -------
> Now, that is as silly as the geomagnetic reasons offered by sQuick.

.
>
> Windings and system design are no easier at 60Hz than at 50 Hz.
Differences
> occur but aren't related to the number of degrees in a circle and not
> increasing or decreasing the effort of design and construction.
>
> Also, The original generation at Niagara (Westinghouse/Tesla) was at 25Hz
> to add to the confusion - actually better for the desired motor speed
ranges
> of the day. Some of this plant was still in use after WW2. Flicker was
> terrible.

There was a Westinghouse 133-1/3 Hz system in Pittsburgh. Not sure whether
it dates from before or after Niagara Falls. Once in a while you see a
133-1/3 hertz electric fan on eBay.

There is still a tiny bit of utility supplied 25 Hz in metropolitan Buffalo,
NY. This service will be permanently discontinued in January 2007.

It is generally forgotten that much of the Western US was originally
supplied with 50 Hz. Certain locales in Southern California actually changed
frequency twice. Some areas south of LA were originally supplied by 60 Hz
local plants. When Hoover Dam was built it provided 50 Hz and these
localities were changed to 50 Hz. However, in 1938 Hoover was changed to 60
Hz and these disticts were converted back!

Beachcomber

2006-03-10, 11:21 am

>And why do you suppose 3600 rpm is chosen? To get 60hz? A circular
>argument, 60 hz because of 3600 and 3600 because of 60 hz.
>
>Europeans find it easier to use 50 hz since their generators spin at 3000
>RPM. Why do you suppose their generators run at 3000 RPM and ours at 3600
>RPM??
>

The correct answer is that only some generators spin 3600 rpm. Not
every power producing generator is driven from a high speed gas or
steam turbine. It all depends on the number of poles (and, of
course, the line frequency).

The higher the rpm, the more expense must be designed into the machine
to prevent the centrifugal forces from literally forcing the machine
to fly apart. Big machines + high speed = lots of stress

Most diesel gensets run at much lower rpms. 1800 rpm is typical.

The nominal speed for the hydropower generators at Bonneville Dam on
the Oregon/Washington border range from 257, 156.5, 75 to 69.2 rpm.

I doubt that the engineers who designed these generators were
discouraged because the math calculations were "hard" and did not come
out to nice round values.

Beachcomber

Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT

2006-03-10, 1:22 pm

sQuick wrote:
> "Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
> news:ijiv02dm2iojmq2o5quhqcclqolionugg1@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> I was serious, I'm sure that is correct.
>
> sQuick..
>
>

STOP THAT YOUR MAKING MY SIDES HURT!
--
Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and woman most remarkable like you.

Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT

2006-03-10, 1:22 pm

sQuick wrote:
> "Bud--" <remove.BudNews@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:5834$4410700e$4213eba1$11993@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>
>
> I think you will find this is done to prevent acid rain in the area.
>
> sQuick..
>
>

DAM IT I'M GASPING FOR AIR HERE.
--
Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and woman most remarkable like you.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-10, 4:21 pm

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:52:49 GMT, "Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT"
<hornetd@mindspring.com> Gave us:

>sQuick wrote:
>
>DAM IT I'M GASPING FOR AIR HERE.

Place a key on a kite string, and go fly it in a thunderstorm. :-]

Rich256

2006-03-10, 4:21 pm

Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:52:49 GMT, "Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT"
> <hornetd@mindspring.com> Gave us:
>
>
> Place a key on a kite string, and go fly it in a thunderstorm. :-]

Myth Busters say Franklin would have been electrocuted if he did what
the legend says. However, they may have not used the same string, etc, etc.

Ben Miller

2006-03-10, 5:21 pm

"Rich256" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:PYkQf.538730$qk4.178798@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Myth Busters say Franklin would have been electrocuted if he did what the
> legend says. However, they may have not used the same string, etc, etc.

Some of their electrical experiments are scientifically questionable, and
done more for effect. They used a high-voltage generator which threw a
continuous arc to the string. A Tesla coil would have produced more
realistic "lightning".

Ben Miller

--
Benjamin D. Miller, PE
B. MILLER ENGINEERING
www.bmillerengineering.com

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-10, 9:21 pm

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:03:59 GMT, Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> Gave us:

>Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>
>Myth Busters say Franklin would have been electrocuted if he did what
>the legend says. However, they may have not used the same string, etc, etc.

If you think that ALL of a multi-million volt lightning bolt would
travel down a piddly little string, then it is YOU that have had you
brain fired.

Myth Busters got the "hair drier in the bath tub" job wrong as well.
They did not construct the "heart sensor" correctly, by a long shot.

They have made several incorrect assumptions, and their "physics" as
well as their"engineering" has been off many times, though they
usually get it right.

Rich256

2006-03-10, 11:21 pm

Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
> If you think that ALL of a multi-million volt lightning bolt would
> travel down a piddly little string, then it is YOU that have had you
> brain fired.

I didn't say I thought it. That is what they said. Looked to me like
they had a lot more than a "piddly little string". Of course it
doesn't take "multi-million" volts to kill.

They had a kite with a "lightening rod" on it to what looked like a
pretty heavy sting that they wet down. The "string" looked more like a
twine rope.

Then, as Ben Miller said, they used a high voltage generator to throw
an arc at the kite and the string was not as long as it might have been.
I forgot what they did to determine that the jolt would be fatal.
What ever they used their conclusion was that there was enough current
to kill.

As I said, I saw a lot of things that didn't look valid. They couldn't
even get a kite made to Franklin's design (a square one) to fly.

They measured some pretty high voltages apparently generated by the wind
when the kite was airborne but not enough current to create a spark.

On the other hand if lightening happened in the vicinity of such a kite
with a wet string, the air around the string might well become ionized
creating a preferred path to ground.

Lightening does strange things. A good friend was sitting on a metal
chair fishing. Only a tiny cloud nearby. He suddenly found himself on
the ground. First thought he had a heart attack (which he had before).
Then he smelled something burning. It was the back of his shirt and
pants. The chair laid nearby a molded mass. He took the "evidence" to
work thinking no one would believe him. Even the backs of his shoes had
split.

Don Kelly

2006-03-11, 4:21 am

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:00b2125562ck1oc04tpk2k6fdn0vtfa3o3@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:24:52 GMT, "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> Gave us:
>
>
> Not at all as silly. You HAVE to give me that. Now have a look at my
> logic. Far better than his.
>
> Not true. I can divide up a 3600 rpm 60Hz rotor across 360 degrees in
> MY HEAD.
>
> Whereas at 50 Hz and 3000 rpm,. the calculation of segmenting up a
> rotor for winding becomes a problem one doesn't or isn't able to do in
> one's head.
---------------
Note that the pole pitch for a 3000rpm N pole 50Hz machine, in terms of
degrees, is the same as for a 3600 rpm, N pole, 60Hz. machine. In other
words if the pole pithc is 180 mechanical degrees for one, it is the same
for the other. Speed in rpm and degrees in a circle are not related.
----
>
>
> Sure there is a difference. The design cycle is a LOT faster when
> the engineer can flip the numbers off in his head like that. The 50Hz
> design REQUIRES a calculation tool, and more though, hence more time
> involved.
------------
The design will use the same calculations. Suppose there are X slots - what
is the slot spacing in degrees for a 60 Hz machine 360/X degrees. Now we
have a 50Hz machine with X slots spaced 360/X degrees apart -same
calculation.
The differences between 60 Hz and 50Hz design are dependent on the balance
between flux density, voltage and frequency affecting the number of turns
and the amount of iron. The number of turns dictates the number of slots X.
Then- the slot pitch in degrees can be found and the computational effort
is just as trivial for a 50 Hz machine as for a 60Hz machine. divide 360 by
X (which is unlikely to lead to an integer solution)-hardly a big factor in
the computational effort needed.

--

Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
---------------
>
>
> Which is why it is only still used in some light rail applications.

Feltch Pudding

2006-03-11, 6:21 am

Even the backs of his shoes had
> split.

what about his ring hole?

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-11, 10:21 am

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 03:12:52 GMT, Rich256 <nospam@nospam.net> Gave us:

>Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>I didn't say I thought it. That is what they said. Looked to me like
>they had a lot more than a "piddly little string". Of course it
>doesn't take "multi-million" volts to kill.

Multi-million volts will NOT kill if there is no current flowing.
Voltage isn't what kills. Current flow "through the heart" kills.
High currents can kill by way of burning, and extreme damage to the
flesh along the current pathway, but the usual result that causes
death is a fibrillation of the heart.

With a set of shock paddles, up to several hundred joules are
required to be dumped into the victim/patient to restart the heart
using a defibrillator.

In OPEN heart surgery, they use tiny little paddles, and only a few
milliamps to get the same job done.

Externally, the current has to pass through the entire body in order
for that same "couple of milliamps" to actually hit the heart. While
exposed, the current can be applied directly, and the requisite is
much lower for the same effect.
>
>They had a kite with a "lightening rod" on it to what looked like a
>pretty heavy sting that they wet down. The "string" looked more like a
>twine rope.

Hell, they probably used a friggin wire. I have seen them make more
than one errant choice for a test before. Ben's was likely several
hundred feet up in the air as well.

> Then, as Ben Miller said, they used a high voltage generator to throw
>an arc at the kite and the string was not as long as it might have been.

The voltage applied was much different as well in that case. As he
also stated, they would have had a much more realistic simulation had
they used a Tesla coil.

> I forgot what they did to determine that the jolt would be fatal.

There have been many lightning victims that have survived direct
hits. No strings attached.

>What ever they used their conclusion was that there was enough current
>to kill.

All that matters is the current, but if their test conditions are
wrong, their conclusions are not valid.

>As I said, I saw a lot of things that didn't look valid. They couldn't
>even get a kite made to Franklin's design (a square one) to fly.

One needs wind, and a nice thunderstorm would help.

>
>They measured some pretty high voltages apparently generated by the wind
>when the kite was airborne but not enough current to create a spark.

You reversed it again. The voltage creates the spark. Think
"pressure". Upon said creation, THEN current flows. Although with
lightning a LOT of current flows long before one even sees a visible
bolt occur.

>On the other hand if lightening happened in the vicinity of such a kite
>with a wet string, the air around the string might well become ionized
>creating a preferred path to ground.

If the water and string were conductive, there would not only be no
need for an ionized air pathway, but the lower resistance string would
carry current quite easily without it. Path of least resistance and
all... ya know.

>Lightening does strange things.

No shit. I have seen ball lightning... so I know this to be true.

> A good friend was sitting on a metal
>chair fishing. Only a tiny cloud nearby. He suddenly found himself on
>the ground.

My grandfather was standing on the back porch when a bolt big enough
to set our roof on fire hit it. He jumped six feet, and it wasn't
from the sound of the crack.

> First thought he had a heart attack (which he had before).
> Then he smelled something burning. It was the back of his shirt and
>pants. The chair laid nearby a molded mass. He took the "evidence" to
>work thinking no one would believe him. Even the backs of his shoes had
>split.

He was the victim of a lightning strike. He survived.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-11, 10:21 am

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:07:57 -0000, "Feltch Pudding" <fp@hotmail.com>
Gave us:

>Even the backs of his shoes had
>
>what about his ring hole?
>
Cesarean section.

hob

2006-03-11, 4:21 pm

"shree" <shreeauro@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141868903.861010.153110@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> In USA supply is in 60 Hz whereas in other country it is 50 Hz why this
> is so?

As I understand it - urban myth, or whatever....

60 cycle was chosen because 60 was an "even" fraction of 360 degrees of a
circle and it made engineering motors, generators, etc., etc., simpler
mathematically and manufacturing-wise.

50 cycle was chosen
1) because 50 was an even fraction of the metric "100", and there was the
principle of clean decimal things. no matter how much extra d__ work it was.
2) and while using an "even" fraction of "100" made rotational
engineering caculations more difficult in most countries, the French (who
had developed metric as part of their 16-17th century war-stopping
French-as-the-universal-communication-language-of-court-and-standards push
and have been pushing the hell out of it ever since), had their circles in a
deci-based 100 divisions, so 50 was easier than 60 for French engineers.
3) using 100 rather than 50 had technical and cost problems.

or so I heard.....

FWIW - And there was also some word about Edison doing experiements with
vison and his moving picture machines, that had 60 as a desirable decile
number just above human discerning level-
e.g., 50 cycle fluorescents used to flicker in the eyes when seen off to
the side in a fair percentage fo the population, while 60 cycle flickers are
only seen by a very small percentage of the populace.

>

sQuick

2006-03-11, 4:21 pm

"hob" <dehoberg@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qqCdnd3O2vTCtY7Z4p2dnA@comcast.com...[color=darkred]
>
> "shree" <shreeauro@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141868903.861010.153110@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> As I understand it - urban myth, or whatever....
>
> 60 cycle was chosen because 60 was an "even" fraction of 360 degrees of a
> circle and it made engineering motors, generators, etc., etc., simpler
> mathematically and manufacturing-wise.
>
> 50 cycle was chosen
> 1) because 50 was an even fraction of the metric "100", and there was
> the
> principle of clean decimal things. no matter how much extra d__ work it
> was.
> 2) and while using an "even" fraction of "100" made rotational
> engineering caculations more difficult in most countries, the French (who
> had developed metric as part of their 16-17th century war-stopping
> French-as-the-universal-communication-language-of-court-and-standards push
> and have been pushing the hell out of it ever since), had their circles in
> a
> deci-based 100 divisions, so 50 was easier than 60 for French engineers.
> 3) using 100 rather than 50 had technical and cost problems.
>
> or so I heard.....
>
>
> FWIW - And there was also some word about Edison doing experiements with
> vison and his moving picture machines, that had 60 as a desirable decile
> number just above human discerning level-
> e.g., 50 cycle fluorescents used to flicker in the eyes when seen off to
> the side in a fair percentage fo the population, while 60 cycle flickers
> are
> only seen by a very small percentage of the populace.
>

Sounds a fit far fetched to me, I would like to think the engineers
designing
generators & motors were capable of basic maths.

sQuick..

Beachcomber

2006-03-11, 6:21 pm

>
>FWIW - And there was also some word about Edison doing experiements with
>vison and his moving picture machines, that had 60 as a desirable decile
>number just above human discerning level-
> e.g., 50 cycle fluorescents used to flicker in the eyes when seen off to
>the side in a fair percentage fo the population, while 60 cycle flickers are
>only seen by a very small percentage of the populace.
>
>

Flicker was a given with the early motion pictures. That is why they
are also known as "Flicks". The tradeoff is not to have to run the
film too fast (and waste film) vs. still give a realistic illusion of
motion.

Before 24 frames per second was chosen, there were standards for
slower rates down to 18 frames per second. This is why many old
movies appear to be almost comically speeded up when run on modern
projection equipment at normal speed.

Even after standardization at 24 fps, the flicker in a movie theatre
was very objectionable. The solution was to use the mechanical
shutter on a projector to flash each frame onto the screen twice or
the equivalent of 48 per second. It is interesting to note that this,
along with the specific spacing of the sprocket holes, has been an
unchanged worldwide standard for 100 years.

When television was invented, there was a further problem if a film
was to be projected on TV because the frame rate of film was 24 fps
and US NTSC TV had a standard of 30 fps, interlaced and made up of two
fields with an effective field rate of 60 fields per second. The
field rate was made synchronous with the US power system frequency of
60 Hz, as this was the most accurate time base available with the
technology of the time.

The problem was solved by cleverly flashing the first frame of film
twice and the subsequent frame three times. This alternating
sequence continued and magically allowed the film frame rate of 24 fps
to match the scanning frequency of 60 fields per second.

Beachcomber

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-11, 8:21 pm

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:49:45 -0000, "sQuick" <squickdrill@hotmail.com>
Gave us:

>
>"hob" <dehoberg@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:qqCdnd3O2vTCtY7Z4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
>Sounds a fit far fetched to me, I would like to think the engineers
>designing
>generators & motors were capable of basic maths.
>
Except that we already determined that you do not think.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-11, 8:21 pm

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:41:46 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber) Gave
us:

>
>Before 24 frames per second was chosen, there were standards for
>slower rates down to 18 frames per second. This is why many old
>movies appear to be almost comically speeded up when run on modern
>projection equipment at normal speed.

Bullshit. Any difference would be compensated for, just like it is
today when showing standard 24 fps films on 30 fps TV. Six frames
every second are duplicated.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-11, 8:21 pm

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:41:46 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber) Gave
us:

>When television was invented, there was a further problem

When television was invented, we were still in the 19th century.
The term was coined at the turn of the twentieth century.

> if a film
>was to be projected on TV because the frame rate of film was 24 fps
>and US NTSC TV had a standard of 30 fps, interlaced and made up of two
>fields with an effective field rate of 60 fields per second.

The US NTSC standard was NOT the beginning of television.

>The
>field rate was made synchronous with the US power system frequency of
>60 Hz, as this was the most accurate time base available with the
>technology of the time.

Hahahah... so you are saying that time bases didn't exist in
television broadcasting?

>The problem was solved by cleverly flashing the first frame of film
>twice and the subsequent frame three times. This alternating
>sequence continued and magically allowed the film frame rate of 24 fps
>to match the scanning frequency of 60 fields per second.

Six frames of every second of film are duplicated. PERIOD. It
doesn't have to start at the first frame either.

That's six out of every twenty four, adding up to 30 frames.

TV are not 60 frames. They are interlaced just like you said so every
two fields only equals ONE full picture or "frame".

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-11, 8:21 pm

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:41:46 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber) Gave
us:

>
>Even after standardization at 24 fps, the flicker in a movie theatre
>was very objectionable.

That's funny. It is STILL at 24fps, and there is no noticeable
"flicker" in a theater when a film is projected.

BFoelsch

2006-03-11, 8:21 pm

"Beachcomber" <not_real@xxx.yyy> wrote in message
news:44133e30.365890@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
to[color=darkred]
are[color=darkred]
>
> Flicker was a given with the early motion pictures. That is why they
> are also known as "Flicks". The tradeoff is not to have to run the
> film too fast (and waste film) vs. still give a realistic illusion of
> motion.
>
> Before 24 frames per second was chosen, there were standards for
> slower rates down to 18 frames per second.

Actually, prior to sound technology, the standard frame rate was 16 fps,
corresponding to a film speed of 12 inches per second. Requirements of the
sound system raised the speed to 24 fps or 18 ips, which is the standard for
35mm film to this day.

Prior to the coming of sound the speed at which pictures were shown was very
sloppy. Many downtown theatres were supplied with dc current, and even where
ac was available the frequency was not accurate or consistent in many cases.
Most silent installations had a speed adjustment which was adjusted to make
the length of the film, uh, "convenient." Some of the high class places had
a speed control on the conductors podium so the picture would stay in sync
with the music. The first Western Electric sound systems incorporated motor
speed regulation as part of the installation. In the case of dc supply,
there was an ac generator, about 3 kHz, mounted on the motor shaft which was
connected to a resonant circuit. The voltage across the circuit was detected
and amplified by a pair of 242 tubes which controlled the field of the DC
motor. The ac system used wound-rotor ac motors with a similar connection.

Michael Moroney

2006-03-11, 8:21 pm

Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> writes:

>On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:41:46 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber) Gave
>us:

[color=darkred]
> Bullshit. Any difference would be compensated for, just like it is
>today when showing standard 24 fps films on 30 fps TV. Six frames
>every second are duplicated.

Only if they were using some complicated equipment to do the conversion.
If they simply fed a film with 18 frames per second into a projector
that displayed 24 frames per second, it'll display 24 frames (1 1/3 seconds
worth) in one second, speeding everything up. It's just like playing a
33 1/3 rpm album at 45 rpm, everything is sped up. (what's a record,
Daddy? Is that one of those giant black CDs?)

Aside: I thought early films were done at 16 fps.

sQuick

2006-03-11, 10:21 pm

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:5rm612tk1bp4ste471clnrfjbf44f4nae8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:49:45 -0000, "sQuick" <squickdrill@hotmail.com>
> Gave us:
>
> Except that we already determined that you do not think.

Moi? pourquoi diriez-vous cela ?

I was just takin the piss.

sQuick..

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 12:21 am

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:07:10 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>Only if they were using some complicated equipment to do the conversion.
>If they simply fed a film with 18 frames per second into a projector
>that displayed 24 frames per second, it'll display 24 frames (1 1/3 seconds
>worth) in one second, speeding everything up. It's just like playing a
>33 1/3 rpm album at 45 rpm, everything is sped up. (what's a record,
>Daddy? Is that one of those giant black CDs?)
>
>Aside: I thought early films were done at 16 fps.
>

That would be fine for film, but for TV it doesn't work.

Bob Eld

2006-03-12, 12:21 am

"Phil Scott" <philscott@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:duo7un$opt$1@news.tdl.com...
>
> "shree" <shreeauro@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141868903.861010.153110@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> It is because the US is a richer nation than any of those in
> the EU and can afford more Hz's.

That's so painful it "hertz."

Michael Moroney

2006-03-12, 2:21 am

Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> writes:

[color=darkred]
>That would be fine for film, but for TV it doesn't work.

Are you talking about when they play those very old film clips on TV
where it looks like everyone is running around like crazy? If so,
my answer is unchanged. Unless the TV studio has modified equipment,
their equipment to play films (essentially a film projector coupled to a
TV camera) will play those 16 fps films at 24 fps, so everyone is
sped up.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 5:21 am

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:30:21 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> writes:
>
>
>
>Are you talking about when they play those very old film clips on TV
>where it looks like everyone is running around like crazy? If so,
>my answer is unchanged. Unless the TV studio has modified equipment,
>their equipment to play films (essentially a film projector coupled to a
>TV camera) will play those 16 fps films at 24 fps, so everyone is
>sped up.

You're an idiot. Do you actually think those old films are still
circulating around, being played on projectors?

They have been ONLY in digital form for years. Decades even.
AND YES, they WERE modified to play PROPERLY on a 30 fps TV set up.

In fact, I doubt that you could lease a film on 16mm like it was
back in the seventies... even modern films. The studios just do not
waste their money making such "prints" anymore.

Catch up to the real world. And NO, everyone is NOT "sped up".

The 1902 Le Voyage dans la lune by Geo. Melies Is a perfect example
of it being done properly. Another would be the 1928 Un Chien Andalou
by Louis Bunuel and Salvador Dali.

Give it a rest. You don't get to make shit up... any more.

hob

2006-03-12, 5:21 am

"sQuick" <squickdrill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142106582.1214.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
>
> "hob" <dehoberg@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qqCdnd3O2vTCtY7Z4p2dnA@comcast.com...
a[color=darkred]
(who[color=darkred]
push[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
> Sounds a fit far fetched to me, I would like to think the engineers
> designing
> generators & motors were capable of basic maths.

You weren't around before calculators, were you?

>
> sQuick..
>
>

sQuick

2006-03-12, 7:21 am

"hob" <dehoberg@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FeidnVbpeoiPfI7ZRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>
> "sQuick" <squickdrill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142106582.1214.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> a
> (who
> push
> in
> to
>
> You weren't around before calculators, were you?
>

Hey come on, its not that difficult with out a calculator.

sQuick..

Michael Moroney

2006-03-12, 12:21 pm

Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> writes:

>On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:30:21 +0000 (UTC),
>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

[color=darkred]
> You're an idiot. Do you actually think those old films are still
>circulating around, being played on projectors?

No. Old films are extremely fragile (an enormous percentage of very early
movies aren't available at all in any form). The ones we do see were
transferred to a different form decades ago, often with the resulting
copies "sped up" because the 16 fps films were played with 24 fps
mechanisms.

> They have been ONLY in digital form for years. Decades even.
>AND YES, they WERE modified to play PROPERLY on a 30 fps TV set up.

Oh, certainly the resulting videotapes are proper NTSC, at 30 fps etc.
Only problem is how they were recorded decades ago, and as if the original
was at 24 fps, not 16 fps.

> Catch up to the real world. And NO, everyone is NOT "sped up".

You mean people 100 years ago really did run around as if on crack?

> The 1902 Le Voyage dans la lune by Geo. Melies Is a perfect example
>of it being done properly. Another would be the 1928 Un Chien Andalou
>by Louis Bunuel and Salvador Dali.

Of course, in many cases, people actually did make the proper effort to
transfer old 16 fps films to 24 fps films or video.

Michael Moroney

2006-03-12, 1:21 pm

Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> writes:

[color=darkred]
> Hahahah... so you are saying that time bases didn't exist in
>television broadcasting?

I believe 60 Hz was chosen as the NTSC frame rate to prevent annoying
flicker if power line hum was present on the video signal or power supply.
If they chose, say, 70 Hz, the video signal and power line hum could
produce annoying 10 Hz flicker (70-60 Hz). If synched with the power
line, this wouldn't happen. If the frequencies were only very close,
the difference would be very slow and filterable.

[color=darkred]
> Six frames of every second of film are duplicated. PERIOD. It
>doesn't have to start at the first frame either.

> That's six out of every twenty four, adding up to 30 frames.

That's one way of doing it.

>TV are not 60 frames. They are interlaced just like you said so every
>two fields only equals ONE full picture or "frame".

Whether TVs are 60 fps or 30 fps is a matter of semantics. If the even
frames contain different information (such as the same scene 1/60th
second different in time) it's hard to argue they're really 30 fps.
But most of the time the even and odd scans are the same scene so
30 fps is a more accurate description.

In many TV broadcasts of films, the even scans are not the same (film)
frame as the odd scans. It is readily apparent if you step through
captured video frame by frame on a computer during a rapidly moving scene
or when they cut from one scene to another. These films appear to have
been transferred using the sequence (1/1) (1/2) (2/2) (3/3) (4/4).
The numbers are the 24 fps film frames, the parenthesis are the 30 fps
video, the number before the slash are the odd video scans, after the
slash the even video scans. Note the second frame has the odd and even
scans of different scenes. Perhaps one that would appear smoother is the
sequence (1/1) (1/2) (2/3) (3/3) (4/4), but I don't know if that is done.

Keith

2006-03-12, 4:21 pm

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:34:52 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:41:46 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber) Gave
> us:
>
>
>
> Bullshit. Any difference would be compensated for, just like it is
> today when showing standard 24 fps films on 30 fps TV. Six frames
> every second are duplicated.

You don't read well, do ya' Fuchs. TVs aren't "projection equipment at
normal speed".

--
Keith

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:32:17 -0000, "sQuick" <squickdrill@hotmail.com>
Gave us:

>
>"hob" <dehoberg@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:FeidnVbpeoiPfI7ZRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>
>Hey come on, its not that difficult with out a calculator.
>
>sQuick..
>
Less difficult equates to more productive. Back then it was less
difficult.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:37:35 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>No. Old films are extremely fragile (an enormous percentage of very early
>movies aren't available at all in any form). The ones we do see were
>transferred to a different form decades ago, often with the resulting
>copies "sped up" because the 16 fps films were played with 24 fps
>mechanisms.

Wrong AGAIN. They have ALL been digitized. And TIME CORRECTED.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:37:35 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>
>Oh, certainly the resulting videotapes are proper NTSC, at 30 fps etc.
>Only problem is how they were recorded decades ago, and as if the original
>was at 24 fps, not 16 fps.

Nope.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:37:35 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>
>
>You mean people 100 years ago really did run around as if on crack?

No, I mean that you are fucking wrong. Period.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>
>That's one way of doing it.

No. That IS the way it IS done. I know it is because it was
explained fully back in the Laser Disc days, which were all NTSC
preparations.

Were you researching video back in the Laser Disc days, over 20 years
ago?

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>
>Whether TVs are 60 fps or 30 fps is a matter of semantics.

Not when converting 24fps motion pictures to 30fps NTSC it isn't. It
is a hard fact.

6 frames out of every 24 are repeated. A hard sectored CAV Laser
Disc proves it. One can physically count 30 sectors representing 30
fields then the break, then 30 More. Upon playing the disc,one can
freeze the video and step through said 30 frames and watch the time
counter toggle, and SEE six repeated frames among each set of 30.

Been that way for a LONG time. No semantics required.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

> If the even
>frames contain different information (such as the same scene 1/60th
>second different in time) it's hard to argue they're really 30 fps.

Not at all. Half goes up, and the other half goes up. POV in both
the phosphors on the screen as well as the mind's eye see it as ONE
rendered frame, and THAT happens 30 times every second.

>But most of the time the even and odd scans are the same scene so
>30 fps is a more accurate description.

ALL THE TIME.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>In many TV broadcasts of films, the even scans are not the same (film)
>frame as the odd scans. It is readily apparent if you step through
>captured video frame by frame on a computer during a rapidly moving scene
>or when they cut from one scene to another.

Not true. It depends on the source data. Always has, always will.

A CLV Laser Disc will show APPARENT effects such as that which you
describe. A CAV Laser disc is discrete frames, and will not show the
anomalies you claim are real. Whenever a freeze is instituted on a CAV
Laser Disc, the laser stays on ONE track, and displays the TWO fields
held on that ONE track, and they are ONE frame from the film that was
transcribed onto the disc. Since a CLV disc has no true freeze frame
capacity, a random "freeze" at any given moment CAN and DOES capture
the last field from a previous frame along with the first field of the
next frame. It happens all the time. With a player that has a "Field
Memory" capture capacity, the same frame will be perfect sometimes,
and show your anomaly at other times.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-12, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:35:52 -0500, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

>On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:34:52 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>
>You don't read well, do ya' Fuchs. TVs aren't "projection equipment at
>normal speed".

You don't read worth a fuck at all. The entire conversation is
about film to video conversion.

Every 24 fps second of film has six repeated frames after it
undergoes the conversion to NTSC video. And from the perspective of
the CRT's electron gun, it is most certainly a projection.

Come back when you are informed KiethTard.

Keith

2006-03-12, 11:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:49:06 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:37:35 +0000 (UTC),
> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:
>
>
> Wrong AGAIN. They have ALL been digitized. And TIME CORRECTED.

All? Even those that were lost? You're a fruitcake Fuchs!

--
Keith

Keith

2006-03-12, 11:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:10:17 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:35:52 -0500, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:
>
>
> You don't read worth a fuck at all. The entire conversation is
> about film to video conversion.

No, it wasn't, fruitcake. "Modern projection" equipment will make the old
16/18 FPS movies look as stupid as you make yourself. You've been hoisted
by your own panties, here Dim Bulb!

> Every 24 fps second of film has six repeated frames after it
> undergoes the conversion to NTSC video. And from the perspective of the
> CRT's electron gun, it is most certainly a projection.

You are most certainly a fruitcake, but carry on... Theis isn't
"projection" at all.

> Come back when you are informed KiethTard.

Oh, I'm hurt! I know that's the best you can do on short notice (and I do
mean short).

--
Keith

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-13, 12:21 am

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:02:28 -0500, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

>On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:49:06 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>
>All? Even those that were lost? You're a fruitcake Fuchs!

Did *I* EVER mention ANY "lost" work? NO!

You're a fucking retard.

Keith

2006-03-13, 12:21 am

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 03:47:34 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:02:28 -0500, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:
>
>
> Did *I* EVER mention ANY "lost" work? NO!

You just said (and were so stupid that you didn't even trim what *you*
said); "They have ALL been digitized."

> You're a fucking retard.

No, I'm not the retarded one, DimBulb. You can't even read a simple
sentence. ...nor remember what simple thoughts you might have expressed.

--
Keith

Michael Moroney

2006-03-13, 1:21 am

Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> writes and writes and writes:

Hey, idiot, what's with the multiple posts replying to a single post of
mine? One response would have done.

First, you wrote something that All old movies are now digitized. Most
movies produced before a certain date (around 1930) aren't available at
_all_ on any media. The film they used then was fragile, and has
disintegrated. Second, if the sprocket size and spacing, frame size etc.
hasn't changed in 100 years (as someone mentioned) but the film was
recorded at 16 frames per second, what do you think is going to happen
when played on a more modern 24 fps player? Now what happens if you
recorded the output of that 24 fps player on the most modern digital
recording media available? I'll tell you, you get the Keystone Kops
running around as if they're on crack. Fortunately, the same methods
used to record 24 fps video onto 30 fps TV will work to record 16 fps
film onto 24 fps film or 30 fps TV, and for some movies that has been
done. If someone makes the effort, we can see the Keystone Kops move at
normal speed just like moviegoers did in the '20s.

Second, you mentioned that laserdisks use the 1 1 2 3 4 to translate 24
fps movies onto 30 fps video. That's nice, and I already mentioned that
that's one way to do it. (and using Wikipedia as an authority - hah!)
Another way _that I have seen_ creates an intermediate frame where the odd
lines are from the previous frame and the even lines are from the next
frame. It looks like a strange special efect when the frames are different
and it's annoying when they're similar but not the same (motion) if you
look at it as a still frame. This was over-the-air broadcasts recorded
directly as a file on a PC. So you've seen the 1 1 2 3 4 and I've seen
the hybrid frame. What does that tell us? That both methods are in use.
I've also seen the 1 1 2 3 4 method. It's common.

>On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC),
>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

[color=darkred]
> Not when converting 24fps motion pictures to 30fps NTSC it isn't. It
>is a hard fact.

For that specific case, that is essentially correct. I think I've seen
that the output of my camcorder produces different picture data for the
odd and even frames when taping high speed motion (the even frames show
the object 1/60th of a second later than how it appears on the odd frame)
but I can't confirm it at the moment, so for its output it can be debated
whether it's about 500 lines at 30 fps or about 250 lines at 60 fps.
Doesn't matter as it's too blurry to even try to get 60 fps.

> 6 frames out of every 24 are repeated. A hard sectored CAV Laser
>Disc proves it. One can physically count 30 sectors representing 30
>fields then the break, then 30 More. Upon playing the disc,one can
>freeze the video and step through said 30 frames and watch the time
>counter toggle, and SEE six repeated frames among each set of 30.

> Been that way for a LONG time. No semantics required.

If it's been that way for a long time, it's because 1 1 2 3 4 is lots
easier to do without technology. Nowadays, it's much easier to do hybrid
frame with software. Welcome to the 21st Century. Laserdisks are 1970s
technology.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-13, 1:21 am

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:33:32 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>Hey, idiot, what's with the multiple posts replying to a single post of
>mine? One response would have done.

It's about choice. Also, you just crossed the line so you can fuck
off and die.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-13, 1:21 am

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:33:32 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>For that specific case, that is essentially correct. I think I've seen
>that the output of my camcorder produces different picture data for the
>odd and even frames when taping high speed motion (the even frames show
>the object 1/60th of a second later than how it appears on the odd frame)
>but I can't confirm it at the moment,

You can't confirm a goddamned thing. First off, if you had any brains
at all, you would have researched the recording method that your
camera uses. I am not talking about the storage medium either,
dipshit.

> so for its output it can be debated
>whether it's about 500 lines at 30 fps or about 250 lines at 60 fps.
>Doesn't matter as it's too blurry to even try to get 60 fps.

You're an idiot.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-13, 1:21 am

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:33:32 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>If it's been that way for a long time, it's because 1 1 2 3 4 is lots
>easier to do without technology. Nowadays, it's much easier to do hybrid
>frame with software. Welcome to the 21st Century. Laserdisks are 1970s
>technology.

If you had ANY brains you would see that your claimed iteration only
adds up to five frames of video.

Welcome to the fact that we now know you are merely guessing.

Laser discs merely explain the process. The same method is used when
converting a film to digital for DVDs, just prior to the MPEG-2
conversion, you fucking retard.

Welcome to the proof that you are full of shit.

Don Kelly

2006-03-13, 2:21 am

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:sm59121kgjs4g97nmo2sn26nrq1u1ok40n@4ax.com...
> Less difficult equates to more productive. Back then it was less
> difficult.

----------
No difference in difficulty. The reasons for 50 vs 60 Hz are lost in history
because nobody bothered to sort it out- probably political. Technical
reasons are of minor significance ( trade off between parameters which have
nothing to do with the number of degrees or the number of grads (400)in a
circle and computational reasons are insignificant.
When one considers 25 or (as used in some electric railways) 16-2/3 Hz vs 50
or 60 Hz or as used in aircraft, 400Hz, there are significant pros and cons
depending on the application. "Degrees in a circle" doesn't actually enter
into the decision.

This is a dead issue. some places use 50Hz, and some use 60Hz. pros and cons
exist- the advantages are mixed. Fact- live with it.
--

Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------

Michael Moroney

2006-03-13, 8:21 am

Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> writes:

>On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:33:32 +0000 (UTC),
>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

[color=darkred]
> If you had ANY brains you would see that your claimed iteration only
>adds up to five frames of video.

if *you* were even pretending to pay attention, you'd know that 5 frames
of video is 1/6 second which is 4 frames of (24 fps) movie film. That's
the smallest time which is an integer number of both film and video frames.

> Welcome to the proof that you are full of shit.

I see, you get to insult me with impunity but if I use a single insult, I
have "crossed the line".

You need to get your meds adjusted, NOW.

Oh, btw, *plonk*. Which is too bad, because I'm really curious about how
they managed to digitize film reels that had already disintegrated by the
'50s.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-13, 9:21 am

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:43:13 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

>Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> writes:
>
>
>
>
>if *you* were even pretending to pay attention, you'd know that 5 frames
>of video is 1/6 second which is 4 frames of (24 fps) movie film. That's
>the smallest time which is an integer number of both film and video frames.
>
>
>I see, you get to insult me with impunity but if I use a single insult, I
>have "crossed the line".

Bullshit.
>
>You need to get your meds adjusted, NOW.

meds? You're the fucktard that needs psychotherapy, jack-off.

>Oh, btw, *plonk*.

The most retarded practice in Usenet. Announcing one's filter file
edits. Congratulations, you are in an elite club. Not!

> Which is too bad, because I'm really curious about how
>they managed to digitize film reels that had already disintegrated by the
>'50s.

I never said anyone did any such thing, DIPSHIT.

Ross Mac

2006-03-13, 11:21 pm

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.12.19.35.49.392394@att.bizzzz...
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:34:52 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>
> You don't read well, do ya' Fuchs. TVs aren't "projection equipment at
> normal speed".
>
> --
> Keith
>

Ah Yes....shades of Darkmatter.....now it's Fuchs....
Another rude Troll......
Hey Keith...shoot me an email sometime....

Keith

2006-03-14, 1:21 am

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:56:59 -0500, Ross Mac wrote:

>
> "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.03.12.19.35.49.392394@att.bizzzz...
>
> Ah Yes....shades of Darkmatter.....now it's Fuchs....
> Another rude Troll......

Nope, the same worm; different troll.

> Hey Keith...shoot me an email sometime....

I think lost your email address. I saw your note from January (maybe
Christmas?) fly by on my other account when I deleted all the spam (it
was taking up my email alottment). I never used that account
publicly (except for outbound mail) so I didn't expect anything of value
in there - oops!

--
Keith

Keith

2006-03-14, 1:21 am

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:43:13 +0000, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> writes:
>
>
>
>
> if *you* were even pretending to pay attention, you'd know that 5 frames
> of video is 1/6 second which is 4 frames of (24 fps) movie film. That's
> the smallest time which is an integer number of both film and video frames.

Don't confuse DimBulb with the facts. His head would explode if one ever
found its way in there. In any case, look up "3:2 pull down" for the way
it's done today. Of course it was a little harder to do in the '50s. ;-)

http://www.3drender.com/glossary/32pulldown.htm

>
> I see, you get to insult me with impunity but if I use a single insult,
> I have "crossed the line".
>
> You need to get your meds adjusted, NOW.
>
> Oh, btw, *plonk*. Which is too bad, because I'm really curious about
> how they managed to digitize film reels that had already disintegrated
> by the '50s.

Well, DimBulb disintegrated in the '60s and he's still around.

--
Keith

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-14, 2:21 am

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:56:59 -0500, "Ross Mac"
<this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:

>Ah Yes....shades of Darkmatter.....now it's Fuchs....
>Another rude Troll......
>Hey Keith...shoot me an email sometime....

The RossTARD only chimes in when he has something stupid to say.
Another lame retard, you are.

Keith

2006-03-14, 2:21 am

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:30:26 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:56:59 -0500, "Ross Mac"
> <this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:
>
>
> The RossTARD only chimes in when he has something stupid to say.
> Another lame retard, you are.

Oh, *such* a brilliant repartee, from the DimBulb.

--
Keith

Michael Moroney

2006-03-14, 2:21 am

Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:

>Don't confuse DimBulb with the facts. His head would explode if one ever
>found its way in there. In any case, look up "3:2 pull down" for the way
>it's done today. Of course it was a little harder to do in the '50s. ;-)

>http://www.3drender.com/glossary/32pulldown.htm

Aha! Thanks. I knew when I saw two film frames on the different scans of
a single video frame it had to be a fancier method of conversion of films
to video. Now I know the name for it.

Ross Mac

2006-03-14, 9:21 pm

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:l5lc12lcdo01dd34qheb04phb0jt81q8tl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:56:59 -0500, "Ross Mac"
> <this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:
>
>
> The RossTARD only chimes in when he has something stupid to say.
> Another lame retard, you are.
You live up to your rep "fuchs"....lower case....
Exactly what is your motive on this board?....
Looks troll to me!

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-15, 3:21 pm

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:08:06 -0500, "Ross Mac"
<this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:

>
>"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
>news:l5lc12lcdo01dd34qheb04phb0jt81q8tl@4ax.com...
>You live up to your rep "fuchs"....lower case....
>Exactly what is your motive on this board?....
>Looks troll to me!
>
This is not a board, you fucking retard. This is Usenet and this is
a Usenet news group.

Michael A. Terrell

2006-03-15, 7:22 pm

daestrom wrote:
>
> Europeans find it easier to use 50 hz since their generators spin at 3000
> RPM. Why do you suppose their generators run at 3000 RPM and ours at 3600
> RPM??

Because their design disintegrated at 3600 RPM! ;-)

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Keith

2006-03-15, 9:21 pm

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:41:49 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:08:06 -0500, "Ross Mac"
> <this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:
>
> This is not a board,

Perhaps, though the difference is in semantics. OTOH, everyone os bored
with DimBulb.

>you fucking retard.

"Fucking", we'd have to ask Ross' wife, but civilized people don't ask
these questions. "Retard", no. You're the short-bus poster.
Hmm, maybe you can use "shortbusposter" that as your next nym, after you
again get spanked by the entire world.

> This is Usenet and this is a Usenet news group.

It is, and you're the Dan Blather of this news group.

--
Keith

Ross Mac

2006-03-15, 11:21 pm

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:ctng1299pq31mf45k777de4cj9ktoa037s@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:08:06 -0500, "Ross Mac"
> <this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:
>
> This is not a board, you fucking retard. This is Usenet and this is
> a Usenet news group.

Well...those of us who are over 16 remember boards...OK...this IS
usenet...is that such an important detail?....Only to a troll.....

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-16, 3:21 am

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:18:53 -0500, "Ross Mac"
<this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:

>
>"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
>news:ctng1299pq31mf45k777de4cj9ktoa037s@4ax.com...
>
>Well...those of us who are over 16 remember boards...OK...this IS
>usenet...is that such an important detail?....Only to a troll.....
>
I was around in the BBS days as well, dipshit. There was a difference
between them and Usenet then as well, you fucking total retard.

Kirk Johnson

2006-03-16, 4:21 am

"Roy L. Felch" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:qe2i12lmqrs9clf1dg9n7bpvnb39vdfr26@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:18:53 -0500, "Ross Mac"
> <this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:
>
> I was around in the BBS days as well, dipshit. There was a difference
> between them and Usenet then as well, you fucking total retar

Do you require nipple clamps lad ?

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-16, 2:21 pm

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:45:36 -0000, "Kirk Johnson"
<kj@seapinghole.com> Gave us:

>Do you require nipple clamps lad ?
>
I've got nine inches of "lad" to go up in your XXX with, little girl.

Kirk Johnson

2006-03-16, 3:21 pm

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:e79j12tb9nf31ovv26ehq87jfcb5oo44qa@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:45:36 -0000, "Kirk Johnson"
> <kj@seapinghole.com> Gave us:
>
> I've got nine inches of "lad" to go up in your XXX with, little girl.

have you seen my ring hole? I dont think you would do a lot
of good with that pissy little pisser of yours lad.

Heres a look if you fancy trying to fill it

http://data.exet.nu/bildarkiv/goatse/goatse_03.jpg

Kirk Johnson
"Stretching It Wide Since '75"

Ross Mac

2006-03-16, 9:21 pm

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:l5lc12lcdo01dd34qheb04phb0jt81q8tl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:56:59 -0500, "Ross Mac"
> <this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:
>
>
> The RossTARD only chimes in when he has something stupid to say.
> Another lame retard, you are.

Funny thing...that's a direct quote from Darkmatter...
as many of your are...

Ross Mac

2006-03-16, 9:21 pm

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:qe2i12lmqrs9clf1dg9n7bpvnb39vdfr26@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:18:53 -0500, "Ross Mac"
> <this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:
>
> I was around in the BBS days as well, dipshit. There was a difference
> between them and Usenet then as well, you fucking total retard.
If it is true that you have been around during the BBS days and you ARE and
adult then where exactly are you going with all this???

Keith

2006-03-16, 9:21 pm

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:52:35 +0000, Kirk Johnson wrote:

>
> "Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
> news:e79j12tb9nf31ovv26ehq87jfcb5oo44qa@4ax.com...
>
> have you seen my ring hole? I dont think you would do a lot
> of good with that pissy little pisser of yours lad.
>
> Heres a look if you fancy trying to fill it
>
> http://data.exet.nu/bildarkiv/goatse/goatse_03.jpg

Ah, I see you've met DimBulb without our introduction. ...carry on kids.

--
keith

Keith

2006-03-16, 9:21 pm

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:35:04 -0500, Ross Mac wrote:

>
> "Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
> news:l5lc12lcdo01dd34qheb04phb0jt81q8tl@4ax.com...
>
> Funny thing...that's a direct quote from Darkmatter...
> as many of your are...

Ross, I've *told* you that he *is* DarkMatter (a.k.a. DimBulb), as well as
any number of other stupid aliases along the way. He's the same
technician with dreams of being an engineer, when he grows up (though in
his late '40s or '50s I'd think it's a tad late to think about that now).

--
Keith

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-17, 12:21 am

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:52:35 -0000, "Kirk Johnson"
<kj@seapinghole.com> Gave us:

>have you seen my ring hole? I dont think you would do a lot
>of good with that pissy little pisser of yours lad.

What part of "nine inches" did you not understand, TWIT?

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-17, 12:21 am

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:35:04 -0500, "Ross Mac"
<this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:

>
>"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
>news:l5lc12lcdo01dd34qheb04phb0jt81q8tl@4ax.com...
>
>Funny thing...that's a direct quote from Darkmatter...
>as many of your are...
>
Bullshit. Never said it before, regardless of under what nym,
asswipe.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-17, 12:21 am

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:06:28 -0500, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:35:04 -0500, Ross Mac wrote:
>
>
>Ross, I've *told* you that he *is* DarkMatter (a.k.a. DimBulb), as well as
>any number of other stupid aliases along the way.

List them, retard boy.

> He's the same
>technician with dreams of being an engineer,

Nice try, jackass.

> when he grows up (though in
>his late '40s or '50s I'd think it's a tad late to think about that now).

Funny, you are the only asswipe in these groups that has the mental
age one fourth of your numerical age. You know what that equates to?

An IQ of 25, dipshit. That what you are at.

Ross Mac

2006-03-17, 9:21 pm

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:pgck12lm50gsbg4glt2q3euqp5qvql4hhu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:35:04 -0500, "Ross Mac"
> <this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:
>
> Bullshit. Never said it before, regardless of under what nym,
> asswipe.

Well you said it so it must be true????...Yeah right...
Just another attempt to be Troll of the Year....

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-17, 11:21 pm

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:32:38 -0500, "Ross Mac"
<this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:

>
>"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
>news:pgck12lm50gsbg4glt2q3euqp5qvql4hhu@4ax.com...
>
>Well you said it so it must be true????...Yeah right...
>Just another attempt to be Troll of the Year....
>
You're an idiot.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-03-19, 8:21 pm

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:33:35 -0500, "Ross Mac"
<this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> Gave us:

>"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
>There is a solution!"
>
>Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
>The most powerful anti-spam software available.
>http://mail.spaminspector.com

It didn't protect us from you retarded, top posted SPAM about it.

You hypocritical retarded bastard!

Ross Mac

2006-03-19, 9:21 pm

"Ross Mac" <this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:ZL2dnboZL6GCbYDZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
> --
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
> There is a solution!"
>
> Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
> The most powerful anti-spam software available.
> http://mail.spaminspector.com
>
>
> "Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
> news:76rr12p6cqal19n8dc3totv3gakra3nn07@4ax.com...
>
> Explain the hypocrysy...
>
>
Ok...I got that obnoxious add shut off.....

Michael A. Terrell

2006-03-20, 5:21 am

Ross Mac wrote:
>
> Ok...I got that obnoxious add shut off.....

I see that you did move to Florida. Email me sometime, I think I'm
just a few miles north of you.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

furles@mail.croydon.ac.uk

2006-03-20, 1:21 pm

Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:41:46 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber) Gave
> us:
>
>
> That's funny. It is STILL at 24fps, and there is no noticeable
> "flicker" in a theater when a film is projected.

The 24 fps film speed is high enough to produce the effect of smooth
movement, but a 24 Hz. flicker would be terrible. Film projectors have
a two blade shutter, or a single blade running at twice the speed which
has the same effect, so that each frame is shown twice, and the flicker
rate is increased to 48 Hz. There is no standard speed for silent
films; they were generally shown slightly faster than they were made,
and later ones tended to be made at higher frame rates than earlier
ones. By the late silent era speeds of aroubd 20 fps were common.
Until the end of silent films most cameras were still hand-cranked, so
they were shot at whatever speed the operator turned the handle, which
could vary considerably. Three blade shutters are sometimes used when
running silent film.

daestrom

2006-03-20, 6:21 pm

<furles@mail.croydon.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1142873894.599799.174180@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
> The 24 fps film speed is high enough to produce the effect of smooth
> movement, but a 24 Hz. flicker would be terrible. Film projectors have
> a two blade shutter, or a single blade running at twice the speed which
> has the same effect, so that each frame is shown twice, and the flicker
> rate is increased to 48 Hz. There is no standard speed for silent
> films; they were generally shown slightly faster than they were made,
> and later ones tended to be made at higher frame rates than earlier
> ones.

Weren't silent films at the mercy of the hand-crank operator? This would
seem highly variable. Or was there some sort of governor inside those old
cameras?

daestrom

Ross Mac

2006-03-20, 8:21 pm

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
new