(1913) The oldest sound films. Jack's joke. Edison's Kinetophone. [4k, 60fps, colorized] 

Да кстати поздравь сегодня у моей Пра Пра бабушки Они день рождения было ей сегодня исполнилось 111 лет и она тоже родилась в 1913 году

Напиши в комент пж🙏🙏🙏

Except for time travellers, I guess.

NICE reference, Sir! I'll make sure to look that up! Thank you.

Yes! He was also an excellent minor supporting character in the classic silent film SUNRISE. (“The obtrusive gentleman” in the barber shop scene).

Your sentence is grammatically incorrect and easily to be misunderstood. However, after reading it a couple of times, one is able to discern what you mean.

@@newmankidman5763your first sentence is also grammatically incorrect. Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house. In addition, the original commenter is perfectly comprehensible. This isn’t a formal setting, and formal writing isn’t-and shouldn’t be-required.

​@@NachaBeez, my first sentence is not grammatically incorrect. You probably think that I should have written "easy to misunderstand", which would be the correct form if I meant to say "without difficulty". However, what I did mean to say, and did say is "and without doubt to be misunderstood".

@@newmankidman5763 It is grammatically incorrect. It's not "easily to be misunderstood" but either "easy to be misunderstood", using an adjective or "easily misunderstood". Check your grammar and don't correct other people's if yours is lacking.

A planned sinking that went horribly wrong IMO, insurance scam and getting rid of the 3 men opposed of the federal reserve act which was passed in Dec 1913 (Astor, Guggenheim and Straus) which give the American central bank the power to create money from nothing in order to fund WW1.

I think that would be 1888. That’s when Jack the Ripper was around.

@@LyndaOblinger Correct, especially August-November of that year.

Thanks for sharing that process!

That's really interesting! Thank you for explaining. 😊

Fascinating, thanks.

Microphones have been around since at least the 1870s around the time of telephones because telephones wouldn't of worked without microphones although they still weren't widely used then.

@@user-ff6pq1eg8x Telephones didn't use microphones. The part of the phone you spoke into in the late 1800's was nothing like the microphones that came to be built in the 1920s. True, they converted the sound of the user into electronic signals that were then able to be reassembled on the end of the person receiving the call, but no, the microphones built for radio work on a totally different principle. This is the main reason records were recorded acoustically, with a large "speaking horn." Electrically produced records, beginning in 1925, owe that process to the inventions which came to be built as a result of radio. Although Marconi's radio was sending morse code via "Continuous Wave," or CW in the late 1890s, the first voice transmissions didn't occur until 1906. In fact, Reginald Fessenden (who sent the first voice transmissions) and Lee DeForrest both adapted a telephone mouthpiece in their early voice transmissions, but they worked rather poorly. Because of this, the modern concept of a microphone was invented in the late teens to overcome the limitations of the telephone mouthpiece in transmitting voice.

The best actors today are all theatre-trained though. That's always been the case. They can do naturalistic better than anyone too. I get what you mean though.

I think Marlon Brando did it first in A Streetcar Named Desire. He was one of the first realism actors in cinema.

That's what I thought of, they act in a theater play-kinda way.

Damn.. did u really need to give that long explanation about something that is so obvious to everybody..?

Let's just mention that there was much more theatricality in real life at that time - rituals, customs and etiquette were much more respected back then

It's one of the most fascinating things I've had the privilege of watching

@@H-Vox Same here...

110 years old. 👍

110

@@ikercapiafter the first 90 it doesn’t really matter eh?

Ok

That Charlie guy was until 1977 Charlie Chaplin you can still hear his voice

Edison's Kinetophone turned out to be cumbersome and impractical. As others with much more knowledge than I've got have posted, it required a sound-recording machine suspended over the sound stage, a massive sound horn to focus the actors' voices, and a pulley system to synchronize the camera and sound-recorder. The invention of electrical recording (ca. 1925) ushered in microphones, amplifiers, and sound tracks printed directly on film.

Just think on how much was invented and worked out in terms of production for television and movies from that time onward. Even on through the 60s, 70s. Unfortunately, when it comes to television today, so much has degenerated into crassness its unwatchable. But the concepts of filming for tv has so much to develop, it boggles the mind.

I wonder what regular conversation sounded like at that time,

@@rvvanlife like they do now. There are a few recordings out there that demonstrate this.

Great vaudeville skit.

It was likely a mechanical phonograph -just a horn with a stylus cutting a groove in a celluloid record -no amplifiers back then...

No, no microphones there, just the acoustics of the theatre-auditorium and the (stage-)actors & -actresses speaking loudly yet clearly, a skill stage-actors/-actresses had to master, until later film, video, microphones, et al changed all that.

​​​​@@johnathandavis3693 No, no, _film_ was made of celluloid. Audio records were made of _vinyl._ The earliest vinyl records were thick and fragile. If dropped, they'd shatter into pieces like dropped porcelain or glass. Later, LP (Long Playing, @33⅓ RPM) records were much more resistant to breakage by being thinner, lighter, and more flexible to bend before breaking. _Vinyl records,_ those were. _See also:_ Audio _wax cylinders,_ the original recorded audio medium, before vinyl records.

You don't see them because they were not there. The sound at this time could only be pre-recorded in a studio because of the mic quality back then. The actors you see in the video were lip-syncing to the recording, not speaking live.

@@Basauri_48970 There were no microphones, only an acoustic Edison recording phonograph with a supersized recording horn suspended above the stage to catch the audio coming from the stage. This can be seen at the top of the frame in a few of the shorts, looks like a batwing, it's the very bottom of the horn. See the Kinetophone DVD for proof of this - it is not lip-synced.

Exactly what I was thinking! Glad we have some record of pre-Jamal America.

@@GLC2013 Inventions that record sound, and video and pictures have got to be some of the best investions ever made

Abstitutely!

You forgot "The Jazz Singer" 1927, with Al Jolson! Doug Fairbanks experimented with 'sound' pictures, before that, but not full "talkies'!

@@rongendron8705 still, theres a huge difference between 1927 and 1913, isnt it? dresses were different, the way they talk was different, maybe due to the WWI that started in 1914. Everything changed after the war and elegance was never at the same level.

Syncing was a huge problem with Edison's Kinetophone. One of the big reasons it never took off.

@@sanseverything900 Yes - the camera and sound player were mechanically synchronized using pulleys. As they way, "what could possibly go wrong?"

The Fed. The 16th. Preplanning War.

The problem with old footage is the speed and the shakiness of the camera. The new technology cleans that up well. Would be nice to see the pre-restored version side-by-side.

Everybody alive today had someone born in the 19th century and earlier that they can thank their lineage for.

That's true!! Ridicolous

Do you mean Spencer Tracy?

Film rather than video. Video wasn't practical till the 1950s.

LOL, oh you never know! I too feel the same way about numerous different points in time.! ;)

horizontally, too.

Yes! To see them as they actually were, and not some faint shadow of themselves!

@@valerie3955 What are you guys on about??? A lot of black and white films in later years were shot, lighted and planned as black and white. Adding color will ruin their entire work. For example the film noir films of the 1940s and 50s, shot when color film existed but made with gorgeous cinematography where careful creativity went into the perfect lighting, use of lenses etc, for the best possible results. Using a cheap AI software to colorize them decades later is sacrilige and does NOT improve those films in any way. AI and modern people will just randomly guess which colors the clothes, the cars, the buildings are, whereas in the original black and white the colors don't matters. It gives them an etheral quality, leaving more to the imagination of the audience. Try putting this AI technology onto films like Casablanca, Modern Times, Citizen Kane, Seven Samurai, The Bicycle Thieves or later black and white movies like Raging Bull etc, and you'll ruin the hell out of them.

@@nerd_in_norway Color was expensive and they were forced to shoot in two colors instead of reality. It was always second best .

I've had a long interest in old tech, and there were multiple reasons why Edison's system failed. First, it was expensive, requiring two or more people to operate. Second & more important, it was mechanically complex and failure-prone. All the components - camera, projector, sound recorder, sound playback - had to be running at exactly the same speed. Edison's system was based on a single motor using pulleys to drive all components, but it had a tendency to slip which de-synced the picture and sound. The synchronization problem wasn't solved until electrical recording was invented in the mid-1920s, making it possible to print the sound track directly on the film strip itself.

@@user-eb5cb6ud1p You've shed relevant light on the matter - thanks!

@@pbasswil Much appreciated. Cheers.

More than just for people in the back. There were no microphones or amplifiers; Edison's Kinetophone used a huge sound-horn to concentrate the actors' voices which then drove a mechanical stylus. The louder your voice was, the better the recording sounded.

In a sense it was a boom of sorts...a special cylinder recording machine with increased recording time and a huge horn which was mounted up above the actors and out of camera range (the very bottom of the horn can be seen in a few of the shorts).

A quick bit of googling will tell you the first movie camera was built back in *1888* (!). Look up people like Georges Méliès, the Lumière brothers, and others to see what people were able to do only a few years after that.