Working in feet and frames? Why and when?

[JSt0rm]

Because a lot of people think in feet frames. It only happens on bigger films for me. Everything else is in tc. I will say its easier to talk about the projects with others. when giving notes you just say

"At 352ish..."

opposed to "at 03:12:46ish"

[Tom Fleischman]

Footage counter runs faster. Easier to cue moves.

Besides, it's what I'm used to...and there are no cons...

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by Tom Fleischman

Footage counter runs faster. Easier to cue moves.

Besides, it's what I'm used to...and there are no cons...

I think it depends on where you grew up. For people who were "socialized" in the metric system feet+frames are about as confusing and un-logical as the whole pull-up/down business or inch, foot, yard, mile system.

I'm aware why you used to needed f+f when working with pulldown NTSC telecine picture or 24fps PAL transfers.

As being someone from the metrical system I will never be able to wrap my head around this "system":

1760 yards to a mile
12 inches to a foot
3 feet to a yard

I guess it boils down to how you were educated.

Personally I only used to switch to f+f back in the days of 24fps PAL video when we needed to cut out 17 frames which had to be done on the real film frame grid so you need to cut in between frames of the 25fps ruler to avoid accumulated rounding errors due to the 25fps ruler against a 24fps runtime video. Similar to 29.97 transfers of 24fps film. In the f+f grid that was precisely the film-grid. But now with 24.00QTs that's not needed anymore.

[dr.sound]

I like mixing in feet when on a Feature. It is a lot easier loading in a
go to # such as 350 vs 01:03:50:00

On TV it's all Time Code.
Also when Print Mastering with Dolby it's all in Feet.

Different mediums, different mindset.
To each their own (but mines in Feet)

[ggegan]

It's funny, I have worked in feet and frames for so many years (since the mid 70's) that when I'm timing common tasks in my head, I don't count in seconds, I count in feet. For instance, when I grind my coffee beans in the morning, I grind them for 7 feet, I brush my teeth for about 100 feet (somewhat less time than my dentist recommends), a typical bourbon on the rocks poured out of a spout is about 4 feet. It's a unit of time that is indelibly ingrained in my brain.

Timecode is fine too, I deal with it all the time these days, but somehow it just never quite feels natural to me.

[JSt0rm]

Originally Posted by ggegan

It's funny, I have worked in feet and frames for so many years (since the mid 70's) that when I'm timing common tasks in my head, I don't count in seconds, I count in feet. For instance, when I grind my coffee beans in the morning, I grind them for 7 feet, I brush my teeth for about 100 feet (somewhat less time than my dentist recommends), a typical bourbon on the rocks poured out of a spout is about 4 feet. It's a unit of time that is indelibly ingrained in my brain.

Timecode is fine too, I deal with it all the time these days, but somehow it just never quite feels natural to me.

Lol Gary!

[Kuba_Pietrzak]

Originally Posted by apple-q

I think it depends on where you grew up. For people who were "socialized" in the metric system feet+frames are about as confusing and un-logical as the whole pull-up/down business or inch, foot, yard, mile system.


1760 yards to a mile
12 inches to a foot
3 feet to a yard

This is IT! I do know, what "footage" (feet+frames) is for and why. I also do know, how to use it.

But living in a European country, where metric system is commonly used, it is not so easy to calculate all those feet, yards, gallons and degrees Fahrenheit.

best,
Kuba

[Tom Fleischman]

Were feet and frames used in Europe to measure film before video and timecode were invented?

I'm sure that there must be some older European mixers who think quite fluently in feet and frames.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by Tom Fleischman

Were feet and frames used in Europe to measure film before video and timecode were invented?

I'm sure that there must be some older European mixers who think quite fluently in feet and frames.

F+F was and is still common in France and UK I think. In france mainly for the famous bande rithmo used to cue foley and that they still like to run along during the mix as a visual timeline reference.
But the feet+frame numbers were otherwise only used by negative editors and assistant editors that had to write/read hand-written assembly lists referencing the feet+frame numbers printed on the film edge.

As far as central europe goes I have never met a mixer in the last 20 years who wanted feet+frames as a counter below the screen. But again, they might be out there

[JoeMilner]

Would it make any difference (to those in metric-system countries) if 35mm film were measured in meters + frames?

I completely agree that the metric system is MUCH more logical than inches>feet>yards>miles but at this point, those of us who refer to points in a reel in terms of feet are just thinking of it as time (ie, 90 feet per minute), not necessarily measurement.

You might just as well call them "parsecs" or "quatloos"

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by JoeMilner

Would it make any difference (to those in metric-system countries) if 35mm film were measured in meters + frames?

I completely agree that the metric system is MUCH more logical than inches>feet>yards>miles but at this point, those of us who refer to points in a reel in terms of feet are just thinking of it as time (ie, 90 feet per minute), not necessarily measurement.

Of course. I was using that to explain why it's rather hard for me to switch over to f+f because I "grew up" with TC. Using a length scale to measure time also seems quite weird. As in "It's 900 feet past 10 o'clock" or "It's 300m past 10 o'clock"

Either means anything to me before I crunch the numbers.

For me feet+frames or meter+frames make sense on a mag machine but not in a DAW in the age of DCP and QT.

As a kid I always wondered why a plane flies at 35000feet. Why all those zeros. Why not call is 35kfeet as in 35km? But then: No one says 40 mega meter for 40000km.

Guess it's all about tradition.

[JoeMilner]

Originally Posted by apple-q

As in "It's 900 feet past 10 o'clock" or "It's 300m past 10 o'clock"

I'm TOTALLY going to start answering like that when someone asks me what time it is, LOLOLOL

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by apple-q

Of course. I was using that to explain why it's rather hard for me to switch over to f+f because I "grew up" with TC. Using a length scale to measure time also seems quite weird. As in "It's 900 feet past 10 o'clock" or "It's 300m past 10 o'clock"

Either means anything to me before I crunch the numbers.

For me feet+frames or meter+frames make sense on a mag machine but not in a DAW in the age of DCP and QT.

As a kid I always wondered why a plane flies at 35000feet. Why all those zeros. Why not call is 35kfeet as in 35km? But then: No one says 40 mega meter for 40000km.

Guess it's all about tradition.

Not to get technical, but all time measurements are actually referenced to distance and speed. Using one reference is as arbitrary as the next. It's just whatever you are used to. For a mixer, footage just has a bit more rapid rhythm than Timecode. I divide feet into half, quarter and eighth note divisions for timing mixing moves, but for Timecode I convert to triplets.

[Kuba_Pietrzak]

Originally Posted by apple-q

But the feet+frame numbers were otherwise only used by negative editors and assistant editors that had to write/read hand-written assembly lists referencing the feet+frame numbers printed on the film edge.

As far as central europe goes I have never met a mixer in the last 20 years who wanted feet+frames as a counter below the screen. But again, they might be out there

The common knowledge is, that 10mins reel is approx. 300meters and 20mins reel is approx. 600meters.

In the high school I was told, that feet+frames is mainly used for cutting negative... nothing else. And among teachers were the most experienced mixers from my home country, so it might mean something...

We use only seconds and frames, which is actually a time code...

Best,
Kuba

[DEAN HUMPHREYS]

[QUOTE=Tom Fleischman) Were feet and frames used in Europe to measure film before video and timecode were invented?

I'm sure that there must be some older European mixers who think quite fluently in feet and frames.

Hi Tom,
In the UK feet and frames was the only way of measuring film up until around the late 80's. There was a crossover period during the early 90's whereby all the DAW's were obviously working in timecode but, incongruously and perhaps perversely, the mixing studios were still displaying feet and frames.

I can only think in feet and frames and rarely, if ever, look at a timecode counter.