The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

July, 1953 THE CINE-TECHNICIAN 79 A FILM TECHNICIANS NOTEBOOK Compiled by A. E. Jeakins TTENRY ROGER, one of the first scientists to -"■ employ photography in research work, including the use of cinematography in the study of living cells in the tissue and blood, is the designer of the handy disc computer marketed under the name of Ready-Eddy. The computer has three separate scales — F, M, and S, representing footage, minutes and seconds respectively. The F scale occupies the whole of one side of the disc, the M and S scales are on the other side. The F scale gives data for 35mm. and 16mm. film from 1 to 90 feet. By referring to this scale it is possible to tell at a glance the number of seconds of screen time and the number of frames for 35mm. and 16mm. film. The M scale furnishes comparative footage data for 16mm. and 35mm. films. For example, one wishes to determine the running time of a thousand feet of 35mm. The indicator is rotated until the figure nearest to 1,000 appears in the slot immediately below the figure 35 — in this case 990. The answer (11) appears in the slot on the far left. Where an optical reduction print to 16mm. is to be made of this footage, the exact length of the 16mm. print — 396 feet — is revealed in the indicator slot. LATEST reports from the wide-screen front seem to suggest that aspect ratios vary almost from company to company. Apart from 20th CenturyFox's CinemaScope (aspect ratio 2.66 to 1), Columbia announce Vitascope with a ratio of 1.85 to 1; Universal's system also uses the same ratio. Paramount have decided on 1.66 to 1, and M.G.M. have introduced a system for projection of standard films with an aspect ratio of 1.75 to 1. Since all these systems except 20th Century's (says The Motion Picture Herald) achieve their broadening from the standard 1.33 to 1 by masking the aperture plate to the required extent, a compromise on some middleground ratio appears wholly possible. In the same issue of the M.P.H., Terry Ramsaye writes: " Considerable unalloyed piffle about the art pervades the current discussion of screen dimensions. . . . most assuredly none of the current turmoil originated among the creative artists of the motion picture in any department. Now all of a sudden we find critical assertion that the fifty-yearold standard ratio of four units wide and three high is called aesthetically objectionable, archaic, etc. One has no memory of any of the great creative workers of the screen down all the years complaining that his expression was cramped by the ratio of three-to-four. The reason has been that the ratio was comfortable, imposing no limitations. " No known statistics on picture proportions are available, but if one considers the typical ratios of museum pictures and gallery art, and the ratios of both amateur and professional photography there will be found no pursuit of wide and shallow panoramic shapes. The painter and the photographer has ever fitted the ratio to the subject. . . . READY-EDDY (above) is a durable 5-inch plastic disc having 12 rows of figures on both sides. Indicator rotates around perimeter of disc to give ready answers to a wide range of problems encountered in the production, editing and screening of motion picture films. So has the cinematographer ... by concentrating his accent of attention on any relative area that he elected. Plainly he will have less latitude if he is compelled to cover vast areas right and left of his focal centre of dramatic interest. The contention that some of the currently promoted wide-screen processes render close-ups unnecessary is without validity. The close-up is the screen's most valuable device for filling the eye of the spectator with the one all-important dramatic manifestation of the fleeting moment . . ." The International Projectionist also weighs in with a bucket of cold water on the subject of curved screens: " So alarming is this renewed interest in a technological corpse that we hasten to deliver another — and we hope, final — graveside sermon over that which, it was thought, had long since departed this world. The curved screen was touted as capable of accomplishing the following chores: (1) correction of distortion; (2) elimination of hot spot and glare; (3) creation of an 'illusion' of depth; (4) improvement of sound transmission; (5) elimination of the 'keystone' effect, and (6) the screen ' could be washed like glass.' Let's see about this and other assertions made on behalf of such a screen. " 1. Screen Image Distortion. Far from eliminating distortion, the curved screen creates it! . . . Because the screen is curved, not flat, horizontal straight lines appear bowed, while vertical straight lines are variously curved, depending upon the camera angle and the seat from which the screen is viewed. Titles shown on such a screen come up curved instead of in a straight line. " 2. ' Hot Spot ' and Glare. In front-projection the correction of a ' hot spot ' is definitely not a function of any screen, but rather is it solely a question of the optics of the projector.