International projectionist (July-Dec 1934)

^Jl e Vol. 7, No. 1 EDITORIAL PAGE JULY 1934 The S. R. P. and Film Mutilation Revisions of the Standard Release Print having been ushered in with the inevitable columns of type, we may now proceed to forget all about the matter — to continue to hack and mark and cut prints just as we always did. Sarcastic? Not a bit. It is perfectly all right with us to add another six frames to the picture runout following the change-over cue, but it means little or nothing. Any projectionist who finds eighteen frames following the cue insufficient for his needs will likewise have the same difficulty with 24 frames. The savings in film stock thus effected in this latest revision of S. R. P. could easily be doubled without inviting projection troubles. Still to be settled is the question of reel length. First suggested by the Academy was the 1,700-foot length. We gather from personal contact with exchange men and producers that they are quite satisfied with 1,000 foot lengths. Some projectionists favor a maximum length of 2,000 feet and a minimum length of 1,700 feet. If doubling is to be eliminated, either one of two things is necessary: 1. The larger reel, with 2,000-foot as the maximum and 1,700 feet as the minimum, will have to be adopted; or 2. Some penalty will have to be imposed for film damage, payable by the theatre to the exchange, with the former in turn collecting from the projectionist. Until such time as some means is devised for imposing a penalty for film mutilation, the problem will remain unsolved. Projectionist groups, research councils, societies, academies, or what have you, will not answer this question by the mere issuance of reports, surveys or the like. New Type Arcs. What of the A. C. Lamp? Ever since the time some three months ago that Mr. Lester Bowen contributed his views on the relative merits of the new D. C. and new A. C. arc lamps, we have been hoping against hope that some equally proficient stalwart of the A. C. lamp would rise to the occasion and with both force and weight of argument fling Mr. Bowen's contentions into the dust. Not that we are anxious to have the latter's ideas overthrown do we voice this hope, but rather because we know of nothing so efficacious as controversy and plain speaking to rip the lid from such problems. To date all the honors lie with the D. C. camp. To the credit of the A. C. contingent, however, it must be said that they have never claimed perfection for their product. They admit that the A. C. lamp is just that and no more, that it acts in the well-defined manner of all A. C. arcs, that it never was intended for the larger theatres and for the extreme uses to which it is now being put (to its general discredit), and that it did offer a vastly improved light to those theatres heretofore limited in terms of quantity and quality of light by the low-intensity lamp. Much more outspoken are the D. C. cohorts, who assert that the new 50-ampere D. C. lamps not only surpass the present-type hi-lows but actually match existing high-intensity lamps. Certain figures culled from a series of actual tests would seem to bear out this claim. There can be no question that the aggressive tactics of the D. C. crowd have gained popular approval, irrespective of the actual worth of their fancy — and at the expense of the A. C. lamp. Personally, it seems to us that for those who insist upon being sticklers for that which is correct and proper down to the last fine hair, the D. C. lamp will prove to be the answer. However, there is a vast field to be exploited by the A. C. lamp manufacturers, comprising those houses which up to now have used only low-intensity arcs and are ready and willing to obtain a vast improvement in quantity and quality of screen illumination at the cost of less steadiness in light. That the A. C. arc, in the very nature of things electrical, is less steady than is the D. C. arc there can be no question. We have no patience, however, for those who assert that if the pulsating character of the A. C. arc is not visible to the average human eye, it simply doesn't exist. A. C. fluctuations do exist, and they cannot be explained away in any such nonsensical fashion. Those who take their projection seriously should always aim at perfection, or as near perfection as it is possible to hit. In tolerating even a slight departure from that which we know to be correct we are inviting attention to the tendency of the theatre business to put over anything, provided it can get away with it. Unfortunately, this matter of arc types at present is really more of an economical problem than a technical one; and we are prepared to vote for the A. C. arc in preference to the low-intensity types which now make of motion pictures in thousands of theatres more of a trial than a pleasure. Ultimately, we think, the answer will be D. C, but it may well be that the A. C. arc will help mightily in blazing the trail toward better screen illumination. In a recent issue of Motion Picture Daily there appeared the following interesting commentary on the projection process as sometimes practiced: Showmanship in the Booth San Francisco, May 13. — Here's one that may •become a local classic: Toward the tail end of a feature running beyond the usual closing time, a careless operator in an outlying but crowded theatre discovered that he had misplaced the sixth and last reel. Frantically he looked for the last reel as the fifth neared its end. The picture at this stage was crammed with suspense. In almost the last second his bungling fingers picked up an old dust-covered slide used in the primitive days for just such emergencies. Desperately he flashed it on the screen. The slide, depicting a beautiful, romantic moonlight scene, read: "And So This Story Ends .... And We Bid You All Good Night." The projectionist is still looking for a job and the audience suspense continues unsatisfied. Ruffled? Not a bit. As a matter of fact we are tremendously cheered by the appearance of this item, because after listening to exhibitor arguments at the code hearings, before N. R. A. boards, before legislative bodies and elsewhere, we were well on the road to believing that projection was a purely mechanical process, requiring only the press of a button from the manager's couch at the beginning and ending of the day's run. [15]