International projectionist (July-Dec 1934)

12 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST December 1934 IN THE EDITOR'S MAIL A. C. Suprex Projection With Rear Shutters I have read carefully your very good article, "The Suprex Carbon Arc," in your November issue. Your experiences with the A. C. arc differ from those of this company. We have installed about twenty A. C. lamps, and in addition to obtaining about two and one-half times the light produced by low-intensity lamps, we have not found the flicker to be objectionable. The lamps operate on 60 cycles. There seems to be quite a difference in results when a rear shutter is used. Results with front shutters on A. C. lamps have been pretty bad; but the use of rear shutters seems to effect a vast improvement. Have you made any tests during which this point may have been developed? If you make any future tests, we shall be glad to get the results. We have had wonderful results with the D. C. Suprex lamps, of which we have installed about thirty. These lamps surely represent a fine advance in projection. Our experience with the mirror guards, which you recommend, tallies with your findings in every respect. So much so, in fact, that we have adopted these guards as standard equipment. G. F. Perkins Perkins Electric Co., Ltd. Montreal, Canada. [There is no basis in theory or practice for the assumption that better results are obtained by using rear shutters instead of front shutters with A. C. lamps. The flicker which is inherent in A. C. lamps cannot be eliminated, or even minimized, by the use of rear shutters. This opinion stems from a series of exhaustive tests with every type of shutter — whether two-blade, three-blade, enlarged or cut down, synchronous, etc. Elements other than the shutter must be responsible for the improvement reported by this correspondent. The statement relative to the worth of the mirror guards matches exactly the experience of all impartial critics who have tested them. — Editor.] Wichita, Kan., Exhibits a Little Local Pride Having read my I. P. for November, I find therein two items which excite my interest. First, your own advertisement on page 27 fails to include this Local as1 100% subscribed to I. P. We're just as proud of this as you are. Second, on page 13 under "Projections" there is mention of a projectionist who was incapacitated by handling heavy film containers. Just this sort of thing precipitated a strike out here in 1919. A projectionist working under contract also acted as shipping clerk. An express employee failed to pick up a film shipment ; an exhibitor was disappointed and tried to charge the loss against the projection ist. The battle was on, and a strike was called. When the matter was settled the following clause was inserted in the contract : The party of the second part [Local 414] . . . agrees to furnish competent men. It is further agreed that projectionists shall not be permitted to carry film to or from exchanges, depots, express offices or other places, nor shall they be required to do other work than that necessary for the proper projection, maintenance and care of the equipment actually used for same. We should like to see this clause given publicity in I. P., as we believe that the rights of projectionists in this respect should be sharply defined. Personally we have noticed a constantly increasing interest in I. P. among the members, and we know that you will go along to an even greater success: C. D. Peck Secretary, Local 414 Wichita, Kansas [Our apologies to Local 414 for omitting them from the list of organizations who are 100% subscribed to I. P. Even though the compilation was only a partial list, now that we know it to be a matter of pride with various Locals, we shall be more careful in the future. The contract clause alluded to by Mr. Peck may seem superfluous in the year 1934, yet precisely the same type of accident described by Mr. Dudiak in his "Projections" column last month is being reported with increasing frequency. Heavy film containers are not something that can be straddled on one finger, or even lifted with one arm, and serious injury can be avoided by exercising caution. — Editor.] Kind Words For I. P. From Minneapolis I have very little occasion to make any comments on articles appearing in the various trade papers, but I wish to compliment you on your splendid article on the Suprex lamp appearing in your November issue. Every employee of this branch office has carefully read every word of your article, and we intend to place it before all exhibitors who are prospects for equipment. I should like to have some reprints of this article, if they are available. If not, would you please mail here four extra copies of this issue. A. T. Crawmer National Theatre Supply Co. Minneapolis, Minn. [The foregoing letter provides an opportunity to express our regrets to all those projectionists, manufacturers and supply dealers who deluged this office with a torrent of requests for extra copies of the Suprex arc article. Although the forms were returned to the press for the printing of 500 additional copies of the November issue, the demand far exceeded the supply. We appreciate this compliment to I. P., even though we find it difficult to hide our embarrassment at failing to service everybody.— Editor.] Suprex Arc, All-A. C. Sets and 16-mm. Projection Your articles relative to the Suprex arc in your November issue were much appreciated by the writer. We were especially interested in the last paragraph under "Monthly Chat" on page 5. This is one equipment house that has no "adjustments" to make in the matter of replacing the inferior A. C. lamps. We have consistently refused to sell this type of lamp, and while we did lose a number of sales by this policy, our exhibitor customers are now swearing by, not at us. We feel that our loss is more than offset by the goodwill gained and the expense we should incur in replacing these lamps. This also applies to the low-priced, cheaply constructed all-A. C. operated theatre amplifiers that formerly were so numerous. We note that these all-A. C. sets of the better type are now being made with separate rectifiers for circuits where D. C. should be. Regarding that article on 16 mm. projection: If the new 1,000-watt projector is operated efficiently, it will probably equal the results obtained with certain 35 mm. projection, particularly that type of projection that we see in certain spots. Of course, one must read such articles in the same way one would read patent medicine ads.; it's the "english" that counts. Further, we must remember that these 16 mm. projectors of the better type are practically foolproof in that we cannot disturb optical alignments, replace mirrors, etc., with inferior products. We have seen some projection lately in elegant ( ? ) theatres having very good equipment that can be matched by 16 mm. equipment. Naturally, if the 35 mm. equipment were to be operated with the same efficiency as is the 16 mm. equipment, there would be a different story to tell. Very much different. Let's have (Contnued on page 23) Thank You "I am pleased to advise that our membership has voted to renew its group subscription to International Projectionist for the fourth consecutive year. "Incidentally, favorable action was taken after only a mere mention that the renewal was due, without any sales talk or other urging. This is in itself a fine tribute to you, the members evidently realizing the value of your very successful efforts to give projectionists a magazine devoted solely to the interests of their craft. "It is unnecessary for me to wish you continued success, because this is already assured." Ira Pye Secretary, Local 650 Westchester County, N. Y.