We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
J IllyAugust 1933
INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST
ROJECTK
With Which is Combined Projection Engineering Edited by James J. Finn
Volume 5
JULY-AUGUST 1933
Number 5
Index and Monthly Chat 5
Servicing Sound Equipment by Projectionists, V 7
Aaron Nadell
"Permit" Men's Status Defined by New York Court 10
James J. Finn
Practical Problems of the
Projectionist 12
S.M.P.E. Projection Report
Interesting Acoustic Problems in Outdoor Theatre Installation 18
A B C's of Photo-Electricity 19 A. J. McMaster
Plan Small Town Invasion With 16 mm. Sound Film Equipment 20
Observations
21
N
ews
The Decibel and Its Uses D. M. McGalliard
16
17
How to Judge Sound Picture Recording Quality 22
Charles Felsj News NoTechnica Miscellaneous
Published Monthly by
JAMES J. FINN PUBLISHING CORPORATION
580 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N. Y.
Subscription Representatives
Australia and New Zealand: McGills, 183 Elizabeth St., Melbourne England and Dominions: Wm. Dawson & Sons, Ltd., Pilgrim St., London, E. C. 4.
MONTHLY CHAT
Yearly Subscription: United
States and possessions, $2 (two years, $3) ; Canada and foreign countries, $2.50. Single copies, 25 cents. Changes of address should be submitted two weeks in advance of publication date to insure receipt of current issue. Entered as second-class matter February 8, 1932, at the Post
Office at New York, N. Y. under the act of March 3, 1879. Additional entry at New Brunswick,
N. J.
Entire contents copyrighted 1933 by James J. Finn Publishing Corp.
International Projectionist is not responsible for personal opinions appearing in signed articles in its columns.
TNTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST recent
•*■ ly had occasion to investigate the much-discussed topic of occupational hazards of projection work. The report of this snooping has not yet been completed, but the outline promises many a surprise to those projectionists who never give a thought to their physical condition until they are threatened with a complete breakdown. Projectionists are notorious for irregular living — their sleeping and eating being on as disorganized a schedule as one could imagine — and this is but one factor which exerts a strong influence on their well-being, or lack of it.
First-hand information on this subject as soon as possible — probably in our next issue.
^ 0-CALLED automatic change-overs ^ are discussed in the report of the S. M. P. E. Projection Practice Committee published in this issue. Every 18 months some "technician" becomes enthused over the possibilities of an "automatic" change-over, and, as an inevitable corollary, projectionists are accused of being "afraid" to lend their support to such a device. Vastly improved photo-electric cells offer hope to the proponents of "automatic" changeovers; but cells or no cells, our view is that the actuating means for the cell will have to be a mark on the film — and we already have enough of this.
Maybe an "engineer" will dream of some means for dispensing with protectionists, and forget about the
ange-over process.
EXT month we shall print the first installment of a corking series on mathematics for the projectionist. We tried this stunt before, only to get our fingers badly burned in the attempt — for what we got was mathematics without regard for the projectionist. But this time we smell success, and we hazard the guess that most of our readers will find this forthcoming series as digestible as — as, er — well, as digestible as an argument in favor of four-men shifts.
A LTHOUGH the preliminary injunc■'^ tion issued against certain provisions of the ERPi contract by a Federal Court in Wilmington, Del., does not include any restriction against a continuation of present servicing charges, the plaintiffs are confident that when this point finally is considered a decision favorable to unrestricted servicing will be forthcoming. Meanwhile, projectionist organizations should press hard the advantage gained through the action of RCA in abolishing compulsory servicing. Some routine of servicing is essential, and our stand is that projectionists are entitled to have this work — providing, of course, that they are willing to go out and get it.