International projectionist (Oct 1931-Sept 1933)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

!7i4 e Vol. 5, No. 6 EDITORIAL PAGE SEPTEMBER 1933 P ' t' W h i^^oj action today in practically projection W orH ^^^^^ theatre outside the "de-luxe" at Low Quality class might be described succinctly Level ^y ^'^^ inelegant term "lousy." We believe that we have hit upon the reason for this noticeable falling off in the quality of picture delivered to the screen, a reason that has two roots; (1) penny-pinching on badly needed projector parts and other accessories, and (2) a drastically lowered morale on the part of projectionists, the result of wage cuts and less favorable working conditions. The prevelancy of a "don't-give-a-damn" attitude among projectionists today is truly amazing, and in justice to many projectionists it should be stated that they merely take their cues in this respect from owners and managers. Projectionists are prone to forget that the job of holding up projection standards is exclusively theirs. Managers and owners know very little about projection, and unless the projectionist continually "rides" them on the matter of conditions and maintenance, projection will continue steadily to lose ground, the prestige of the art will suffer and, most important, the post of projectionist will become less valuable in terms of wages. Given an acceptable (not too good, but just acceptable), picture on his screen, the average manager is not going to worry too much about projection standards. But with an alert projectionist on the job and constantly demanding the cooperation of the theatre in the matter of proper maintenance, Mr. Manager cannot help but be impressed — even while he pooh-poohs the suggestions. We are quite willing to place this matter on a purely selfish basis: a projectionist should exert every effort to maintain high quality projection, not necessarily because he loves his industry or has the natural desire of a craftsman to deliver good work, but merely because by insisting upon quality work he will be enhancing his own importance and helping to protect his wage. Think it over. Building Craft Morale Seldom indeed is it that we give any of our advertisers a pat on the back, our contention being that they should speak for themselves — at space rates. However, a couple promotional jobs put over recently by two companies in this field merit attention. First, is the campaign being waged by International Projector Corp. on the repair and replacement of projector parts. Thousands of dollars have been spent by this company to enlist the support of projectionists for higher projection standards. Naturally, it is hoped to spur the sales of replacement parts; but no projectionist should forget that in aiding in raising the standard of projection, the International Projector Corp. actually is helping to make the projectionist himself a more important cog in the theatre and is paving the way for the maintenance of conditions and wages. Frequently one hears projectionists complain that they are not respected in the industry ; and our answer is that projectionists cannot reasonably expect respect until they respect themselves and their work. One way to command respect is to take one's job seriously, to deliver quality work and to insist upon good equipment. A projectionist who will get along with old or worn equipment will measure up in the eyes of the boss to pretty nearly the level of the equipment with which he works. On the other hand, one who is constantly "beefing" about repair and replacement and who takes the trouble to point out the results of defective equipment cannot help but enlist the interest of his boss in quality work. We have often said that the boss was inoculated with his don't-give-adamn attitude toward projection by his projectionist. International Projector Corp. may be said to have a selfish interest in maintaining projection standards, but it cannot be denied that the benefits therefrom are split pretty evenly with projectionists — and at no cost. The other company winning our approval for aggressive merchandising of equipment is RCA Victor Co., which has just issued a beautiful series of selling aids for the exhibitor on its High Fidelity sound equipment. Good copy, banners, mats, display cards and other live selling matter is being supplied gratis to theatres using High Fidelity equipments, in an effort to impress the patrons' minds with the fact that theatres are sparing no expense to give the best show value. Here again Mr. Projectionist cashes in on the enterprise of a commercial organization which is spending much money to make the public quality -conscious. Projectionists should keep in mind those companies who are working hard to improve conditions and spur attendance, the source of all projectionist salaries. Tij T • j^f W*e are almost ready to write a More Lignt ^^^^ ^^ surrender to F. H. Rich and Less Definition ardson and admit that he was perfectly right in ranting against the devastating effect of porous and perforated screens upon visual projection. The cry all along has been, "Give us more light !" — and some lens manufacturers lost no time in answering that cry. The result has been a satisfying increase in illumination and a correspondingly sharp decrease in definition. It is easy to understand the desire for ample light, because every projectionist feels that a poorly-lighted screen image is a direct reflection upon his craftsmanship. And so it is. It is known by every projectionist, however, that the first requirement of a good lens is not its light-transmission quality but the definition it gives. As between a small light loss and good definition, and the opposite condition, we should vote for No. 1 without a moment's hesitation. It is a matter for much surprise, therefore, to find that many projectionists are ignoring a known requirement and a cardinal principle of good projection v/ork in selecting a lens first for its lighttransmission quality and then for its definition quality. Porous and perforated screens are to blame for this condition, as Richardson correctly points out, but even with the use of such screens it is desirable that definition be given first consideration. One can tolerate a picture which is not so brilliantly lighted; but a picture which is not sharply defined might just as well not be shown. [4]