International projectionist (Oct 1931-Sept 1933)

September 1933 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST '3 'ROJECTIONISII With Which is Combined Projection Engineering Edited by James J. Finn Volume 5 SEPTEMBER 1933 Number 6 Index and Monthly Chat 5 Erpi's New 1-Year Agreement Structure and Function of on Service and Parts 18 Electrical Condensers 7 Factors Affecting the Useful Aaron Nadell Life of Screens 19 Program Embellishment With Ultraviolet Effects A. Strobl and R. L. Zahour 11 The New Alternating Current Projection Arc D. B. Joy and A. C. Downes 20 The Accurate Measurement of Screen Light Values 12 Effect of Current Values on Life and ^Efficiency of Exciter Lamps 23 A B C's of Photo-Electricity, II 13 NRA and What It Means to A. J. McMasxer the Projectionist 24 Schroeder Opposes Richardson James J. Finn on Brush Fitting Procedure 14 Local 306 Protest to NRA 25 Mathematics for the Projec I. A. — I. B. E. W. Controversy 26 tionist Gordon S. Mitchell 16 News Notes "Seeing" Sound by Means of Technical Hints Novel Projection Process 18 Miscellaneous Items 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. 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. MONTHLY CHAT /~kNE month from the time these lines are written the shouting incident (inevitable, we might have said) to the formulation of a code for the motion pictui-e industry will all be over. Wages and conditions for projectionists will have been adopted, and we are more concerned about the latter than the former. Projectionists need not contemplate a life of ease under the protective wing of a favorable code ruling, for the old, old fight for improved work must go on — code or no code. It's funny how very much less trouble there is in localities where projectionists know their business ever so much better than their "opposition." There just must be something more to this matter than mere coincidence. ■DEFLECTING the keen interest of the field in the possibilities of an "automatic" change-over device are several letters from inventors who unashamedly admit that they have developed the "last word" in such a contrivance. Fine . . . only we might add that Mr. George Edwards, formerly editor of American Projectionist (alova-sholem), has promised for our next issue an article which will attempt to prove that the change-over process is now sufficiently mechanized to satisfy all concerned. This ought to be good — for not less than 63,457 humans (including exhibitors), have written the "last word" in the history of "automatic" change-overs. 'T'HE current I. A.— I. B. E. W. jurisdictional controversy, which the latter group fervently prays may result in the ousting of I. A. members from projection rooms, tempts us to apply to projection room work a paraphrase of an old adage: one per cent electrical and ninety-nine per cent endurance. More about this matter in serious vein within. "WT". G. WOODS, enterprising Secretary of the San Francisco projectionists and an ardent proponent of and hard worker for a craft organization, writes: ". . . What a glorious opportunity we have missed in not having a craft society, what with the NRA program and the Canadian Research Council report. A permanent and militant organization could have made fine capital out of these two activities. Those of us who worked hard for the plan at the time knew what we were after, but couldn't put it over. What a chance we have missed!" To which one can only answer: "You're telling me?"