International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1955)

INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST JAMES J. FINN, Editor JAMES MORRIS, Associate Editor Volume 30 JANUARY 1955 Number 1 Index and Monthly Chat 5 Light Sources for Film Projection 7 Robert A. Mitchell 1954: A Decisive Year for Film Industry 11 James Morris Notes on Exhibition in Foreign Lands 13 Dr. John G. Frayne Film Damage on the Increase 14 Henry B. Sellwood From Toy to a Great Industry (Conclusion) .... 15 Jack E. Gieck Letters to the Editor — Frequency Range and "Quality" Repro .... 17 In The Spotlight 20 After the Technological Furore — What? 21 Chauncey Greene Film Producer Praises VistaVision; Hits Hollywood Handling of 3-D 22 IA Elections 23 More Electronic Marvels on the March 24 IA Obituaries 27 Index — January to December 1954 32 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST, published monthly by the International Projectionist Publishing Co., Inc., 19 West 44 Street, New York, 36, R. A. Entracht, President. Telephone: MUrray Hill 2-2948. Subscription Representatives: AUSTRALIA-McGills, 183 Elizabeth St., Melbourne; NEW ZEALAND-Te Aro Book Depot, Ltd., 64 Courtnay Place, Wellington; ENGLAND and ELSEWHERE-Wm. Dawson & Sons, Ltd., Macklin St., London, W. C. 2. Subscription Rates: United States and U. S. Posessions, $2.50 per year (12 issues) and $4.00 for two years (24 issues). Canada and Foreign countries, $2.50 per year and $4.00 for two years. Changes of address should be submitted four 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., with additional entry at Yonkers, N. Y., under the act of March 3, 1879. INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST assumes no responsibility for personal opinions appearing in signed articles, or for unsolicited articles. Contents copyrighted 1955 by INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST PUBLISHING CO., INC. MontkLf, QUat Technicians Win Recognition THE critical point in the development of modern motion picture presentation was reached when the various "new" processes engulfed the exhibition field. Technology, not subject to the whims of "gadgets," is Gospel today. A swing around the theatre field in various sections of the country has convinced the writer that the most pressing projection problems at the moment is the ease with which the film stock is being chewed up heat-wise, by modern high-intensity light sources. Scores of suggestions for alleviating this problem — some of them reflecting a great deal of serious thought, some of them borderline crackpot — have been advanced, but all these notions tend to neglect the fundamental requisite of cooling not the mechanism but the film itself! "Well," say these eager-beaver projection practitioners, "this is a problem in chemistry for the manufacturers of film stock. We're just trying to correct an inherent error in the medium supplied to us." "Well," responds IP, "why not meet the problem head-on by recognizing the basic difficulty instead of trying to peddle all sorts of expensive gadgets which serve to weigh down not simplify the projection process?" There has always been a definite lack of (shall we say?) cohesion between the productive and the exhibition forces of the motion picture industry. Cost factors, utterly ignored on the production and exhibition fronts (you pick up the effort check, Mike) is the problem of translating the sum total of all the high-priced talent recruited by the "executive" brains of the industry into box-office dollars — which means their salaries as well as ours. We who show the pictures to the paying public should be consulted on the basic problem of the motion picture industry — exhibition. We who strain to translate the productive and distributive efforts of the industry should not only be advised in detail in advance of any technolgical change but should be consulted as to the best means for changing glamour pusses into box-office dollars. This corner cannot remember a single occasion within the past 25 years when the projection craft was consulted on a contemplated change in technological standards. Many more years ago than we care to remember there arrived breathlessly in New York a representative of the studios who announced blandly that a new aspect ratio had been decided upon — with a major producer already in work on three feature releases. As an afterthought, this fellow decided to consult projection people, only to find out to his profound dismay that he was wrong! Why? Because in his pet studio projection rooms where they shot all stuff on the level they ignored completely the fact that the average projection angle in theatres was of the order of 15 degrees! This fellow nearly swooned when measurements showed that the angle in the N. Y. City Paramount Theatre was 26x/2 degrees. Result: all the studio-calculated characters would have their heads and feet cut off. Technological problems being the prime interest in the motion picture industry today, there is no reason why a meeting of minds among various branches of this industry could not resolve all these matters on a mutually satisfactory basis — and this suggestion is advanced with the most constructive will in the world. INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST JANUARY 1955