International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1957)

International PROJECTIONIST R. A. ENTRACHT, Publisher JAMES MORRIS, Editor ROBERT C. MacLEOD, Associate Editor R. A. MITCHELL, Contributing Editor Volume 32 JANUARY 1957 Number 1 Index and Monthly Chat 5 Transmitting Power to Arc Lamps 7 Robert A. Mitchell The Syosset: A Completely Modern Indoor Theatre 11 Tom Prendergast Faster Pulldown Geneva Movements, II 13 Jose M. Ruiz Planetarium Projection 15 Robert C. MacLeod Is Magnetic Reproduction Worthwhile? 17 A. S. Pratt and R. A. Mitchell In The Spotlight 20 Projection Clinic 22 Increasing Efficiency of Motor Generators .... 24 Joseph F. Holt Personal Notes 25 IA Elections 30 Index — January to December 1956 32 Miscellaneous Items, News Notes, Technical Hints 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. Possessions, $2.50 per year (12 issues) and $4.00 for two years (24 issues). Canada and Foreign countries: $3.00 per year and $5.00 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., under the act of March 3, 1879. INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST assumes no responsibility for personal opinions appearing in signed articles, or for unsolicited articles. Entire contents copyrighted 1957 by INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST PUBLISHING CO., INC. d420 monthly CJwd Thoughts about the Past Year ANOTHER year has passed and the motion picture exhibition industry is still very much with us, alive and kicking despite predictions of doom. It might in fact be said that 1956 was a year in which the industry gained slightly in the struggle with TV and the other forces fighting for the public's entertainment dollar. There is particular cause to rejoice in the accomplishment of the drive-in section of the industry. At the height of last summer, when the drive-in season was busiest, the total movie audience in both indoor and outdoor theatres was almost equal to that of the happy, pre-TV days when exhibitors didn't have to worry about competition. But, despite the achievement with drive-in theatres, the year 1956 was still an indecisive and unsettled one. There were, for instance, the predictions by certain highly placed circuit executives that thousands of additional indoor theatres may be forced to close within the next few years. At year's end these predictions were generally considered to be exaggerated, but in support of the pessimistic view there remains the fact that many theatres are not making money and are often kept open by real estate interests which realize that the closing of these theatres would seriously injure the commercial value of shopping districts where they are located. This is testimony to the great value of a local theatre as a community service, but it also puts such theatres in a depressing position similar to that of a poor relation dependent on reluctant kin for support. Such theatres are typically broken-down old opera houses or surviving nickelodeons where projectionists struggle with weird projection angles and outmoded equipment while trying to obtain an acceptable wide-screen, "new-process" picture. The results just don't come off and patrons complain about poor projection, just as they complain about dirt, rowdy teen-agers and the general lack of service in theatres where a management without hope in the future devotes itself almost exclusively to uncovering new ways of scrimping and cutting manpower. Such defeatism is no solution to present problems. Starting with the projection room, which is the very heart of any theatre, changes must be made in these houses. At least the minimum of new equipment necessary for a pleasing wide-screen picture should be purchased. In the long run it is likely to be far more costly to continue doing business at a loss than to make an investment that will result in a finer projected picture. This investment could give a new lease on life to neighborhood houses that are now slowly dying. Although they cannot, of course, duplicate the perfect projection conditions, exhibitors and projectionists in theatres that are in trouble can take heart from the success of the newly built theatre in Syosset, Long Island, which is described elsewhere in this issue. The twro circuits that cooperated in the building of this theatre spared no expense in construction or in projection and sound equipment. The investment is paying off even though other theatres are failing because this theatre provides its customers with an experience that can never be duplicated on a home TV set. INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST • JANUARY 1957