International projectionist (Jan 1959-Dec 1960)

One of Britain's ablest technicians evaluates overall technological processes within the motion picture industry. The author has long been regarded as an outstanding practitioner of the cinematic art, and his views should command the attention of those who are interested in A-V presentations. Projection Pot Pourri: Light Source, Image Ratios Film Sizes, Screens THE new Philips projector and light source are a milestone in motion picture development. Howard Cricks has already written about them at length and with enthusiasm, so I need not recap what has been covered (IP for November, 1958, p. 8). Reliable information as to cost prices of projector and lamp bulbs is not available, and one cannot essay an opinion upon economics viza-viz carbon arclamp projection or the Xenon lamp. Outstanding features are the 72-persecond light pulsation and the horizontal nature of the light source. I felt that the large CinemaScope picture shown at Photokina (Cologne, Germany, exhibition) was overstretched beyond the capacity of the lamp. Immediately, one must admit it would be very hard to go back to 48 cycles per second after enjoying any extended run at 72. Screen Light Distribution The evenness of the illumination across the screen showed that the horizontal or cylindrical properties of the light source suit very well the elongated picture format such as CinemaScope. I am not convinced that 95% center-toside distribution makes for the most pleasing or sparkling picture, It would be interesting to know what the North and South distribution is. With the 3 light pulses per frame, by inference the projector has a 60° pulldown (although I have neither read nor heard any comment to this effect), otherwise the respective light and dark periods would be asymmetrical. If this be so, I presume that the shifting movement will have reasonable wear characteristics and not affect print life through increased acceleration and deceleration stresses. If the new Philips lamp is to be adapted to existing projectors, it will suffer a 33 1/3% drop in light output, because the light flashes will have to be reduced from 3 to 2 per frame. The By J. L. STABLEFORD flash duration could not be extended without a severe drop in color value, thus it is most unlikely that adoption of the lamp, without its new projector, presently could be considered. This new light source and, to a lesser extent, the projector, further clears the way already opened up by the Xenon lamp for the film industry to take another look at the vexing and hesitant subjects of rationalization and standardization. Favors Mainly 35-mm Film For economic reasons, it is my view that film projection equipment throughout the world must, in the main, remain with 35-mm filmstock. Pressures against it come from two directions: one for higher quality, hence wider films such as 70-mm; the other, a means for reducing costs, so that a stand may be made against the heavily favored position of TV. Moreover, does anybody believe that the industry can cope indefinitely with three different picture shapes? It is being tolerated, but it is about as efficient as a man wearing three hats at the same time. Suggests 5-Tooth Pull -Down I have written on methods of producing high quality screen images employing existing projectors and standard The new Philips SPP discharge lamp, shown with holder, is only VA inches long. nmfmmmifmpmttitHtmtt -— INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST MARCH 1959 35-mm filmstock, mainly by adaptation to 5-tooth pull-down — with a negligible capital outlay. At Photokina I talked with a leading lens designer, experienced with anamorphics. His snap opinion was that my 5-tooth. no-reduction, 2:1 squeeze print from a Todd-AO or similar 70-mm negative would suffer but very little from quality drop, provided printing was done directly from the 70-mm negative. Should it be done as a contact print, taken off an already squeezed dupe negative, then there would be some reduction in quality, although the result would still be well above average. Following a practical approach, if the print were taken off a full 70-mm width dupe negative, then the drop in quality would be small and consistent with that extra step. If prints with 5-tooth pulldown, good enough for luxury projection, became established, they would represent a 25% increase in print cost, reel sizes and so on — minute compared with the cost of full 70-mm prints, not to mention the capital expenditure necessary to employ the big prints. One thing which has been crystallizing in my mind of late is the seeming determination of some in the industry, and a die-hard section in particular, to go to the other extreme in holding to standard wide screen, with no anamorphics and no big prints. Unfavorable Wide-Screen Factors Now, wide screen of 1.75 and 1.85:1 aspect ratio causes significant losses of picture frame area, light, quality and a host of disagreeable factors. It produces these losses almost entirely through cropping down from the full frame height pitch of 0.748 inch. One might equally well term it via a gargantuan black framing bar, interposed between each frame, representing up to 0.302 inch, or 40.3% of the running footage. A 2:1 aspect ratio represents the useful employment of 55% and absolute wastage of 45% of the total film footage — almost criminal. Furthermore, this latter quantity of light from the lamphouse is totally wasted and heats up the gate. If these diehards mean to stay with their wide screen, no-anamorphic approach, I suggest that they cut out all lc and disabilities in one fell swoop. Can we pretend any longer that exist(Continued on page 25) n