Moving Picture World (Jan-Feb 1927)

MOVING PICTURE WORLD 81 Marcus Loew Projection Policy Progressive January 1, 1927 friend boss be from Missouri, and wants to be shown. The first thing is to determine how much light we will need, and many factors must be considered in this connection. The area (size) of the picture must, of course, conform to the size of the auditorium. The brightness of the screen must be such as will render picture details plainly visible from the most distant seats. If the shape of the auditorium be such that a high reflection power screen can be used, then a considerable saving in lumins can be effected. So far as I know, no attempt has been made to standardize the brightness of the screen picture, but I believe it would be a good policy to aim for at least 20 candle power for large theatres, and 15 in small ones (see previous note. Ed.) The total lumins required would be the area of the screen surface in square feet times the selected candle power, divided by the screen reflecting factor. For example: if the reflection factor be less than 100, the required lumins would be greater than if the reflection factor were greater than 100 because the reflection factor is expressed in hundredths. See the Bluebook. The next part of our problem is to choose one of the six types of light source available, viz.: (a) the A. C. arc; (b) the Mazda lamp; (c) the ordinary I>. C. arc; (e) the A. C. reflector arc; (f) the D. C. reflector arc; and (g) the high intensity arc. To save space we will eliminate a, b and c from our discussion. (You are in error there, John, because the Mazda is much used, and has a perfectly legitimate place in projection. Eliminating a and e are quite proper though. Ed.) The efficiency rating of the others is about as follows: Ordinary D. C. arc from 12 to 30 lumins per ampere. (Do you mean in actual total light production, or light upon the screen, John. There is a fine large, juicy difference, you know. Ed.) The reflector arc 60 to 100 lumins per ampere and the high intensity 30 to 50 lumins per ampere. (All of which, it seems to me, has to do with efficiency more than actual screen illuminating ability, though the latter is largely involved in the resultant crater area per ampere, it is true, hence the relative efficiency when operating through a projector optical system is affected. Ed.) Assuming a limit of 25 amperes for the reflector arc, we therefore have an available total of 1,500 to 2,500 lumins. The type of projection lens used' and its working distance will determine whether we may approach the higher total, or come near to the low'er. Assuming a limit of 130 amperes for high intensity, our available light is equal to from 3,900 to 6,500 lumins, so you may readily see for yourself the possible difference in light as between the two. The rating for the ordinary arc is what you will probably get if you do not understand the projector optical train, or copy the layout of some one who does, and who has a similar condition That does not represent the actual lumin output of an efficiently handled ordinary arc, however. (I don’t quite get that, but think John means that the screen illumination provided by the ordinary arc will be just what you are able to get through the lens system, which will be but little of the whole if you don’t understand your business. If that is what is meant, then John is entirely correct. Ed.) In proof of this see Brother Green’s article, page 456, October 16 issue, where, under favorable conditions 52 lumins per ampere was obtained, while a total of 3,380 lumins was reached with a 65 ampere arc. Sixtyfive amperes is not the limit for a straight arc, but beyond 75 amperes its efficiency drops sharply. The next and last step would be to prej pare a statement showing the relative cost of installation, maintenance and operation for each kind of light source, together with both favorable and unfavorable points regarding each, probable volume and quality of light, evenness of distribution, etc., and then let him buy what he wants. I would give considerable if Brother Griffith possessed the facility of expression on paper that Doe, Gray, Hanover and several others have. John knows all right, but as a writer he is a darned good projectionist. (Continued from page 79) Picture Projectionists’ Union (I. A. T. S. E. & M. P. M. O.) and of the American Projection Society. Mr. Isaac will doubtless have a tough row to hoe for some time to come, because heretofore it is a sad fact that knowledge of anything other than mere machine operation has played a relatively small part in the eyes of the Loew Supervisor. Can you “get by” has been the rule, and I make that as a statement of known FACT. Please clearly understand, however, that I do NOT mean by that that there have been no high-grade projectionists in the Loew projection rooms. As a matter of fact there have been many good” men, and some who were as high-grade projectionists as could be found anywhere ; also there have been some pretty awful dubs, with men of all grades between the two extremes. Rio Projection Good For example, in winter I live near the Loew Rio Theatre, Broadway at 160th street. I go there often, and while I have made a few suggestions on minor points to its able manager, J. N. Sewards, and its projectionists, Messrs. Pincus Herbst and Thomas McDermott, I do not remember, during three winters, having seen even so much as one serious projection fault on the Rio screen; also I believe the work is done with at least a very fair degree of efficiency. The headquarters of the Loew projection department is located in the Loew American Theatre Building, 42nd street and Seventh avenue. Two rooms have been fitted up with suitable furnishings, comprising desks, filing cabinets, drawing tables, typewriters, etc. Mr. Isaac has inaugurated what is designed to be a complete record system. All drawings for Loew theatres will be submitted to Supervisor Isaac, and it will be the duty of Messrs. Issac and O’Brien to see that the projection rooms are properly designed and equipped. Mr. Isaac has, under all the conditions, certainly tackled a man sized job. It will take time, lots of work and considerable diplomacy to counteract the wrong procedures of the past, and to get things running smoothly and well along right lines. In my opinion Mr. Isaac should, insofar as concerns New York territory at least, devise some plan by means of which those men who demonstrate their superior ability in both practical projection (which involves energy as well as knowledge, plus willingness) and in technical skill, will get the best positions. I believe some plan might be evolved to test the technical knowledge of the men at least once every year, which might be done in any one of several ways. My idea in suggesting such procedure is to provide some stimulant calculated to encourage the men to really study the technical side of projection, which many men will only do if they can see some immediate possible advantage to them personally in so doing. Congratulations ! I congratulate Marcus Loew on the step he has taken. I venture to suggest that now he has appointed a really good man as Supervisor, that he clothe him with sufficient authority and cause that authority to be respected in the organization. In other words make the department under Mr. Isaac a department indeed, and give Supervisor Isaac full authority in ALL matters pertaining to projection, holding him strictly accountable for its excellence and its efficiency. I understand that Local Union 306 is cooperating with Mr. Isaac, which is as it should be. I venture to suggest to Mr. Isaac that he study very carefully the paper I read before the Society of Motion Picture Engineers at its last meeting. The title is “The Supervisor of Projection.” It sets forth certain views as to what the office of Supervisor ought to be and how it should be conducted. I am sure he will at least find it interesting. CAESAR IN ALL HIS GLORY had nothing on Monty Banks in the Pathe feature, "Atta Boy,” but Monty has nothing1 much on himself.