The Moving picture world (November 1926-December 1926)

etter Projection ^his Department Was founded, in 1910 bi{ its Sreseni 6ditor'* ^Jf.Mchardson I Better Projection Pays A New Editor Waxes Emotional As you all know, this department has very often recommended American Projectionist, a small monthly publication devoted to projection. I have, in fact, expended considerable postage and energy in forwarding the address of the Projectionist to prospective subscribers who have inquired for it. This department has been glad to aid the paper, because, under the very able editorial management of George Edwards, it has heretfore evidenced a desire to work hand in hand with this department and other agencies devoted to motion picture projection, each doing what it could do to forward what it conceived to be the best interests of all concerned, and in so doing to forward the profession of motion picture projection and those connected with it. Edwards Had a Problem As you doubtless know, the editor of the American Projectionist literally works for "glory." He receives no pay at all for the really great amount of labor performed. Edwards, therefore, was obliged to work as a projectionist to make a living for himself and his family. When that was done he was compelled to work probably an equal number of hours gratis, doing the vast amount of work necessary to carry the burden of getting out the Projectionist. For even a small monthly publication requires an amazing amount of work, which is a heavy burden when one man must do by far the greater share of it. Edwards was finally forced to choose between giving up projection; which was bread and butter with occasionally a bit of jam; giving up the editorship of the Projectionist or — breaking down. There was but one thing to do, so he did it. He resigned as editor. Frank E. Nealy was appointed editor in his stead. I have just once-overed the latest issue of the Projectionist under his editorship, and am sure the paper from now on will be a humdinger. It really may soon rival "Judge," and thus become a national paper. Who can tell ! Code Expert Needed Mr. Nealy starts his editorial duties with a two-page attack upon or criticism of this department and its poor fish of an editor. I have not yet had sufficient spare time to entirely de-code the article, but with tlie aid of a Webster unabridged dictionary I hope soon to accomplish that feat. Here are a few of the more simple terms and words this past master of writing seems to handle somewhat freely. Of course I may be in error, but if those words really mean what I think they do, I intend to have the law on Brother Nealy for calling me perfectly awful names in disguise. "Neanderthal," "Emote," "Parodist," "Kibitzers," "Pachyderm," "Hypodermically," "Paroxysm," Bluebook School Question No. 542 — What is the resistance of a 60-ampere, 58-volt arc and what would be the difference in amperage if the arc be burning normally at 58 volts and when it is frozen, assuming the supp-y (line) voltage to be 110? Question No. 543 — What do you understand by "fixed" and variable resistance in a rheostat and in just what way is the resistance of a variable rheostat varied ? Just what happens when you move the adjustment handle? "Phantasmagoria." Tiiat is a fair sample. There are others. Well, anyhow, that's that, but on the wellknown theory that it is permissible for the cat to look at the king, I will close this comment by offering to Editor Nealy a bit of well-meant, humbly proffered advice, to wit : Friend Nealy, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations and in indicating superficial sentimentalities, philosophical or psj'cliological observations, would it not be well to avoid platitudinous ponderosity ? Might it not perhaps be well that you permit your statements to possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensiveness, a coaiescent consistency and a concentrated cogency? May I also remark that you will do well to eschev. all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, and that you jejune babblement and asinine affectations? A Fair Question Friend Nealy, don't you think it would really be better were you to allow your extemporaneous decantings and your premeditated or unpremeditated expatiations to have intelligibility and veracious vivacity, without rhodomontate or thrasonical bombast? Don't you really? Personally, I think (pardon the seeming criticism) you would do better to sedulously avoid polysyllabic profundity, psittaceous vacuity, ventriloqual verbosity and vandiloquent vapidity ; to shun double entendres, prurient pococity and perstiferous attempts at high hat, obscurent or apparent. Pardon the foregoing friendly advice. Editor Nealy, remembering that it is offered in all humbleness of spirit. I sincerely trust you will succeed in your new position ind ikeep the Projectionist up to the high mark of efficiency set by my good friend and brother, George Edwards. Notice The 4th Edition Handbook of Projection is entirely sold out. Announcement will be made in the near future of the publication of the new Fifth Edition. Inefficient Foolishness RECENTLY an order came from » southern company for a lens chart. Now the charts are returned with thiscomment : "We received from you this morning, by parcel post, three lens charts supplied us on a recent order. We regret very much that these are not what we expected. They are of no use whatever to us. We presumed that you would supply us with something that would be much more simple than this, which would enable us at a glance to determine the correct focal length lens to be used at given distances for certain sized pictures. We admit this chart fully covers all that, but it is more or less complicated, and requires some study. "Since ordering these we received from the — three of a specially prepared lens chart which answers our requirements fully. We regret that we are obliged to return these and ask that you knidly allow us credit." Could you imagine a more perfect bit of nonsense that that? What this company in effect says, is : "We don't care to do the work necessary (study the charts) to secure high-grade results and efficiency. We would prefer something which can be applied without a bit of trouble, regardless of effects." And the pitiful part is that they don't and probably won't know that the effects arc expensive and in every way harmful. The lens charts, probably applied, supply an efficient lens system throughout. They match the condenser to the light source diameter and the projection lens working distance and diameter, all of which are highly important equations. The lens tables this company can apply without the least trouble supply ONLY the focal length projection lens necessary to project a picture of APPROXIMATELY given distance. I say "approximately,'' because in the very nature of things it can be nothing more. Projection lens focal lengths are NOT precise. There is a tolerance allowed by the manufacturer, and if precise focal lengths arc required they must be specially selected from stock, either by the dealer or the manufacturer. Ustially it will have to be done by the latter. And when this company has received the focal length lenses as per its table, it cannot possibly know what the condition will be, because the tables do NOT disclose the diameter necessary for the work in hand, nor does it tcl! them what the condenser focal length or distance Y must be for efficient results, and to secure evenness of screen illumination. It really is a shame to send out those "lens tables." Their effect is very harmful. I am sorry for the projectionist or theatre manager foolish enough to use them.