Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers (1929)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Report of Standards and Nomenclature Committee 45 Mr. Jones: We might consider rewording that; will you do it? Mr. Taylor : I shouldn 't attempt to re-phrase it without consideration. Mr. Jones : I will call on the sub-committee then. Have you any suggestion for re-wording this? Dr. Mackenzie : I haven 't studied the objection and couldn 't frame an answer. Mr. R. C. Hubbard: Are you describing relative location of sound and picture on the film, or the location of the scanning frame and picture aperture in the projector? Mr. Jones: We are defining the distance between the point where the sound is being reproduced and where the picture is being reproduced. President Porter: The committee recommends that the scanning line be located 141/2 inches below the picture gate. (Motion for adoption made, seconded, and carried) Mr. Jones: The fifth proposition is shown by this slide. Mr. Taylor: In spite of the fact that I know some of you are unsympathetic with me, I will run true to form. Mr. Jones explained what I think anybody who has studied this will understand. Since one tooth is in contact, why talk about the number of teeth in contact ? My footnote suggestion is that you say ' ' number of teeth in mesh with the film. ' ' Mr. Clark: If jou put that on, you have to add one more tooth in the drawing. Mr. Taylor: I am willing to have it defined as defined originally. Mr. Jones: The Chairman accepts the word ''mesh" in substitution for ''contact." Mr. Burnap: I am not making this as an objection, but the number of teeth in contact is the usual way of speaking. If we say "in mesh" we go ofP at a tangent and have not defined the thing in question. Mr. Taylor: The balance of the definition explains what is meant, and I think in addition to being more accurate it is helpful iti that many men don't understand how this works, and if you can bring home to them where the tooth is pulling, it is very helpful. Dr. Mees: Would it be possible to put it in brackets: "number of teeth in mesh (often referred to as 'in contact')." We want to refer to the previous literature to make this clear.