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.
u/ r
there is the older man demoted, whether for good cause or mere prejudice against his gray hairs, from “A” pictures to programmers. In either case, the cinematographer is inevitably working against the myriad handicaps of short time and money, indifferent sets, inadequate facilities and. too often, careless laboratory work. A printed condemnation works overtime against such a man.
The technically trained reviewer can recognize these things, and take them into account in forming his opinion of the cameraman’s work. If, after all the variables are summed up, he feels that the photography has some redeeming features, he can at least dismiss it softly as “adequate.” If not. he can still realize that many conditions unknown to him. and some^ times best left unmentioned — as for example a resolutely uncooperative director — may be unseen factors; and he can remain charitably silent on the photographic score.
The untrained critic can do well to follow this latter course. Like any layman. he can tell that he likes a piece of photography without necessarily knowing why; and that same lack of specific knowledge should impel him to speak softly when he does not like photography, for he cannot, as a rule, say why he does not like it. much less
-«■ x -.oo tViat wav Under
modern releases, nor could they be photographed so efficiently. But they could still be made adequately on yesterday’s ortho film.
On the other hand, special-process cinematography as we know it — most notably the projected background process— literally owes its existence to the competition-bred urge to increase film speeds. It was not possible on
to condemnation — who doesn't? They are big enough to admit their shortcomings. and to accept merited reproof from anyone who can criticise understandingly. But they do feel justly entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt from critics who do not have the peculiar technical training that would enable them to analyze what is seen on the screen. All they ask is that the reviewer be big enough himself to refrain from condeming that which he does not understand.
■Jr * -X
Qo capable are our modern special^ process cinematographers that we seldom have an opportunity to see what would happen if we were sud
depiK robbed of their services, increaseu ns
in direct proportion to successive increases in film sensitivity. It has attained its present broad scope largely as a result of the introduction of today’s ultra-fast negative materials.
During the period when cinematography and what we then called “trick camerawork” were growing up, many of us toyed with the idea of rephotographing projected backgrounds, always being brought up sharply by two facts — as hard as any brick wall. First, there was no method other than the use of cumbersome mechanical linkages — belting and long shafts — by which we could synchronize the camera and projector. Second, and most important, the negative materials then available were far too slow to permit rephotographing any sort of a projected image. So while many of us thought wishfully of the idea, none of us could put it into practice.
So far as I have been able to learn, it was my privilege to be the first to make practical use of the basic prin
7