American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1926)

Twenty-four AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER April, 1926 PROJECTION * * « (Continued) Dialoque on Projection (Continued from Page tl) might even say that the future of projection depends largely upon developments in motion picture protography. The projector has been developed to a pfoint approaching perfection. As a matter of fact, 1 cannot, at this moment think of anything that might be done additionally in the latter connection; except, perhaps, to induce the smaller theaters to install the style and quality of equipment in use in our finer theaters. In conclusion, I might sum everything up by saying that the matter of good projection is one of the most important factors in the entire scheme of motion pictures. The producing company may spend thousands of dollars on a given production, the work of all concerned in the filming of the picture may apprbach a masterpiece, but if the projection fails, the picture itself can hardly help failing. After all, the projectionist with his projection equipment is largely the master of our photographic'destinies. Do Ttlotion Pictures Injure the Eues ? ( < 'nut in ued on Page 7 ) harm the eyes in any way. / believe that if pictures bother the eyes, it's the eyes, not the pictures. Those persons who sit very far down in front are apt to feel quite some eyestrain— due to the increased brilliancy of the screen at this point, the undesirable angle at which the head must be held, and the close position itself. If movies do give you uncomfortable eye sensations, by no means sit closer than half-way down. It is better to wait for a good seat than to take a bad one. If you can't see clearly or comfortably three-fourths of the way back, it is quite likely that it is not the picture at all and your eyes should be examined. Where Fault Lies Today the owners of picture theaters are doing a great deal to make the eyes of their audiences more comfortable. To begin with, better films are being made — better and more gentle lighting effects, less harsh contrasts, fewer glaring white surfaces. Then, theaters are not the terrible black holes they used to be. Faint house-lights are on continually— the theater is partly illuminated. There are special acts in various colors. We have "non-flickering" projection, and film without flaws and scratches. All these are factors that have led investigators to the same conclusion. And this is the conclusion — if the movies hurt your eyes, nine chances out of ten, it's your eyes, not the movies. Those eyes which never have rest except when in sleep, are the eyes that suffer from any unusual work. Possibly a long day's drive, pos sibly even reading or other close application of the eyes, possibly the theater or a picture show bring discomfort or headaches — such eyes are doing more than their normal work. For them, unfortunately, the act of seeing distant objects is labor — a steady task —instead of relaxation, unless the owner of such eyes is wise enough to get optometric relief through glasses. Picture Not at Fault We are glad to note that in accordance with our own views on the subject, such organizations as the Eyesight Council of America, the British Committee on Eyestrain in Cinemas, The New York City Department of Health, Optometrists and Opthalmologists, illuminating engineers and optical scientists throughout the world are agreed that even though present-day picture theatres cause the eye to function under unusual conditions, such conditions are seldom at fault if the eyes cannot view a half-dozen reels of film without inconvenience or bad after effect. The concentration necessary in the comparatively dim light is the underlying cause of discomfort in motion picture houses. But such concentration should not affect a normal pair of eyes to any considerable extent n o r should it affect eyes that are functioning normally with the aid of glasses.