American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1926)

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.

October, 1926 AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER Eleven Amateur Cinematography Standard and Sub-standard Film for Amateur 35 mm. Field Thrown Open to Amateurs by Practicing Simple Economies. By H. Syril Dusenberg (Chairman, Motion Picture Committee, California Camera Club.) Short-ends and Discriminate Gutting and Developing Keep Down Cost. The present widespread popularity of amateur cinematography is due, in a measure, to the introduction of the 16 mm. sub-standard film by the Eastman Kodak Company. The big drawback in past to the use of the 35 mm. standard film for non-professional use was its great cost. Few amateurs could afford to dabble in this branch of photography simply for their own amusement, when one finished print would cost from ten to twelve cents for every foot. With the advent of the 16 mm. substandard stock plus the reversal process of finishing the film, cinematography at once came into the range of the amateur's pocket book and at the present time is threatening to sweep the old-time "snap-shot" still photographer off his feet. The economies brought about by the use of this film are so well known that there is no need to go into the matter here. The question now arises, what economies can there be applied to standard film? Is it really so much more costly than the 16 mm. substandard cine film? Do you know that there are a number of economies applicable to 35 mm. film, which, if all are put into use, will bring down the operating expense of standard film so that the difference between it and the sub-standard film is almost negligible? Freely Used The professional cinematographer uses film freely. The actual cost of negative stock is one of the smallest items of the production expenses. Re-takes are frequent, perhaps far too frequent than they should be. The average amateur with his sub-standard film also shoots too much footage. He starts his camera too far ahead of his subject and runs it too long afterwards. With the more serious-minded amateur, however, the one who is using standard stock, all this is changed. Every, foot means money out of his pocket and since the film is for his own personal use, there is little or no chance of his ever seeing the money back. Once in a great while, however, if he plavs in luck, he may be able to sell a few feet to a news weekly. This, by the way. is a big point in favor of using standard stock. At all events, he plans his shots carefully so that he can take them on the minimum amount of film. He avoids re-takes altogether and makes every foot count. He studies his exposures carefully and knows his limitations of the stock he is using, as well as those of his camera. He so trains himself that if he were given a professional assignment, he would in all probability be able to cover it with a minimum of film, and at the same time, get all the interesting essentials of the scene in question. In other words, he holds down his expense by using less film per shot and by making every foot of film mean something. Therefore, let us put down in our book, economy number one, is to use the minimum amount of footage per scene. This will also reduce the amount of cutting necessary and is, therefore, really a double economy. Short Ends Next, by the use of short-ends, the cost of the film per foot can be reduced to an absolute minimum. Short-ends of negative stock are on the market at very low prices and should command the serious attention of the amateur. Nearly all of the larger film laboratories and some of the larger studios have shorts to dispose of in pieces from twenty-five feet to one hundred feet in length. These can be purchased very reasonably. It is ideal stock for amateur use. It is true that short-ends are not guaranteed. Often you will find a piece that has been carelessly handled and, as a result, a few frames are fogged on a hundred-foot piece. What does that matter? They can be cut out and hardly, if ever, missed. A little skillful editing will cover this defect. In proportion to the great saving in cost, the few bad spots that appear once in a while are of practically no importance. We may, therefore, put down as economy number two: use short ends. Own Finishing The serious amateur will further economize ■ ' on P \?e 1 ^ )