American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1924)

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.

June, 1924 AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER Tiventy-one formed us that it was impossible to clear out the place and the barroom was only swept out once in fifteen months." The interiors of the Davis production were made at the Mayer-Schulberg studios. Besides Davis and Heimerl, the company included Vivian Rich and Hayford Hobbs, co-stars; Milton Ross, James Williams, assistant director, and C. Glaize, technical director. CO-OPERATION OF THE TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT (Continued from page 11) behind them. And what unnecessary waste has resulted from the "over-ageing" of sets through a too liberal use of a spray gun. Should it be necessary for the technical department to be instructed as to what construction will allow shooting and what will not? Granted that they know what the action is to be, shouldn't it be a comparatively elementary matter for them to bring about construction that is photography-proof — if they really know their business? And doesn't it seem fundamental that, in order to work successfully in motion pictures, the technical department should know just what can be photographed and what cannot be photographed? If the technical department's knowledge is not specialized enough to include a recognition of all ramifications which go to make up production economy without a sacrifice to art as will appear in the finished picture, then why don't the head of the technical department consult the cinematographer as to photographic possibilities before time and money are poured into a set that must ultimately be changed because it will not allow filming? There is no excuse for the wholesale reconstruction of sets. If the technical department will not, from within itself, take cognizance of the possibilities and impossibilities of lighting and photography, then it should be wise enough to consult some one who knows, and that is the cinematographer. HEAT PROTECTION OF MOTION PICTURE FILM (Continued from page 15) Table 1 Heat Absorbing Glass 2 mm. thick Sample Visua r Total energy No. Trans. Abs.* Trans. Abs. 1 84% 9% 64% 30% 2 83% 10% 50% 46% 3 80% 13% 40% 57% 4 80% 13% 37% 60% 5 71% 23% 25% 73% 6 60% 35% 14% 85% *Corrected for surface reflection to compare actual glass. Measures made with 200 watt Type C, Mazda Lamp. The lighter glasses such as Nos. 1 and 2 would be of little value in film protection, but are useful in spectacles. Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 would be effective in small projection machines with a thickness of 2 mm. With higher power lamps, a thickness of double that given would prove very effective, providing some means were devised to dispose of the absorbed heat. Otherwise, re-radiation would occur and the film would be heated. Another type of protection filter is a thin metallic film. Here we have both absorption and surface reflection, the relative amounts depending upon the metal used and its state. This metal must be supported by something —from India From D. L. MlSTRY, No. 4, Nepean Road, Malabar Hill, Post No. 6, Bombay, India. To American Society of Cinematograph ers, Inc. Los Angeles, Calif., U. S. A... Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of 22nd January, 1924, and accordingly I received 1 1 copies of the 1923 American Cinematographer. I noted about the missing copy of February, 1923. I have not received all the back numbers of the American Cinematographer. I want back numbers from October, 1921 to December, 1922, also, for which I am sending $3.00 by postal money order, and kindly send the back numbers above mentioned, at your earliest convenience and oblige. .My brother and I are receiving American Cinematographer s regularly at present and kindly let me know before our subscriptions expire, so that we may be able to renew the same in time. We find your journal excellent on the subject. Apologising for troubling you and thanking you in anticipation, Yours most sincerely, D. L. MlSTRY. From India Bombay, 1st April, 1924.. To THE AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER: Herewith find $3.00 to pay for one year's subscription to The American Cinematographer, subscription to begin with the issue of 192.... Name Address