American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1941)

HERE S HOW Cine-Meters For Stills I have a Weston cine-model exposure meter for use with my 16mm. camera. Is it possible to use this meter for calculating exposures on stills? If so, howcan I do it? R wheelwright This can be done quite easily. Aftersetting your film-speed rating in the usual way, set the "camera type" adjustment of the cine meter for a "type B" camera (i.e., one which at the normal 3oo 16-frame speed gives an exposure of l/50th second.) Then, as shown in the illustration, you can utilize the "frames per second" dial according to the following relationships: Frames Still-Camera Per Second Shutter Speed 6 1/20 8 1/25 12 1/40 16 1/50 24 1/75 32 1/100 48 1/150 64 1/200 96 1/300 Choose the shutter-speed desired, and set the calculator arrow opposite the corresponding value for frames per second. Then opposite the light-value obtained from the scene you will find the correct f-stop for shooting that picture at the shutter-speed you've chosen. Dissolves and Wipes Are wipes and lap-dissolves used for the same purpose? If they are, under what circumstances is it preferable to use one rather than the other? As a general rule is it better to avoid wipes (one scene directly wiping off another) and use lap-dissolves instead? Under what circumstances are wipes better than lap-dissolves? g R Barlow Wipes and lap-dissolves are both used as a transition to carry your film from one time, place, action or train of thought to another. The lap-dissolve, however, is by far the smoother of the two, and is generally preferable. The wipe — that is, the true wipe in which one scene apparently pushes or wipes the other from the screen — is, however, a somewhat faster-paced transition than the dissolve. It is, however, more distracting: it calls attention to itself as a cinematic trick, and the audiences's attention is not so likely to follow smoothly from one scene to the next with wipes as with a dissolve. In general, assuming that the purely mechanical means of making both types of transitions were equally available, we'd be inclined to recommend lap-dissolves for most transitions. Wipes have their uses, though, in such fast-paced visual effects as optical montages and in sequences where montage-like transitions are to synchronize with music. Incident vs. Reflected Light-readings Recently I attended a meeting at which there was an interesting discussion of incident versus reflected light-readings when using exposure-meters. We were told by a representative of the General Electric Go's, meter division that in some instances, as in Kodachroming flowers, by measuring incident rather than reflected light, the dark foliage surrounding the bright flower will not disturb the meter-reading, and truer exposure and color-rendition results. What is the experience of the members of the A.S.C.? Under what conditions do they prefer incident or reflected-light readings? Why do photographic light-meters (electric cell) measure reflected light, whereas commercial lighting engineers use meters to measure incident light? Isn't the strength and quality of the reflected light dependent upon the strength and quality of the incident light? John Huefner It has been our experience that where an individual is willing to use his meter intelligently, the incident-light method is decidedly the more accurate. However, if care and intelligence aren't used in making the reading, this method can admit perhaps more inaccuracies than the reflected-light method. In this and the July issues of THE AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER you will find some excellent articles on incident-light reading methods, by P. C. Smethurst, who is England's foremost exposure-metering engineer. We have used an incident-light meter of his design and gotten the most completely uniform exposures on Kodachrome that we have ever obtained by any method. The general practice among the members of the A.S.C. is to use their meters for incident-light readings when making interiors, and for reflected-light readings when making ordinary exterior scenes. This, however, is in a considerable measure due to their methods of Eor many years one of the most important services THE AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER has performed for its readers has been the answering of technical questions about all phases of amateur and professional movie-making. These questions are usually answered by individual letters, to permit going into the necessary detail. However, in response to many requests, we also publish, in abridged form, some of these questions and their answers which we believe may be of interest to other readers. THE EDITOR. handling interior lighting. In making such scenes, it is their general custom to set the key-light, by means of an incident-light reading, to a predetermined standard. After this, they balance the shadow and filler lighting by eye, to this known correct standard. Since in most cases studio cinematographers work at a fairly standardized stop — ranging in different studios from f:3.5 to f:2.3— with their negative receiving standardized development, this method of working on interiors is faster and more consistent. In making exteriors, however, due to the constant fluctuation in natural light, they use their meters as conventional exposure-meters, taking conventional reflected-light readings. Many of them would, however, possibly prefer to use the incident-light method under all conditions if equipment were available which made it conveniently possible. As to your final question, we have talked this matter over with many exposure-meter engineers, and their attitude is this: they consider the reflective value of the scene or subject being photographed fully as important a factor in correct exposure as the strength and quality of the light falling on it. Moreover, while the advanced amateur or professional filmer can very well take this factor into consideration, the less experienced filmer — who is of course in the numerical majority, and who most needs the help a meter can give — is likely to overlook it. So by providing a meter designed mainly for reflected-light readings, they feel they are helping to minimize this error, and thus being of the greatest service to the greatest number of potential users. For the more advanced and particular user, they point out, there are several methods of making the meter more selective, not only in adapting it to incident-light readings as suggested by Smethurst and Capt. Don Norwood, but in reflected-light brightness-range methods, taking separate highlight and shadow readings, etc. Thus they feel that with one basic design they have provided a nearly foolproof guide for the man who wants simplicity and accuracy, and a precision instrument for the man who, like yourself, wants selectivity and accuracy and can use his meter thoughtfully. American Cinematographer August, 1941 385