American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1932)

Sixteen AMERICAN CINEMATOCRAPHER August, 1932 Oliver Marsh, A. S. C. pointed out that "An exposure-meter such as this one can — properly used — be a great help; but the user must realize that it gives only an overall reading: it doesn't help him if he has fallen down on the balancing of his light. It will tell me, for instance, if I've got enough light on the set to make an exposure possible — but it won't tell me if I have too strong a backlight, or if I have too weak a front-light in the shadows. Of course, it is quite possible to take a reading for each component separately: but that takes time — and a cinematographer's experience can — or should — tell him that in an instant. On such special occasions as my last picture, "Rain," which was made, both exteriors and interiors, on location, such a meter would have proven invaluable for matching the natural light of the exteriors seen through the windows of the sets upon which I was making the interior scenes by artificial light. I tried to get such a meter then, but none was available at the moment — and all those in the studios were in actual use. It would have helped me a great deal had I been able to have one, so that by first taking a reading of the lightvalues of the exterior portion of the scene, and then closing the windows and taking a reading of the value of the artificial lighting inside, I could have matched things perfectly. As it was, I had to draw upon my experience: it happened that I hit it perfectly — but I might just as easily have missed it a trifle. An accurate meter would have made assurance doubly sure, and could have easily saved the company a great deal of money for retakes, which would have been imperative had my unaided judgment been at fault." To Arthur Miller, A.S.C., the greatest possibilities of these meters lie in matching the foreground and background values in photographing projected-background process scenes. Said he, "The most deceptive factor that I have yet encountered is the disparity between the visual and photographic values in process scenes. If such a meter will give an accurate measure, first of the photographic value of the projected background transparency, and then of the lighting on the actual foreground action, it will simplify the making of these important scenes immensely." Farciot Edouart, the head of the Transparency Process Department of the Paramount Studio corroborated this. "In either projection-transparency or complementary-color-transparency work such a meter can easily be invaluable," he said. "In the latter process particularly, the red light used to illuminate the foreground action is highly deceptive, for the average cinematographer has had no reason to train his eye to judge the photographic value of colored light. Even the trained transparency technician would find such a meter valuable — provided it would read accurately for this red light. "Several years ago, in fact, I built a special photometer to use in this work. But it was of the ordinary type, which depends upon the visual matching of the light reflected by the subject with a known light. Therein lay its weakness — and the strength of these modern photoelectric meters. For the human eye is most unreliable: it has too great powers of accommodation, and reacts differently according to the amount of fatigue. I have made as many as six separate readings with the conventional comparison-type of photometer on a single set — and gotten almost as many different exposure-values. I have made one reading on a set just before going to lunch, after a morning's work, and then another after lunch — without moving a single light — and found the two widely divergent. It was the fault, not of the meter, but of my eye. The photoelectric cell meter, however, is, if accurately made, a real precision instrument, and completely eliminates the human element. In the making of process shots it can be extremely useful, for in certain shots of this nature I have made parts of the shot at intervals separated by many weeks — and had to match the lighting of the two to an extremely precise degree. Now, in so far as I am personally concerned, that is not too difficult, for I have trained my eye and memory through many years of specialization in process work to the point where I can absolutely guarantee to match the lighting in process scenes made months or even years apart: nevertheless, any such instrument as this, which tends to minimize the possible error of the human element is a distinct aid to efficiency, and a personal aid to the individual." At the same studio, Charles Lang, A. S. C, introduced two other important considerations: "To be truly accurate," he remarked, "the readings of such a meter should be made not merely from the approximate viewpoint of the camera, but through the actual lens used in making the shot. Otherwise, you have no means of checking the angle covered by the meter, nor any proof that the meter is not being directly hit by some individual unit in the back-lighting equipment, which, though properly screened from the lens of the camera, may not be so screened from the eye of the meter. Such a meter, too, would be invaluable in instances where the voltage on a set was not constant — as when the set was on the end of a circuit feeding several other stages, and accordingly subject to fluctuations when the companies on the other sets were or were not working. The changes in the color-temperature of incandescent light caused by lowered voltage are not always easily detectable by the naked eye, but can wreak great havoc in the results achieved on the film." President John Arnold of the A.S.C., head of the MetroColdwyn-Mayer Camera Department summed the matter up excellently when he said, "The accuracy and utility of such devices are unquestionable; the point that must be always remembered, however, is that they must only supplement the human element. Even the best meter can only give an overall reading: it cannot determine the artistic balance of the lighting. It can aid the experienced cinematographer, but it cannot take the place of his experience. It will not enable John Doe to take charge of a set and photograph Norma Shearer as artistically as does William Danials, A.S.C., or any trained camera-artist. It will enable John Doe to know that he can make a technically satisfactory exposure — but it cannot give him the artistically balanced light that makes the difference between good photography and bad. On the other hand, it can and will ensure that a trained cinematographer may have an unerring, mechanical staff to lean upon when confronted with unfamiliar conditions. As such, even though the man may be able to meet these conditions satisfactorily, the meter would serve both as a check and as an inspirer of confidence." COMPARATIVE TEST OF PHOTOELECTRIC EXPOSURE METER STUDIO SET CAMERAMAN METER READING ACTUAL EXPOSURE NATURE OF SCENE Universal Universal 1. 2. Arthur Miller Ceo. Robinson f :2.8 f:2.5 f :2.7 f :2.7 Normal Vaudeville Act M-C-M M-C-M M-C-M 1. 2. 3. Oliver Marsh Oliver Marsh Hal Wenstrom f:2. f:2. f:2.7 f :2.8 f :2.8 f :2.7 Night Exterior Night Exterior — Fog High-key Interior Paramount Paramount Paramount Paramount Paramount 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Harry Fischbeck George Folsey Ernest Haller Farciot Edouart, David Abel Farciot Edouart, David Abel f:2.3 f :2.7 f :2.4 f :2.4 f :2.8 f:2.3 f :2.8 f :2.3 f:2.3 f :2.3 High-key Interior High-key Interior Low-key Interior Night Interior, for process shot Same. Reading made on opposite side of camera booth from No. 4 NOTE: Lighting in all cases by Incandescent light.