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.
November, 1936 • American Cinematographer 459 behind this set, with the space between carefully masked by a dead tree in the set. Two projectors threw their images on these screens. The background-plates were made by two cameras, side by side, shooting at predeter- mined angles. Note that none of this was left to chance: we had planned out every detail—working on large-scale maps and models of the actual location, far in advance. As each background-shot was made, it was known exactly what was wanted, and precisely how the shot would ulti- mately be used. These details were so painstakingly planned that we could be confident that if an Indian rode by, say, in the right-hand screen, heading left, he would appear again on the left-hand screen in exactly the right place, and at the right time, to make his movement through the composite shot seem continuous, and broken only as he passed from sight behind the tree-stump! With this double-width background, we had complete freedom in shooting our foreground action. There was plenty of room for long-shots, for panoramic and dolly- shots, without exceeding the scope of our background- screens. For reverse-angle shots, we simply turned our set around (though the 50-ton weight made it no small task), re-aligned the screens, and carried on with different back- grounds. Naturally, with a perfect background, it was easy enough to coordinate the foreground action with that in the background. If one of our actors missed, instead of Two process screens were used for the background in this shot. The tree divided the screens. having to take hours rounding up and re-positioning sev- eral thousand Indians, relaying commands by loud- speakers to twenty or thirty sweating Assistant Directors, we simply re-threaded the background-projectors, and tried another take—with perhaps two minutes' delay! Making the sequence this way was far easier than doing it in the usual manner. Unquestionably, it saved the studio time and money. It was, I am told, the longest, biggest and most dramatically important sequence that has ever been done entirely by the Transparency process. But that is not the most important thing to me. After all, I am in the business of turning out entertainment. To be good entertainment, it must be convincing and coherent dra- matically. And filming the sequence as we did, with “pro- cess-shots," I was able to make it better dramatically— more entertaining—than I could have hoped to in any other way. Making sure that the background action was perfect; and then concentrating wholly on perfecting the foreground action, I was better able to weld the two com- ponents of the scene into a coherent whole. Of course, as a producer, I appreciate the saving in time and money; as a human being, I appreciate being able to do it easier. But the most important thing to a practical picture-crafts- man is that the process-shot technique enabled me to do the job better. That, to my mind, is the greatest real value of process cinematography.