The Bioscope (Mar-June 1914)

THE Broscope, May 14, 1914. which causes a smear of light above or below each bright part of the picture. A better term for the latter appearance 15 “‘ ghost,”’ which it is now usually called. ‘The *‘black’’ rain can be much minimised by cleaning the scratched film with petrol; rubbing the film in the direction of the scratches removes most of the dust, and improves matters considerably. Cleaning machines for the renovation of old films have been much used, and with good results. Still better effects are obtained by coating the cleaned film with a solution of celluloid ‘or collodion, by which the scratches are filled up and prevented from collecting a further supply of dust. Special machines, the details of which have been for the most part kept secret, are used with more or less success. ‘As the industry progresses and becomes more complete in detail, no doubt many other appliances will come into regular use. The want is already felt for a winder which will not require the film to be guided by hand, and which will expeditiously roll the film both tightly and evenly. so that it may not be necessary to pull the end or a roll to tighten it up, nor to knock or press it on a flat surface to make it lie level; both these methods of procedure cause scratches on the film, and make it deteriorate more quickly than need be. A quick and automatic means of making a true, clean and sound joint would also be welcomed. There is a subject of the utmost importance to the industry, which to the present time has been shamefully neglected; standardisation of some of the more important measurements ought to be at once attended to, and an international agreement as to correct sizes arrived at. So-called standard width for film has varied during the last few years, less certainly in later times than formerly. Originally, in ‘“ Kinetoscope ’’ times, before the picture was thrown on a screen, the film width was 13 ins. In the first days of the bioscope several sizes, mostly greater than 134 ins., obtained in a fitful style, but gradually the Edison Kinetograph width gained the greatest following. As time went on, and Continental firms increased their business, the film width became known by metric measurement as 34.8 millimeters. Occasionally 35 mm. width was met with, and now bids fair to become the standard width. It does not matter which size is ultimately adopted as long as one size is adhered to. Of the troubles caused by the varying width I need not speak—they are already too well known. Wide film jamming in the gates of cameras, printers and projectors made ‘or narrow film, and pictures with a side movenient due to the play when narrow film was used in gates intended for the wide film, were of common occurrence three or four years ago. The trouble has been much reduced by making special provision in the san Gai FES ie Varving , LO Dp 097 widths, but the printing machine cannot easily be arranged to work well when printing from a wide negative to a narrow positive and viceversa. The gauge or step of the perforation— f.e., the distance between the centre of ons hole to the centre of the next following in the direction of the length of the film—has also varied to some extent, with the result that manufacturers, showmen, and the public have often | suffered disappointment from a small matter which ought to have had attention at the very inception of the industry. The size and shape of the perforations and the distance between their centres, measuring across the film, is of utmost importance to smooth working in the field, the studio, the factory, and the theatre alike. and yet after fifteen years’ fairly continuous run there is still no agreed standard! The varias tion which has taken place in these measurements 3s so great that a collection of films must be seen to be believed. Nowadays there is not so much variation as formerly, but considerable variety still exists. It is remarkable that a large industry, founded upon accurate manipulation and definite measurement, one which is dependent for its results upon so many highly scientific processes, can have been so long in existence, have developed to such colossal proportions, and still have its interchangeable commodity not definitely standardised. The trouble, vexation, and expense which have been incurred during the term of its life are quite incalculable. Still it proceeds on its way apparently oblivious of the one thing that would make work more easy and certain for all, and would not act detrimentally on a single individual. A general trend in the direction of standard film width and perforation has been the outcome of a sea of troubles, and we are slowly progressing towards finding out what is the right thing merely by having done first all that is wrong. By the gradual elimination of unsuitable perforation we have arrived at a working size—more or less— but as yet there is no generally accredited standard. a Many other sizes also ought to be standardised, as, for instance, the thickness of the positive and negative films; the thickness runs fairly evenly nowadays, but there is no standard. Now that there 1s so much interchange of kinematograph film between different countries, it is quite likely that film manufactured in America may be exposed in Australia, developed in England, printed in France, and used on a projector in China; and because we have no standard to which to work, some, if not all, of the machines through which our hypothetical picture passes may be unsuitable to deal in the best manner with the film in question. Surely it is high time manufacturers woke up to the importance of film and machine standardisation. (The oknd.)