Boxoffice (Jul-Sep 1938)

PRACTICAL DISCUSSIONS ON THE MECHANICS OF PROJECTION AND SOUND "Feature Films Are No Bigger Than the Screen" rampant. Someone wanted to know whether it would be possible, in some very simple manner, to relate magnification to the length of a feature film or to some similar factor. Another calculation by Dr. Goldsmith worked out as follows: Dividing the area of the screen (22 by 16.5 ft.) by the area of the image on the film (0.600" by 0.825"), we get the area magnification, namely, 105,500. Now, if we multiply the number of frames per foot by the length of our average feature film, which we have taken as 6,600 feet, we also get 105,500. The conclusion, therefore, is that for our average feature-length film, the area viagnification is approximately (in this assumed case exactly) equal to the number of frames in the film. OCCASIONALLY the Projection Practice Committee of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers at its meetings goes to profound depths in its cinematographic brain waves, and once in awhile these efforts take the form of scintillations that one might attempt to regard as more psychologic than cinematic. However, after spending hours upon such grimly sober problems as theatre characteristics, dimensions of projector apertures, and fire prevention in projection rooms, perhaps the Committee is entitled to a little emotional relief during a long meeting on a hot damp evening by asking such questions as how large a screen would be required if all the picture images on a feature film were cut out and glued in rows upon the screen surface. Guesses as to the answer varied from square-feet to square-miles. Dr. Goldsmith, the Committee’s official encyclopedia, raised the question, and forthwith proceeded to supply the answer without the aid of calculating machines or logarithmic tables; and, strange to say, by a weird process of “free-hand thinking,” produced the answer almost without aid of pencil and paper; namely, that for the average feature-length picture, the integrated or total area of all the picture images on the film is very approximately equal to the superficial area of the screen If anyone does not believe that startling statement to be true, he is invited to try his own paper and pencil. The arithmetic is very simple; merely multiply the width and height of the film image (namely, 0.600 by 0.825 inch) by the number of frames per foot (16) by the number of feet in the average feature film (6,600 feet). The result of the calculation will show that there are 363 squarefeet of image on the film. Now suppose we have in our theatre, in which this feature picture is being projected, a screen that has been masked to the dimensions 22 by 16.5 feet. The area of this screen is then exactly 363 squarefeet, which was the same as the total or integrated area of the picture images on the film, thus verifying our thesis that “Feature Films Are No Bigger Than the Show,” or vice versa. Of course, one has to recognize the fact that this proposition holds exactly only when the correct combination of length of This effusion must appear anonymously because of our having inadvertently misplaced the name of the contributor. It is probably just as well that the author’s name be withheld. In the absence of identification, we disavow completely the parentage of this brainchild. — Cine Editor. film and size of screen are chosen. However, it is a very practical fact to bear in mind, as applying to the average length of feature pictures. The screen size chosen above, however, may be slightly larger than the average theatre screen; for example, if the screen were 15 by 20, the area of the screen would equal the Integrated area of the picture images on a film 5,450 feet long. At this point of the discussion, which, by the way, took place at the latest meeting of the Committee, in the sanctum sanctorum of Harry Rubin, the chairman enthusiasm about the idea became almost Interest in the fantasy now became a frenzy. Someone wanted to know whether it would not be possible to enlarge the picture images on the film to screen size, somewhat as we do nowadays for mural decorations. The countryside is badly disfigured by all sorts of billboards and other advertising display, and it might be a relief if all the picture images on a feature film were set up seriatum in large size along the highways of the nation, so that motorists could really enjoy movies during their cross-country trips and not be bored by the natural beauties along the way. Of course, it would probably be necessary to affix to the motorist’s eyes a paii of horse-blinkers, and these blinkers would probably have to flap up and down at the rate of 24 times a second. A little inconvenience might result therefrom, but the Committee feels certain that the observers would not be seriously discommoded by heating at the gate or warping of the film. Reproduced at screen-size, the pictures THE CREAM OF THE CROP ON BROADWAY HAVE INSTALLED ★ RADIO CITY MUSIC HALL The largest screen in the world, 40'x70'. ★ roxy theatre 28'6"x 43' screen. ★ strand theatre 18'x23'6" screen ★ PALACE THEATRE 18'x24' screen ★ HOLLYWOOD THEATRE 18x24' screen EVEN-LITE \ SOUND SCREENS . . . and now PARAMOUNT The largest theatre in the Paramount Circuit, installs a 3T x 43' Hurley Even-lite Sound Screen. THEY STAY WHITE ! % HURLEY SCREEN COMPANY Exclusive Sales Agents: HURLEY SCREEN DIVISION • 145 VALLEY ST., BELLEVILLE, N. J. 76 The MODERN THEATRE SECTION