Boxoffice (Jul-Sep 1947)

Dear Subscriber: Please put a maker here and pass this issue on to Projection Room PRACTICAL DISCUSSIONS ON MODERN PROJECTION AND SOUND PRACTICES A Projectionist Crusades Against Mutilation ol Film ' ^ BCENTLY WE INVITED & resumption of discussions in this department on the matter of film damage and the causes and corrections of what many of our readers refer to as A CRIME. Since motion picture film is a fragile commodity, it should be handled with care by all who come into contact with it. And certainly there can be no excuse for deliberate mutilation. Any defect, resulting either from design or accident, is so greatly magnified on the screen that in the best interests of the craft, each film should be passed along to the next fellow in best possible condition. Our compliments to and a salvo of hand claps for Proj. Cliff Jackson, of the Ohio Theatre, Franklin, Ohio, on his one-man (if there are more, we’d like to know) crusade against the crime of film cutting and cue marking in our projection rooms, or wherever else it may happen. But read his letter; “I have noticed people who were grateful for a suggestion; grateful because the idea contained in the suggestion had never occurred to them. Often, too, a wellfounded suggestion offered by a novice calls forth as much appreciation as if it had been given by an expert. “After seeing the results of indiscreet handling of film, I, a novice of good will, decided to circulate what I thought were worthwhile suggestions. So, for several years I have glued printed leaflets to the inside of the covers of film shipping cases. These leaflets contain suggestions which I hoped would be read and accepted in the friendly spirit in which they were made. “I am happy to say that they were read, for I have received letters from different projectionists telling me that my suggestions would get more results if I could get them published in motion picture trade magazines. Encouraged by these letters, I am now sending you two of my recent leaflets. I offer them for your consideration. If you think them worthy of a place in your publication, you are welcome to use them. “Occasionally, I have received film that had the cue marks punched out so large that the openings would flash ridiculously by THE CONDUCTOR if projected on a screen. Enclosed is an example. "Although I dislike creating unnecessary splices, there was a time when I preferred splices to punched cues. Therefore, I had always cut out all punched cues and then scribed in new cue marks, after making the splice. One day, while making a purchase in a stationery store, I noticed a punch that makes an opening one quarter of an inch in diameter. This punch suggested to me a covering for punched cues. After that I stopped cutting out pieces of film. With this punch I make blanks from scraps of opaque film and then cemented the blanks (unemulsioned sides together) over the punched cue openings. I use a Universal Film Splicer to press the two surfaces firmly together so that the edge of the blanks will not catch while running through the projector. “With hopes that the time is not far away when all needless film multilation will no longer be, I remain.” The film can leaflet enclosures to which Proj. Jackson refers were prepared at his own expense as a free-will contribution to the cause of better screen presentation and the consequent uplift of the craft. We consider them highly worthy of publication and so here they are: (1) “Fellow-Projectionists, Please Take Notice “I am submitting for your consideration a suggestion for improvement in the method of fihn-cutting which I believe may benefit all of us. The majority of projectionists are in the habit of cutting at the end of the film just a few frames beyond where the sound ceases when doubling up 1,000-foot reels or attaching trailers. After the film is cut the first time and then spliced, the next projectionist running the same film usually cuts again at this splice. As the first cut was made a very short distance from where the sound ceased, it is not long until additional cutting destroys some of the sound, causing it to end abruptly incompleted. Isn’t this premature shortening of the sound track unnecessary? “If the projectionist cutting the film for the first time would cut at the extreme end of the opaque section of the film following the final fade-out (or the frame just ahead of the identification trailer) and each and every projectionist thereafter would do the same, the duration of a complete sound track would be greatly lengthened. Of course, the cutting just ahead of the identification trailer (allowing to remain as much opaque film as there is available) would cause a slightly longer period of darkness on the screen between the end of picture or projected area of the first film and the start of the attached film. “Surely Mr. Projectionist, Mr. Manager and Mr. Exhibitor you would not object to this slight period of darkness on your screen if such will be the means of giving many others a better projection condition? Sincerely, gentlemen, couldn’t you give just a little (in your desire for continuous screen illumination) so that your fellow showmen might enjoy this better condition. Furthermore, certain audiences, accustomed to hearing the sound chopped at the end, would surely enjoy the change of hearing the sound completed. “The key man of this situation is the projectionist cutting the film for the first time; setting the ei^ample for others to follow. Also, as cutting gradually shortens the opaque section up to within three or four frames of where the sound ceases, another strip of opaque for future cutting could be attached and thus further preserve the end of the sound track. Henceforth, as additional strips of opaque are attached, the cutting of these remaining three or four frames should not exceed more than one sprocket hole at a time; a midframe splice, so that these frames may also be preserved as long as possible. Therefore, the duration of a complete sound track will more nearly equal the duration of the film as a whole, than it does under the present habit of cutting. “Will you fellows running first-run film please follow my suggestion and give us fellows running the film at a later date a chance? Thanks for the cooperation. I am circulating these leaflets in an effort to pass on to others what I believe to be correct cutting and saving of the sound track as long as possible, and this is of course in behalf of better projection.” (2) Are Punched Cue Marks Necessary? “If you think it necessary to punch holes in the film to assure yourself that you will not miss the motor-start cue and the changeover cue, why go to extremes? Why punch more than one hole at each cue? Do you think it necessary to use a punch that, makes a large opening in the film? I have received films with holes as large as three-sixteenths of an inch. A habit like that is very unprofessional and reveals poor showmanship. “Let us consider the facts and then decide whether such a habit is definitely necessary or not. Consider the great number of times an object on the film is magnified by the lens when that object has reached the screen. Consider, too, the great difference in the tone of the light that passes through the film proper and the tone of the light that passes through an opening or hole in the film. Surely (Continued on page 52) 50 The MODERN THEATRE SECTION