British Kinematography (1950)

May, 1950 cricks : friese-greene and invention of kinematography 161 feeding the film which I thereafter incorporated in another camera which I subsequently constructed. While the cameras made up to this date were constructed for wide film, a subsequent camera used narrower film — due, it has been suggested, to the availability of Eastman celluloid, which was demonstrated to the R.P.S. in February, 1890.6 With this fourth camera, being actually the fifth constructed and being the second made by Lege, which was completed for me in May, 1890, 1 attained a very high speed, being able to take as many as fifty pictures per second, having reduced the size of the exposure to approximately one square inch. Further reference to perforated film occurs later in the affidavit : — Towards the end of 1889, or early in 1890. ... I manufactured film in lengths of a hundred feet. . . . The film was perforated at regular intervals by a step-by-step double punch which Lege made for me at my request, under my directions, and which perforated both edges of the film simultaneously at opposite points. He first made for me a punch for this purpose in 1887, which I used for perforating the paper strips, and this same punch I used for perforating the first celluloid film strips. Patents Action Abandoned A preliminary injunction was granted to the plaintiff company on 3rd June, 1911, and in the Court's decision7 occurs the following paragraph : — The defence of prior invention by Friese-Greene now presented for the first time after the patent has been for several years in litigation and long since sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals is one to be passed upon at the final hearing. It has been stated that Friese-Greene's patent was sustained by the American Courts, but it is clear from the context that the above reference is to the patent actually at issue in the case. In point of fact the action was abandoned, and the above paragraph appears to be the only reference in the records to Friese-Greene's work. His claims were, it is clear, never considered by the Courts. It has been suggested that Friese-Greene's affidavit was the reason for the abandonment ; while this is possible, a more probable reason was the foreboding by the plaintiff company of charges under the Anti-Trust Acts, which were indeed brought, and which three years later resulted in the Patents Company being wound up.8 Confirmation of Dates Approximate substantiation of the date of the camera of 1890 is provided by a page of Lege's ledger still extant, showing the following item : — 2 £ s. d. To work on No. 2 camera from 18th April to 9th June, 183£ hours 13 15 3 Materials — Case and polishing. . .. .. .. .. 10 6 Aluminium, brass . . . . . . . . . . 15 0 From the same source comes confirmation of the use of perforated film. No doubt the reason for the abandonment of perforations was the fragility of the oiled paper film. The extra strength of celluloid made it possible to revert to this system of traction. In fairness to Edison, it must be added that in an affidavit pertaining to the same case as Friese-Greene's affidavit, he denied receiving the latter's first letter and drawings, and stated that in reply to a later enquiry, he informed Friese-Greene of their non-arrival. In any case, his patent of 18919 bears little relation to Friese-Greene's. Accuracy of Affidavit Surveying this affidavit after a lapse of 40 years, remembering that it