Business screen magazine (1946)

Jince then (Oshman bought his mahine in April. 1970), however, Vlagnasync/Moviola, makers of the itandard upright machine, has displayed a horizontal editing table. "The Steenbeck was an efficient tiachinc," said Oshman, "but it was imitcd in its capacity to hold more han one picture. I'm involved with \ and B camera work. The Steen.leck could handle three elements — 3ne picture and two audios." It should be noted that this is no longer the case, according to William \. Engstler. President of General Enterprises. Inc.. distributors of Steenbeck equipment in the United States. The Steenbeck ST 6000 sixplate machine is a case in point. Engstler said that there are more than 30 different Steenbeck models, adding, "If you're a busy filmmaker, it often pays to have two machines." Having chosen the modular Kem Universal. Oshman explained that with the proper extensions, it could handle four various elements — one picture and three sound tracks, two pictures and two sound tracks, or three pictures and one sound track. ".And the beautiful part was that the modules were literally interchangeable within 60 seconds." Oshman praised, "It gave me the flexibility F need." Although there were initial problems to be overcome, the new editing machine has saved the day more than once for Oshman. He cites as an example a film that Vision Associates did on an exceedingly tight schedule for Eastern Airlines. The day on which the answer print had been promised for screening was moved up two weeks, and the photography was late in being completed. By the time it was finished and developed, and the sound synchronized and coded. Oshman had less than 1 7 days to edit 40,000 feet of film. Under normal conditions, he explained, after screening all the material, he would divide it into scenes. With an average of 40 scenes per 1000 foot roll, the result would be 1600 rolls of films. Each then would have to be carefully cataloged for scene retrieval. Using horizontal editing. Oshman did not have to approach his footage this way. He could find any shot in seconds, as the Kem loins film up to 1000 frames per second. "No shot is more than 40 seconds away from screening." Oshman explained. "The editor can easily expend that time kKating the shot on the rack. You're never looking for trims or outs. They are always on the same roll they were on initially." He commented. "The breakdown process alone on the moviola (upright editing machine) would have taken the better part of a week." Instead, working from one weekend through the next, Oshman was ready for his client to view the film when he needed it. Nine days later, the corrected answer print was ready. "Given the same conditions and using the moviola, we would never have had the answer print ready on time," noted Oshman. "On that particular experience, I figured I expended 40 percent less time than I would have on the moviola." Despite the Kem's versatility and speed, Oshman did have difficulties with it initially. Mechanically there were problems, he explained. Although it never went out completely, there were times when it lost one of its four elements. "I think we have them licked now. however." said Oshman. "It was a new design and with all new designs, there are certain shake down problems. Maybe I bought it a little too early." There were, and are, other problems regarding horizontal editing in general, but these are psychological in nature. "You have to be prepared to spend some time re-thinking working procedure," he said. "You cannot think moviola and apply it to horizontal. You just have to change your work habits and patterns." Many long-time editors are unwilling to make this change. The hangup is still there, according to Oshman. "I've had guys that've worked with moviola that just refuse to get involved with this machine." he emphasized. Sometimes they protest that short film lengths of four or five feet cannot be handled on a horizontal machine. Oshman noted that working with such small rolls is not necessary, as there need be no separate trims or outs with horizontal editing. The lack of flexibility in editing approach may be one factor accounting for relatively slow acceptance of horizontal editing in the United States. Bob Rowen, Vice Other flatbed machines available in the U.S. Top: Steenbeck — first to be imported to United States. This St 6000 is one of 30 models. Bottom: Moviola — when available — -will be first horizontal machine made in U.S. Moviola will continue manufacture of upright editing machines, also. President of Kem Electronic Mechanic Corporation, was among those suggesting this theorv'. "Standard moviola was the typical machine in the United States, and was used by editors and assistant editors . . . It was kind of a locked-in thing," he said. However, horizontal editing has been accepted gradually in the United States. Garey Lundberg, of Coiiiimii'd on pa^c 16 ADVANTAGES OF HORIZONTAL EDITING (As outlined by Bob Rowen. Kem Electronic t^echanic Corp.) * Because the film rests on its edge, it is protected against scratches and other possible damage. ' Because cores, not reels, are used, space used for film storage is less. * The track always moves with the oxide side in and the shiny side out. As a result, the editor can mark on the back without causing dropouts. " Higher speeds offer faster retrieval of a particular shot. * The prism system in the horizontal machine eliminates clawtype movement of film. APRIL, 1971 15