The Cine Technician (1938-1939)

Jan.— Feb., 1939 THE CINE-TECHNICIAN 157 RELATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRrtS TO GIVE GAMMA O »S (SUPER K TAKEN AS lOCD NOTE ■ THESE VALUES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE USED AS AN INDICATION ONLT. MORE ACCURATE FIGURES CAN NOT BE GIVEN AS THE VALUES DEPEND UPON INDJVIOUAL MACHINE CONDrTIONS Figure 3 GRAININESS An indication of the relative graininess oi the three products as compared with Eastman Super X may be obtained by an inspection of the photomicrographs in Figure 4. As will be seen, the Eastman Background X has finer grain than the other products, and Eastman Plus X shews less grain than Eastman Super X. the latter being almost identical with Eastman Super XX. SAFELIGHTS Eastman Plus X, Super XX. and Background X film can he handled under the same type of Safelight (Wratten Series III.) as is used for Eastman Super \. Additional care should he taken, however, in view of the increased speeds of these films. It is recommended that safelight tests should be made using the new films, and if it is found necessary, a lamp of lower power should be substituted for the one normally used. CODE INITIAL In order to assist in the recognition of the film type either prior to or alter development, an initial is printed Figure 4 just ahead of the main series of footage numbers on all liochester negative products. As an example, in the visible footage number 23E E87718. the initial F indicates that the film is Eastman Super X. The code initials for the three products are as follows : — G = Eastman Plus X II Eastman Super XX B Eastman Background X DEVELOPER The following formula is recommended for the development of Eastman Plus X. Super XX and Background X. FJon (Metol) 2.0 grants Hydroquinone 5.0 Sodium Sulphite (Anhydrous) 100.0 Borax 2.0 „ Water to make 1.0 litre WILLIAM HICKEY ON THE FILM SLUMP In a recent issue of the " Daily Express " William Hickey, the well-known columnist, drew attention to the continued depression in the film industry, and said : " It is hard for the technicians, who are highlyskilled in their own jobs, only less adaptable than actors ; those of them who are cameramen often have to sell or pawn their expensive cameras. I met some of them yesterdaj round Wardour-street. Their temper was fairly — but not altogether resigned, sardonic, less bitter than it might be. One 1 talked to is a cutter of films; he has had three weeks' work in the last year. One disadvantage of such unemployment is that film technique advances rapidly. The jobless get out of touch. They would like at least to go and see as many films as possible to study what is being done ; ironically, the men who make films are the only people who find it difficult to get into trade-shows. If this great industry, which lias wasted so many millions, can't find these men work, it might at least enable them to keep their skill from rusting. They blame the Films Act. They want the number of quota films increased. They blame the policy which imported hundreds of technicians who claimed to have been big noises in Hollywood or Central Europe (though men of Erich Pommer's calibre were welcome). Mostly they don't blame anybody, they just hang around Soho telling jokes about the incredible Hogwasch stupidity of some film executives." In mentioning the difficulty film technicians have in seeing British films, we feel Mi-. Hickey has done a service to technicians, and we hope that his paragraphs will result in the present anomaly being remedied. Already Charles F. Hjgham Ltd. has responded and sends to the A.C.T. office a substantial supply of tickets for GaumontBritish press shows. Unemployed members may obtain them from the A.C.T. offices.