Educational film magazine; (January-December 1920)

ihe standpoint of amateur and professional photography. Go into a professional photographer's negative room or into the drying reom •of kodak finishers and see if he complies with the law or under- writers" approval in spite of the fact of the vast quantity of highly in flammable and (according to the safety standard interests) spon- ■ taneously combustible tilm he has exposed. Mr. Pierce winds up his statement that the safely standard pro- jectors and slow-burning film which they employ are officially ap- proved by the underwriters (wliich is correct* and by fire officials ' «Ter>"where, which is not correct and is a most erroneous implication. ^e fully concur with him in his last sentence, "that the future of the non-theatrical field of motion pictures, if it is to depend upoa portable or semi-portable machines largely, lies apparently in the broad development of the safety idea in machines and film libraries." We ask, "Why e.vploit one width at the expense of the other width? Why duplicate expense, effort, etc.?"' We have tried very assiduously to promote interests for the uni- versal adoption of non-inflammable film not over night but by plan- ning ahead so that at a pre-determined length of time, it would hecome universally used. Non-inflammable film at the present time costs one-fourth of a cent more, but if it cost twice as much it would De much cheaper to all concerned from the standpoint of cheaper insurance rates, elimination of restrictions in the use involved, in the construction in theaters for the showing of films and of the many expenses that film exchanges have to go to—expensive vaults, special buildings in inconvenient locations, etc., and the many other precautions that have to be taken in the handling of film. These economies would more than offset the increased cost of the film •vhich is of secondary consideration as everyone agrees just as •stated by the safety standard advocates when they mention the lives and the property that are involved as against the increased expense attached. Non-inflammable film can be made just as cheap and just as good—if not better—than the present inflammable film. K it is fit for one, why not for the other? Every contention for its use as safety standard is more emphatically an argument in favor of all film being non-flam. The burden of proof rests entirely upon the shoulders of the aafety standard advocates. It's up to them to make useful the many machines they have in the hands of would-be users. It's up to them to render that service of safety they so ardently advocate. It's up to us to see to it that the industry is made safe for all, that all this effort, that is now wasted in seemingly endless controversies (as to what is going to be the ultimate width—the standard or safety standard—because there is ultimately going to be one width and the largest phase of the industry, the theatrical or non-theatrical, will absorb one the other and eventually it will be one width or the other but it will be non-inflammable film) is applied constructively. Why procrastinate? Why "safety first?" It"s up to all of us to iuake "Safety First. Last and All the Time." By A. F. Victor President. Victor Safety Film Corporation, Chicago, lU. (A Utter to the Editor) I have carefully gone over the manuscript which you sent for my inspection and-thank you for your invitation to reply to the arg:uments advanced by the two authors. The article written by Mr. Gundelach may be disposed of without romment, inasmuch as it does not possess any arguments tending to hurt the Safety Standard. He has defeated his own object by an obvious hostility, which cannot expect sympathetic response from the readers. In the case of Mr. Jenkins' article, however, we are confronted by an entirely different element. This article is exceedingly clever and I pay high tribute to the writer's ability to present in a plausible way that which is entirely erroneous and to give a semblance of plausibility to a fatJty theory. Your stand is the advocacy of fireproof booths with standard film or the use of Safety Standard if booths are omitted. Mr. Jenkins" article is directly advocating the use of inflammable film without the use of booth. It minimizes the danger connected with the use of inflammable film. It quotes several people's opinions, opinions which were formed on the basis of an original misinformation. 1 iiave seen some of the letters which preceded some of the letters quoted at the end of Mr. Jenkins" article and these letters were couched in terms which did not give all of the information which should have been furnished if an unbiased opinion had been ex- pected. For your information I will show you wherein Mr. Jenkins misrepresents or evades the truth. Mr. Jenkins states that he may speak with authority, "being the creator of the type of projector used everywhere the world over." There is no authentic evidence to back Mr. Jenkins' claim and an examination of the records of the United States Patent Office proves the contrary. In paragraph four he states that the Bureau of Standards cautions the general public but fails to give the balance of Bulletin 75 referring to the precautions which should be taken. .-Vs a matter of lact, the very fact that the Bureau of Standards, does warn the public against the "panicy contemplation" shows that there have been rea- sons for such a warning. During the recent influenza epidemic people were also warned against ■"panicy contemplations"" but such a warning did not in any way alter the fact that the influenza epidemic killed thousands of people and called for every possible precaution. In paragraph five .Mr. Jenkins stales that the Post-Office Depart- ment handles about 500 tons of inflammable film dailv and without mishap. The reader, however, is not told that this lack of mishap IS due to the fact that special fireproof containers of prescribed thickness of material must be employed and that every can containing 1.1m must have the following label printed on yeUow paper: -.Notice to railway employes. C.\UTIO.N. Keep away from Fire. Stoves. Radiators, Lighted .Matches, Lanterns and Direct Sunlight. Any Leaking packages must be removed to a safe place. SUpper has certified on his Shipping Order to compliance with all regulations that apply to this package." In paragraph six he compares the use of motion picture film to nlm used in hand cameras, etc. The hand cameras use film in small quantities and do not use film in coimection with a high power illuminant, concentrating a very hot beam of light on' the film iUelf. In paragraph seven Mr. Jenkins states that nilro cellulose motion picture film is not highly inflammable. He says further that it ■viU ignite easily and bum very rapidly, etc., just as pine shavings "ill. There is, however, a rule preventing people from accumulating pine shavings in an open room. In fact, we have at our factory, an inspector who makes it his business to examine our basement at regular intervals and calls our attention to any non-observanco of the rule, wliich prohibits the accumulation of such material. He states that film has sufficient oxygen in itself to support slow- combustion. I wonder what .Mr. Jenkins considers slow combustion, since a reel of film will burn in 45 seconds; an actual test made by myself to determine the time necessary during which a reel of film can be consumed by fire. He states tliat tightly rolled film is rather difficult to fire; therefore, all film should be handled in this form and be kept in metal cans or similar containers. Yet he claims that tills film can be used safely in an open room and handled out of such containers while being inserted and taken out of the projecting machine. In paragraph eight he states that the laws which now control th« use of motion pictures were formulated during the early part of tho motion picture industry. This is not so. In the beginning of this industry there were no laws and I myself operated a number of store shows, the forerunners of tlie present motion picture theaters, and used film absolutely without booth, magazines or other now proven necessary adjuncts. It was only after a number of fires that the authorities found it necessary to formulate relations governing the use of projectors and film in order to protect the public. In paragraph nine he calls attention to the burning of a boys' school in Baltimore. From his statement the reader could infer that it would be perfectly permissible to use a motion picture machine without a booth, but as a matter of fact it was only owing to the ability of the owners to prove that the fire emanated from anotner source, that collection of insurance was made possible. In paragraph ten: Does Mr. Jenkins expect anybody to believe that the reason for the use of fireproof booths is in order to conceal the operator? You must put a lion in a cage in a zoological garden, but you do not put this cage around the lion to conceal him, but as a protection to the public. The same tiling holds good in an elevator; the walls of an elevator not serving to conceal the people, but to protect them from contact with the receding walls of the si.aft and to keep them from falling out. The fireproof booth is what its name implies—fireproof^and is intended to confine the films within the booth itself, so as to protect the audience in the auditorium. The Fulton Supply Company, of Chicago, have just issued a circular, in wiiich they state as follows: ".An explosion of film at tlie Liberty Theater, Sioux FaiUs, S. D., last week proved fatal to the motion picture operator. Cause of the accident is not known. The theater was operated by C. C. Sawyer, of that town. The only damage incurred on the theater was within the booth, the operator having remained at his post to quench the conflagration. Both machines were put out of commission and the entire inside of the booth damaged." Here is an example of the value of the fireproof booth. What might have happened had this booth not intervened as a protection to the audience in that theater? In paragraph eleven Mr. Jenkins cites a report from the National Fire Protection .Association, that more than fifty per cent, etc. WTiy not also inform the public, since he desires to bring out the FacB, tiiat the National Fire Troteclion .Association also sent out a motion picttire film hazard warning, in which they stated as follows: "The nitro-cellulose motion picture film is of the character of GUN POW- DER. This is the hichlv inflammable film in common use in motion picture houses, in which a SPECIAL FIRE-RESISTIVE BOOTH is required for public safety. The demand for motion pictures in Libertv Bond. Red Cross, charitable and educational campaigns, in places in which THE SAFETY BOO"rH IS NOT PROMDED. is increasingly endangering life in the United States. These inflam- mable films are being handled, cared for and displayed in places 15