Exhibitors Herald and Moving Picture World (Jul-Sep 1928)

22 BETTER THEATRES SECTION OF September 29, 1928 oi! damped type must under no circumstances be opened. British Columbia Demands Film in Good Condition Those of you who have followed my writings through the j^ears doubtless will remember that I have many times suggested official action in the shape of laws which would prevent exchanges from sending films in poor mechanical condition to theatres. I have suggested that this might be done on the grounds that films in poor or bad mechanical condition increase the fire hazard, which increase is entirely unnecessary, because film CAN be properly inspected and put into first class condition, and with that done the added risk would not exist. But, of course, nothing of so trivial a nature would or did receive attention from our officials. Up in Canada, however, particularly in its Western half, thei" do things somewhat differently. We have a notable example in British Columbia, where Mr. W. A. Oswald is assistant fire marshal in charge of theatres. His headquarters are in Vancouver, B. C. Mr. Oswald soon discovered that film in poor mechanical condition might be responsible for theatre film fires which set up an element of danger for citizens of British Columbia. Therefore, Fire Marshal Oswald got himself busy, with result that the fire hazard caused by film in poor condition no longer exists. The plan was simplicity itself. He notified all film exchange managers that on a certain date, about 60 days ahead, (a) No exchange would be permitted to send to any theatre in British Columbia any film containing mechanical defects (loose splices, etc.), which would tend to increase the fire hazard incident to projection, and (b) that after that date all British Columbia projectionists were forbidden, on pain of suspension of license, to project any film received containing mechanical defects which would in any degree add to the fire hazard. So far so good ! Next he , sent to every theatre in British Columbia a book of blanks. These blanks were in sets of three, each one 'the same, except that each was of different color. A white, a blue and a pink blank alternated. They were perforated on one side to make their removal convenient. Each film exchange was ordered to keep an exact record of the condition of each reel of each production at each inspection. Every projectionist was ordered to make out three duplicate blanks, presumably using carbon paper between them, setting forth the exact observed condition of each reel of film in each production, after the first projection. One of these blanks, the blue I think it was, was to be retained in the book. One was to be enclosed in the return shipment to the exchange, while the third was to be forwarded to the office of the assistant fire marshal, where a card was made out from it and placed on file. * ♦ * Thus the assistant fire marshal has a permanent record in his office of the exact condition of each reel of each production each time it is used in a theatre, and there can be no side stepping, because the report is in triplicate, and they must all agree. FROM THESE REPORTS HE IS ABLE ALSO TO SOON TELL WTilCH THEATRES ARE INFLICTING UNUSUAL DAMAGE TO FILM, which is in itself a valuable feature. Upon several occasions projectionists have refused to project films received in poor condition, sending same to the assistant fire marshal, whereupon the exchange manager was called upon the carpet and had a very unpleasant experience, and believe you me neither the exchange manager, nor the projectionist who abuses film, cares to be called to the assistant fire marshal's office very often. As a result of this enlightened action the assistant fire marshal has, during the past year ordered out of service 105,000 feet of film, in addition of which 51,000 feet were withdrawn voluntarily by exchanges and 88,000 feet were shipped out of the province, never to be returned. This makes a total of 244,000 feet of film retired because it was unfit for use. A British Columbia projectionist says: "As a result there is better projection, fewer stops and a greater feeling of safety for all concerned. We pre now getting film in such condition that it is a pleasure to project it." Another thing that may interest you. One British Columbia exhibitor refused to order projector repair parts requested by the projectionist, whereupon the assistant fire marshal immediately ordered all exchanges to refuse film .^.ervice to that theatre until the 1,679,399. FILM-FEEDING DEVICE FOR PROJECTORS. Percy Douglas Brewster, East Orange, N. J., assignor to Wyko Projector Corporation, a Corporation of New York. Filed Mar. 2, 1925. Serial No. 12,512. 2 Claims. (CI. 88—28.) 1. In a projector adapted to show a strip of film frame by frame, a feed mechanism comprising a suitable film gate, a sprocket adapted to engage the perforations in the said film, a shaft through the said sprocket, a feed ratchet carrying teeth mounted on said shaft, a feed lever pivoted on a fixed part of the machine carrying a pawl adapted to engage the said teeth and feed the film, a locking ratchet mounted on the said shaft carrying the same number of slots as the said feed ratchet has teeth, a pawl mounted to engage in the said slots and lock the sprocket, and a pin mounted on the said feed lever adapted to disengage the locking pawl at the beginning of the feed stroke of the lever. projectors were put into safe condition. They only had to hold up one shipment. Friend exhibitor changed his mind, nearly burned up the phone wires ordering the projectors immediately and thoroughly overhauled, whereupon all was well. When a projectionist in British Columbia orders projector repair parts now HE GETS THEM. If the exhibitor thinks the replacement unnecessary he has but to call in the assistant fire marshal, or his representative, show him the old parts, and if it can be shown the replacement was not necessary the projectionist will have some tall explaining to do. All honor to British Columbia and Assistant Fire Marshal W. A. Oswald. I certainly wish we had more officials like him down here in our own land. From A Friend In our last issue a chap from Pleasantville, N. J., took a few pokes at me. I sent him a carbon copy of my comments on his letter, but it was returned by the Pleasantville postmaster with the notation : "Not found." His letter, which was published, seems to have stirred up quite a lot of indignation. I select one from a big pile of letters dealing with the matter. The selection is made at random. Just pulled it out of the pile. It is from Jack Levine, projectionist, Rialto theatre, Leominster, Mass. He says: My dear friend: Just a few lines to express my feelings concerning the "operators" who delight to pan you. Where would some of them be if they couldn't get hold of your Bluebook, sneak off in a corner and hunt up answers to their projection troubles. I have been in the motion picture projection game for a long while. I wouldn't be without the Bluebook, this department and the American Projectionist. Yes, and now with Movietone and Vitaphone here I am just praying that the good Lord spares you to us who appreciate your work in helping us solve our projection problems. Brother Richardson, we need you now more than ever. Your work in the Heeald-World, in the Movietone Bulletin and in the American Projectionist is great, to say nothing of your papers before the S. M. P. E. So don't let any one discourage you, though, I'm sure you are too big for that. So carrjon the good work! * * * Well, I don't know about the bigness, but I weigh 230 perfectly good pounds, so I'm big one way anyhow. Lord, no ! It would take a whole lot more than that to even begin to discourage me. I want, however, to cordially thank Brother Levine, and all those others who have written along the same lines. It is pleasant to know when one has worked hard and tried to be a true friend to men, that they appreciate it. I'm not looking for thanks. All I want is your friendship and cooperation. I can look every man jack of you in the eye and say I've done the best I knew to help you and the profession of motion picture projection. I'll be 62 come the twenty-fifth day of October, and when, in the not distant future, I answer the last roll call, I can do it with a clear conscience. I've done the best I knew how. Thank you, Brother Levine, and all the rest of you who wrote. It was nice of you. The Answer In August 4, issue I published a letter from Frank Dudiak, in which he set forth the proposition that because the projector shutter rotated twice as fast at 120 feet of film per minute as it did at 60 feet, the screen illumination would be greater at the higher speed — doubled in fact. I put that up to our readers to solve and was just a bit astonished at the number and variety of answers, which ranged from agreeing with Brother Dudiack's deduction to setting the matter forth in its true Hght. The fact of the matter is that there is no difference at all in the screen illumination at different speeds of projection. The reason is simple enough when we reason it out. The trouble is that Brother Dudiack didn't catch the point, even as you and I sometimes get balled up on something which seems absurdly simple when we finally get the right answer. It is true that at 120 the shutter openings come before the lens just twice as often, BUT also they remain open exactly half as long, so you see no more light can get through. And the same thing holds good relatively for any increase in speed. That's all there is to it. Something more than 600 correct answers were received. * * * But here is one which, while correct, still is amusing. It reads : Dear Richardson: That fellow down in Kentucky forgot that there are blades coming before the lens, too, and at twice the projection speed they will cut off just twice the amount of light they did at half the projection speed, so the total amount of light passing through the bathing beauties legs (which usually is all the beauty they've got, and sometimes that ain't too) is just the same as it was before. And, as you say, "that's that"! Well, men, that's one way of putting it, but as I said, it's correct enough. Well, anyhow I agree that the legs won't be a bit brighter at 120 than at 60, which is after all perhaps as well 1 P. S. — Henry McNamara, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., brings out this point, which I personally don't believe has value at anything over 80 feet per minute, though it might at lower speeds and high screen illumination. He says : At first glance it will seem that more light will