Exhibitors Herald and Moving Picture World (Apr-Jun 1930)

114 Better Theatres Section April 12, 1930 THE PROJECTION COMMITTEE MEETING PRESIDENT CRABTREE, after Dr. LaPorte declined to serve as chairman of the projection committee because of the press of work, appointed Lewis M. Townsend, formerly chief projectionist of the Eastman theatre in Rochester, N. Y., and now with the sound section of Publix, as chairman of the committee. The appointment is good. No better could, I am sure, have been suggested. Mr. Townsend not only knows the practical end of projection thoroughly but also understands its technical side. He is a man of recognized ability and will, I am sure, fill the office with both distinct credit to himself and benefit to the society at large. The committee consists of the following: W. B. Rayton, Bausch and Lomb Optical Company, Rochester, N. Y. ; D. F. Whiting, Fox-Hearst Corporation, New York City; Herbert Griffin, General Theatres Corporation, New York City; J. H. Goldberg, Publix, New York City; T. Faulkner, Paramount Famous Lasky, Long Island City; Dr. L. M. LaPorte, Publix, New York City; H. B. Santee, Electrical Research Products, New York City; Emery Huse, E. K. Company, Hollywood; Chauncey Greene, Minneapolis; R. H. McCullough, Fox-West Coast Theatres, Los Angeles; Rudolph Meihling, Publix, New York City; F. H. Richardson, Exhibitors Herald-World; G. C. Edwards, American Society, New York City; P. H. Evans, Vitaphone Corporation, Brooklyn; W. A. MacNair, Bell Telephone Laboratories, New York City; and J. G. Stewart, RCA Photophone, New York City. I compliment President Crabtree upon the selections made. On the committee LT. SHAGAN of East St. Louis asks : • “Dear Mr. Richardson: I have derived great benefit both from your department in the Herald-World and from the “Bluebook.” Volume 3 (the sound book) is the first book I have seen that makes matters really plain and understandable. I paid six dollars for another “sound book,” looked through it, laid it away, and there it has laid ever since. It is a real big book, but what it contains is real small. Mr. Richardson, I ask your opinion as to the projectionist’s joining the Society of Motion Picture Engineers. What is the cost? Is it worth while? Will you recommend me if I decide, after receiving your answer, to join? “One other thing: Why don’t you fill that one weekly page full, instead of using so much of it for big letters and white space?” I thank you for your commendation of Volume 3 — the sound volume. Many have expressed essentially the same are research men of high ability and at least five men who know both the practice and theory of motion picture-sound projection. The fact that this committee is going to work well was proven at its first meeting, attended by no less than ten members. Chairman Townsend and the following were there : Whiting, Faulkner, S. K. Wolf (acting for Mr. Santee), Edwards, Goldberg. MacNair, Evans, Griffin and myself. I HAVE attended many committee meetings in years past but this one put them all in the shade. First off, we all met at luncheon at the Hotel Belvidere, where we gobbled and talked and everyone became acquainted with every one else. We then adjourned to a room where for three hours a discussion was held concerning a list of subjects suitable for consideration by the committee and prepared by Chairman Townsend. On some of these, action was taken looking toward having them presented to the committee in proper form for final consideration and action at a later meeting, which is to be held before the S M P E spring meeting. Some were rejected and others substituted. Frankly, I have faith enough to believe the report of the projection committee to the spring meeting will be of unusual interest and value. And I am mighty glad to be able to say that, too. One thing which apparently transcended all others in point of interest and importance seemed to be the question of remote control of sound volume. The matter was discussed extensively. It undoubtedly will form an important section in the committee report. views. It is easy to fill a lot of pages with pictures supplied by equipment manufacturers, but after all of what value is such stuff to you? I try to fill the pages of the “Bluebook” with matter of real value, and when that sort of matter is all used up, I stop. As to the S M P E, why that is a mooted question. Some projectionists have joined and if a man can attend the meetings of the Society, I would advise him to join. If he cannot, then the actual benefit will be the receipt of a monthly journal, and the satisfaction of giving support to a highly meritorious organization. The transactions are, I understand, to be no longer issued. The S M P E has gone into the publishing business, starting with a monthly paper. This paper will, I believe, contain certain of the papers, or maybe all of the papers, read before S M P E meetings. Whether it will be open to subscription, I don’t yet know. Presumably it will, but if so, also presumably the price will be about the same as the associate membership fee, which is $10 per year. Personally, I am opposed to the Society entering the regular publication field. The publication of the transactions was excellent, though mixed with commercialism through the fact that advertising was not only accepted but solicited. If the S M P E wants to publish the transactions in monthly form, keeping out of commercialism by refraining from soliciting advertising, all right; though I believe even that is not so good a plan as the semi-annual transactions. However, I, for one, do object to commercialism in the Society of Motion Picture Engineers, which same was decried in the earlier days but today seems to make no particular difference. At the last meeting I, myself, saw the advertising slide of a certain firm displayed on the screen at a meeting. A big company did it and no voice of protest was raised. Yes, Brother Shagan, I will sign your application, provided you supply reasonable evidence that you are a progressive motion picture or motion picture-sound projectionist. Write J. I. Crabtree, president of the S M P E, Research Laboratory, Kodak Park, Rochester, N. Y„ for an application blank, which will give all necessary information. OPERATOR OR PROJECTIONIST? RECENTLY your editor had an argument with a state official connected with visual education. No> matter what state. The argument was more or less acrimonious on both sides. I had “called him down” for using the terms “operator” and “booth” in print. My contention is and has been ever since the introduction of the term “motion picture projectionist,” as a substitute for “moving picture machine operator,” that with a term so well entrenched as the latter, which even is incorporated in the name of the labor organization, that the only way to kill it is — to kill it. I mean by that that if for the good of the profession, the term was to be put out of business, then its use must entirely cease. I have proceeded along those lines for about 12 years. The idea of this educator, however, was that “projectionist” ought not to be applied to school boys and to men until they were proficient in the art of projection. Now, I am not inclined to recede from my position, which I have felt to be a necessary one. However, granting the reasonableness of this man’s contention and conceding the fact that it no longer is really necessary to adhere to the “hew it down” policy, which was very necessary in the beginning, I want to ask our readers to express their opinion. The question is : Shall we apply the term “projectionist” only to men of high ability in the THE SOCIETY OF MOTION PICTURE ENGINEERS