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

April 12, 1930 Exhibitors Herald-World 115 MORE FIRE-RESISTING { , WAILIKIEIR SCUNIDjrCCIOEN PATENT PENDING I Purchased by Exhibitors in past 90 days— Than all others combined DEFINITELY LEADING TODAY Approved by Western Electric Specified by RCA Photo phone Recommended by All Sound Mfrs. WALKER SCREEN CO. 33 35th Street Brooklyn, N. Y. PERKINS ELECTRIC CO., LTD.— CANADIAN DISTRIBUTORS profession, dubbing the men of poor ability “machine operators,” or shall we refuse to recognize “machine operator” as a title at all? Please let me hear from you in this matter. MISTAKEN IDEAS ROM Michigan comes this letter: “Mr. Richardson: It is up to you to settle an argument between Friend Manager and myself. He has instructed me to discontinue the use of kerosene as a film cleaning agent, and to use alcohol. He claims that kerosene will explode and set fire to the film, whereas I say this is not so, provided the film be wiped dry after cleaning with kerosene. He says alcohol evaporates more quickly and cleans just as thoroughly, which of course is true. “According to the ‘Bluebook,’ kerosene is the best cleaner, since it does not evaporate so fast and cleans when it is applied. “The manager also tells me that the track shoes are good for five or six years and refuses to buy new ones. He then complains that the titles on the screen are out of focus. What would you advise me to do ?” My boy, if you can cite me the Bluebook volume and page number where I said kerosene was a film cleaning agent, I would most emphatically like to see it! Kerosene is NOT a film cleaning agent, though there would be no chance of an explosion through its use. The objection would be that it would leave more or less of a residue of grease on the film, which would not only be in itself objectionable because of its effect on focus, but also it would act as a dust collecting agent. Alcohol is objectionable (see Pages 290-91, Vol. 1, of the “Bluebook”) because of the fact that it causes the film to curl badly and because of the further objection that it tends to dry the film. Examining the above citation, you will find the correct film cleaning liquid, which is Tetrachloride. This liquid, which may be had from the Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Mich., is highly recommended by the Eastman Company. It is both non-inflammable and non-explosive. It works no injury of any sort to the film. The film should not be rewound immediately after cleaning. As to the aperture film tracks, this manager is very much mistaken, but he is in a large company. Many theatre managers employ a projectionist, presumably because they believe he knows his business, then for some mysterious reason, they proceed to tell him what to do and what not to do in projection. Did the projectionist amble down to the office and proceed to advise the manager how to run his end of things, he would be deemed just plain crazy. Yet, neither knowing or pretending to know anything about motion picture sound projection, some managers calmly order the projectionist to keep projector parts in use long after their usefulness has ceased, and often until the harm done to the screen image has cost the box office a hundred, if not a thousand times the cost of the new part or parts. How does this manager expect the picture or titles to be in sharp focus if the aperture plate film tracks and tension shoes are worn out of true? Just why does he assume that “five or six years” should be long enough to use those parts. Why not say 15, 20 or 30 years and thus “save” that much more? Some managers seem to have the idea that projector parts, which must function within one ten-thousandth of an inch of tolerance, ought to wear and give perfect service until they are “out,” maybe 500 ten-thousandths of an inch. Certainly in “five or six years,” aperture plate tracks and tension should be worn all of that, which is one-twentieth of an inch. This projectionist asks my advice as to what to do. I don’t know! I may be out in that part of the country myself next summer. In fact, it is not at all unlikely that I will. If so, I would be glad to talk to his manager. The manager is saving a dollar or two, and in so doing is slapping his own box office in the face, which is a rather foolish procedure. I would, at a guess, say that those worn aperture plate tracks and tension shoes have certainly cost his box office at least enough to have bought a hundred of them.