Harrison's Reports (1930)

96 HARRISON’S REPORTS June 14, 1930 screen is probably much larger than the image of the silver grain in the positive. And they will be right in their conclusions, for it is a fact that the silver grain images on the screen are practically invisible to the audience, whereas the light dot “grain,” which is square in shape, is visible. At a recent demonstration of theatre television on a sixfoot screen, the light dot was acutally one and one-half inches square. Accordingly, the picture lacked that exquisite detail which is seen in motion picture close-ups. The demonstration was, in fact, restricted to close-ups of the head and shoulders of the actors. This brings us to the question of how to measure roughly the amount of detail in television pictures so as to establish a method of approximate comparison with motion pictures. Clearly, the detail of a screen picture depends on the size of the grain, which makes up the image. In television, the size of the grain is simply that of the spot of light on the screen. If you find out how many of such spots it takes to fill the screen, you get the number of, what the television engineers call, “dot-elements” on the screen. This is a fair measure of the amount of detail that can be obtained. There is just one point that must be kept in mind: once the number of dot-elements in a picture is fixed, the detail for that picture is determined definitely, just as is the detail in a half-tone, which is governed by the number of half-tone dots. If a picture of a certain size consists of, say, one thousand dot-elements, its detail is fixed ; the dots may be made twice, three and even more times larger, but the detail remains the same. If the dots are small, the picture may be viewed from a close distance ; for small dots blend or merge into a smooth picture at a comparatively short distance. If the dots are, on the other hand, large (made large for the purpose of increasing the size of the picture), the observer must stand at a considerably greater distance before the dots may merge into a smooth picture. No detail is gained by making the picture larger. This is perhaps a revelation to motion picture exhibitors, and practically speaking to all laymen except to television and to some other engineers ; but it is a fact he must keep in mind in connection with television work. Let him always remember that in television it is not size but detail that counts, and that size alone will not make television popular permanently any more than an elephant may become a more popular household pet than a fox terrier just because he is many times larger. Viewing the matter most generously, we may say that quality, that is, picture detail, counts at least as much as size, if not more. Experience has shown that, in theatre television, the dot may be as much as one inch square without being objectionable to an observer who stands fifty feet away from the screen but only during the early days of television ; for even for a screen I2 x lo feet more than 17,000 such one-inchsquare dot-elements are required for a fairly satisfactory television picture. And such a number is several times larger than anything yet attained by leading experimenters up to the present day. For permanently satisfactory results, the picture thus produced must be visible in the theatre with equal brightness through a wide angle ; it must not fade out at the sides of the house or in the balconies when the picture is bright to one standing in the middle of the orchestra and in all places on a straight line vertical to the screen. And this is a difficulty that has not yet been overcome by television engineers. In the articles which will appear in Harrison’s Reports from time to time there will be further and complete comparisons between theatre motion pictures and theatre television : details of what will be required of television in the future before it can be made a commercial success ; the problems the exhibitor must meet when television comes, if it ever comes : and its probable uses. Suggestions will be made to enable the exhibitor to determine whether television, as demonstrated to him, has actually arrived, and if it has, how he can profit by it. In the meantime, Harrison’s Reports will suggest to the exhibitors not to allow themselves to become panic-stricken by wild claims of television possibilities and probabilities ; for according to the opinion of men who are in a position to know it is extremely unlikely that television will even injure the vogue of the motion pictures, much less displace it. WARNER BROS. AND FIRST NATIONAL ADOPTING SOUND-ON-FILM Warner Bros, has just announced that, because of the demand for sound-on-film versions from theatres that are equipped with only a sound-on-film reproducing apparatus, it is going to supply the exhibitors with sound-on-film prints. A circular from First National, sent to exhibitors, states the following: “It is with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction that I feel we can resume our pleasant business relations which were temporarily broken on account of previous method of recording. I am very glad to advise you that each one of the thirty-five pictures which First National will release during the coming season will have SOUND ON FILM. “So that you may have an immediate supply of outstanding pictures sound on film, we have aranged to make available for early play-dates the following big pictures from First National’s current program: Marilyn Miller in ‘Sally’ ; Richard Barthelmess in ‘Son of the Gods’ and the ‘Dawn Patrol’ ; Alice White in ‘Sweet Mama’ ; Billie Dove and Clive Brook in ‘Sweethearts and Wives’ and the all color sensation now playing at two dollars on Broadway ‘Bride of the Regiment’. . . .” (Note: “The Bride of the Regiment” is a sensation, well enough, but as a flop. P. S. Harrison.) It is hardly necessary for Harrison’s Reports to discuss here what has prompted Warner Bros, to change their recording policy, for this is not what concerns us but whether the film sound they are offering is original or “duped.” Let us attempt to find out : In the latter part of last November, Warner Bros, released a statement to the exhibitors and to the trade papers reading partly as follows : “From time to time there have come to us from various sources statements to the effect that exhibitors have been informed by salesmen that it is only a matter of time before Warner Bros, and First National will be recording on film rather than on disc. . . . “There is no intention, immediate or remote, on the part of Vitaphone Corporation of changing its present method of sound recording for its own product, of Warner Bros, and of First National. . . .” Since the Warner Bros, executives stated so emphatically at that time that they did not intend to change their recording system, we must assume that this decision was made only about a month or so ago — perhaps at the time they were preparing to hold their annual sales convention. Let us now see whether the pictures First National is offering to you have been duped from the disc or arc original film recordings: Production of “Sally” started May 25, and finished September 17, 1920; “Son of the Gods,” Sept. 17, 1029, and ended about two months later ; “Bride of the Regiment,” Oct. 12. 1920, and finished about three months later : “Dawn Patrol,” January 25, and finished May 10, 1930; “Sweethearts and Wives,” finished January 23, 1930 (I have not been able to learn when production started) ; preparation of “Sweet Mama” started January 25; but as there have been many title changes before the picture was finished, I am not in a position to give you the facts on this picture. As you will see, all these pictures were produced previously to the time the Warner, Vitaphone, and First National executives had decided to record on film ; therefore, we may reasonably assume that the recording of all these pictures has been duped, the sound having been transferred from disc. And you know what duped sound is : it is poor when it is transfered from film to film ; but when it is transfered from disc to film, it is “atrocious.” As I do not know what pictures Warner Bros, are offering to you with film sound I am not able to give you an opinion as to whether the film sound is duped or not : but I should think that the sound of all Warner Bros, pictures produced previously to May i, 1930. is duped. If you should decide to buy any Warner Bros., First National, or Vitaphone pictures with film recording you had better insert in the contract the following provision : “The Distributor guarantees that the film sound has been recorded originally on the film, and that it has not been first recorded on a disc and then re-recorded on film. In the event the Distributor furnishes the prints with a sound recorded otherwise, this contract to be considered null and void, and the Exhibitor shall be entitled to damages, to be determined by the courts of this state, if no other means of settling disputes arising under this contract is contained herein. “Signed on the part of the Distributor by it M