Home Movies and Home Talkies (Jun 1933-May 1934)

HOME MOVIES & HOME TALKIES 301 TOR:r W/ REEL go to visit the Motion Man, whom I've writ a play.'' Ben Jonson, A.D. 1640 A HAPPY NEW YEAR to all readers ! A really happy New Year it should be, for the last twelve months has seen the introduction of better cameras, better projectors, more and better accessories, and last but not least — better films. With all these new aids available a still higher standard of amateur cinematography should be the rule. With modern fast films it is no longer necessary to put one's cine camera away as soon as the autimin leaves fall. But the fact remains that the greater pait of our annual camera work is still done between Easter and the autumn, and this being so there are only three months to go before cine cameras become very active again. We are therefore taking the opportunity of raising a matter on which we would like to receive the views of readers. Film Prices Briefly our point is this. Do you, or do you not, like the present way in which amateur cine film is marketed ? This is the position. 9^-mm. ortho. film is marketed in nominal 30 ft. lengths without processing charge, usually at 2s. 7d., with a further 2s. for processing. Panchromatic film costs 5s. 9d. or 6s., including processing; 16-mm. film in the ortho. variety is obtainable at 7s. 6d. for 50 ft. and 13s. 6d. for 100 ft. without processing, with 4s. and 7s. 6d. respectively for the processing charge. Panchromatic 16-mm. film is obtainable in two speeds, the slower selling for 14s. and 26s. for 50 ft. and 100 ft., including processing (reversal stock), the superspeed variety selling generally for 17s. 6d. and 32s. 6d. respectively in the two lengths, including processing, although just recently a super-speed variety has been marketed selling for 15s. and 27s., including processing. I We have taken the trouble to set out these figures as the comparative costs are not ahvays realised. It is often thought that the 9|-mm. size is a very much cheaper one to work, and one often hears a man say, " I don't mind the 9|-mm. size — 2s. 7d. for a reel of film soimds reasonable, but I can't possibly afford 16 mm. at 26s. a reel ! " Actually the only fair basis of comparison is screen time, and as the projection speed of sixteen frames per second has long since been standardised for silent pictures, idea of the relationship between these two sizes we have been accused of prejudice against the 9|-mm. standard, but this is far from being the case. Excellent work is regularly being done on both sizes and the convenience and compactness of the 9^-mm. apparatus, as well as the low cost of the equipment, is an excellent argument in its favour. But where the 9J mm. scores most of all is in the low cost of what may be termed the imit •« SIXTEEN '♦ USERS ! READ THIS AND SEND US YOUR OPINIONS ON A POST CARD ! and as, moreover, both 9| and 16-mm. film has approximately forty frames to the foot, the screen time per foot is the same in both sizes. This being so comparisons should be made on the cost to the user of the film ready to screen, rather than on the cost per package. On this basis a 100 ft. of 9|-mm. ortho. film costs slightly more than 15s. 6d., for there are not 30 usable feet in each charger. 16-mm. orthochromatic film can be purchased at £1 per 100 ft. A 100 ft. of processed panchromatic film in the 9J-mm. size costs slightly more than £1, while similar stock in 16-mm. size costs about 26s. Because we are always anxious that our readers should have a clear No Waiting! Thousands of home cine users purchase their cameras to make records of family events and only wish to exijose short lengths of film at a time. The 9J-mm. user often finds 30 ft. of film quite enough for his immediate i^m-pose, and after exposing this he can see the finished result at an early date without having to put his hand into his pocket too deeply. The 16-mm. user, on the other hand, has to pay a higher price for his film imits and usually has to pay for the processing cost at the time of purchase, and because it takes a longer time to use he has to wait much longer to see results. We are convinced that if 16-mm. film were marketed in smaller units, say of 25 ft., without processuig cost, there would be a considerable increase in its popularity, while those users who like the longer lengths would still have available the 50 ft. and 100 ft. reels now marketed. . 1 6-mm. users are invited to write to us (preferably on post cards) expressing their views on this subject, for if there is a widespread desire, as we think there must be, for smaller units at a reasonable price, such units will certainly be marketed. The Editor.