International photographer (Jan-Dec 1935)

April, 1935 The INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER Seven Laboratory experts in Hollywood have pronounced this processed film remarkable. One of them even thought the emulsion tougher than the celluloid on examination of a sample strip. All of them agreed that the process had great value for positive but infinitely more value for negatives which are frequently, and in spite of the greatest care, damaged in the printers by scratching, handling and the picking up of celluloid dust from the perforations. During the testing of film processed by this method one short subject was projected at the Embassy Theater in New York (Newsreel Theater) one hundred and sixty-eight times. It was then examined by a laboratory superintendent who pronounced it perfect but he did not believe it had been projected more than once or twice. This theater was noted for being tough on film on account of the large number of daily shows. After this run at the Embassy, the film was sent to France and run through the French distribution circuit and then to Egypt where it was run through that distribution circuit. The film was undamaged when it had completed the above screenings. One laboratory superintendent said he thought that the loss from scratched and damaged film which had to be replaced could be conservatively placed at five per cent. If this is a reasonable estimate, a producer putting fifty pictures of seven reels and a 150 print release would have a spoilage of approximately two 625 reels or about 2,300,000 feet of film. Assuming a print cost of two cents per foot this loss is $46,000 and only represents the film so badly damaged as to require replacement. The other 95 per cent is also damaged before it is through its distributing circuits but can still "get by" in the nickelodean or neighborhood theaters. This film amounting to 49,875 reels, approximately, is unfit generally for screening in a Class "A" Theater and represents a printing cost of $875,000 approximately. Surely nearly a million dollars in prints is worth permanizing and there is a possibility that ad B\ Commander W. H. Pas h ley, U. S. N. missions in the neighborhood theater could be raised if the screening quality of the pictures were improved. The realization of the value of this process to the motion picture industry not only in the interests of better pictures mechanically but also in the interest of eliminating the large monetary losses in film now borne by the producer, caused me to devote all my available time to the perfection of this process which has now been in successful operation in one of the independent laboratories in the East for the past year. The prints from this process have now found their way all over the United States and never once has there been a complaint. The film has stood the test of service which, after all, is the real test. I want to emphasize that the process above described is in no sense a repair process. It treats chemically new, wet film and permanizes it so that repairs are never needed. RECENT PHOTOCRAPH AND SOUND PATENTS By ROBKRT Ft' I/WIDER 1,990,529— Method and Apparatus for Color Photography and Projection. Ludwig M. Dieterich, Newark, N. J. 1,990,754 — Motion Picture Theater & Apparatus Therefor. Oscar H. Ross, New York, N. Y. 1,991,136 — Photographic Emulsion & Method of Making Same. John S. Capstaff, assignor to Eastman Kodak Co. 1,991,178— Sound Recording System. Roy R. Scoville, assignor to Electrical Research Products Corp. of New York. 1,991,249 — Process of and Apparatus for Developing Film. Tom Ingman, Frank Garbutt and Leigh Griffith, all of Los Angeles, Cal. 1,991,251 — Apparatus for and Process of Developing Film. Tom Ingman of Los Angeles, Cal. 1,991,311 — Focus and Exposure Gauging Device for Motion Picture Cameras. David Barbieri, Garwood, N.J. 1,991,472 — Method and Apparatus for Producing and Projecting Sound Motion Pictures. Ernest Stern of Astoria, N. Y. 1,991,508 — Film Footage Indicator for Amateur Film Magazines. Albert Kindelmann, assignor to International Projector Corp. of New York City. 1,991,530 — Dissolve Device for Cameras. Joseph B. Walker, Los Angeles, Cal. 1,991,578 — Photographic Camera. Carl J. Rixen, assignor to Hugh Tevis, London, England. 1,991,630 — Apparatus for Printing Sound Motion Picture Film. Oscar A. Ross of New York, N. Y. 1,991,670 — Apparatus for Projecting Lenticular Film in Natural Colors. Gerd Heymer, assignor to Agfa Ansco Corp., Binghampton, N. Y. 1,991,814 — Mat Box Mounting for Motion Picture Cameras. Geo. A. Mitchell, assignor to Mitchell Camera Corp., West Hollywood, Cal. 1,991,870— Film Gate. Walter A. Schulz, assignor to Radio Corp. of America, New York. 1,991,888 — Lenticular Full Tone Reproducing Screen. Victor Ernst, assignor to The Full Tone Process Co., Cleveland, Ohio. 1,991,957 — Motion Picture Projection Apparatus. Luigi Ranieri, Rome, Italy. 1,9Q2,169 — Coloring Photographic Images. Percy D. Brewster, Rumson, N. J. 1,992,201 — Apparatus for Reproducing Sound on Film. Lee De Forest, assignor to General Talking Pictures Corp., New York City. 1,992,237 — Automatically Rolling and Re-rolling a Film. Barton A. Proctor, assignor to Kinatome Patents Corp., New York. 1,992,279 — Apparatus for Goffering Lenticulated Film. Hans Ami, assignor to Siemens & Halske, Berlin, Germany. 1,992,706 — Cinematographic Mechanism. Pedro Lira of Iquique, Chile. Please mention The International Photographer when corresponding with advertisers.