International projectionist (Oct 1931-Sept 1933)

!7^ e Vol. 1, No. 3 EDITORIAL PAGE DECEMBER 1931 The Indictment Against "Soft Lighting' Theatres today are getting the best projection work and the poorest quality screen images we have ever seen. No less amazing than the high quality projection work we have witnessed recently in ten states is the really abominable pictures these fine craftsmen are forced to put upon theatre screens. The blame for this condition lies not with the projectionist, not with inefficient equipment, and not with deficient film stock. Projectionists, theatre managers, and distributor district managers are in accord with our findings that the answer to this deplorable condition lies in just two words: "Soft lighting." "Soft lighting" denotes the process whereby pictures are made in a studio with the use of incandescent lighting; ^'hard lighting" is the term applied to the system which utilizes carbon arcs as a light source. Soft lighting is the curse of the motion picture industry today. This system had its inception shortly after sound pictures were introduced, at a time when the manifold worries attendant upon the introduction of sound, in addition to the then-existant problem of noisy arcs, made the producers easy marks for the high-pressure salesmanship of the incandescent lamp boys. While technicians wildly groped for some corrective for noisy carbon arcs, the incandescent crowd went to work on the harrassed and much too gullible production forces and in practically no time at all had effectively "sold" the motion picture industry upon the virtues of soft lighting. The result of this bit of finished salesmanship is all too apparent today on countless theatre screens — even to the technical novitiate. Visit any theatre at random — the socalled de luxe theatre, a second-run house, or the famed ''shooting gallery" — and gaze upon the screen image for just a few minutes. Every evil of incorrect lighting will be on display. There is no more contrast of black and white and no more definition in the picture image of today than there is in the much-ballyhooed television image. Watch the light as it follows any white image around the screen. And as for sets, why they use them at all with incandescent lighting is beyond us: it's just a waste of time, because nobody can see the set anyhow. Maybe fortune will reward your visit and bring a newsreel on immediately following the feature. Those who favor incandescents should pray fervently that fortune plays them no such trick in program arrangement, for there is nothing that so completely shows up incandescent lighting as does a newsreel, shot in daylight, immediately following an incandescent-shot interior scene of a feature. Up in the projection room the amperage is crowded on — 80, 100, 125, 135, and 150 amperes are utilized. This is just a waste of current, because not even 200 amperes would improve the lighting of present-day feature pictures. Who is there who can honestly say that commutator ripple is a serious bar today to the use of carbon arcs on a set? Do we hear an answer? We think not; for this difficulty has been overcome months ago. Then why the continued use of incandescents? Still no answer. Let the producer representatives of this far-flung and far-famed motion picture empire speak out in answer to this charge that they knowingly and deliberately have been giving the motion picture theatregoing public an obviously inferior product for months past — and all because of a fancied — ^not real, mind you, but fancied — saving of a few dollars on each picture. Our mind is open, our back is strong, our skin is tough, and our columns lie yawning to rebuttal, and the stronger the better. With 1931 fast disappearing A Few Choice around a bend in the road of Time 1931 (^ circumstance which pleases us Prejudices ^°* ^ little), we should like to disport and pay tribute to a few of our private prejudices. We admit to being subject to violent likes and dislikes, but for so long as it takes to compose this little piece, we are overflowing with good cheer and in a mood fitting to render thanks to: William F. Canavan, for a task magnificently performed; Western Electric Co., for "noiseless recording"; the producers, for forgetting all about wide film (not by preference, of course), but still, for forgetting; Harry Rubin and his Projection Practice Committee of the S.M.P.E., for the finest bit of practical projection work yet recorded; RCA Photophone, Inc., for background noise suppression; P. A. McGuire, who in the face of every possible adverse "break" didn't lose heart and kept plugging away on his P.A.C. work ; RCA Photophone, Inc., for a swell all-A.C. job; George A. Yager, for splendid work in behalf of the socialization of labor unions; National Carbon Co., for pre-cratered carbons; Lester Cowan, of the Academy, for getting promoted as a result of splendid work along practical lines and, more important, nlaking good our prophecy concerning him; Fred J. Dempsey, LA. General Secretary-Treasurer, for acting on a "hunch"; Harry Holmdeii and Victor Welman, for the best-managed Local Union in the country (160, Cleveland) ; Toronto Local Union, for besting the "grading system"; International Projector Corp., for the Acme portable job; Max Ruben who invariably puts principle above profit; West Coast A.P.S. men who "took the bull by the horns" and seem in a fair way to put the Society on the map ; Samuel Wein, who knows more about light sensitive cells and patents than we do; National Theatre Supply, for reducing prices; J. I. Crabtree, who as President of the S'.M.P.E. gave projection a tremendous impetus; the television promoters for showing us how really bad televised images can be; the South Carolina State Council, for showing how much good work can be done by an organization of that kind; and to all those who differed with us and thereby provided opportunities to fight back, than which we love nothing more dearly. [20]