International projectionist (Oct 1931-Sept 1933)

March 1932 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST Edited by James /• Finn Volume II MARCH 1932 Number 1 Monthly Chat 5 Fundamentals of Testing Electric Circuits — III 7 A. C. SCHROEDER Relative Foot-Candles 9 Uniform Aperture Practice Set by Academy 10 Screen Image Table Figured on Basis of New Aperture 12 A Break-Down of Service Dollar, ERPI's Reply to Critics 13 Continuous Projection by Optical Compensation 14 H. ROBICZEK Comparative Worth of D.C. Power Sources (Addenda) 16 Light and Lenses — II Victor A. Welman 18 An Open Letter to James J. Finn 21 Thad C. Barrows Common Sense and the Common Cold 22 Leverett D. Bristol, M.D. Sound Projection Facilities in the Modern Theatre 23 D. M. Cole News and Views 24 Alliance Items 29 Notes from the Supply Field 31 "Soft" and "Hard" Lighting With Supersensitive Panchromatic Film 33 James J. Finn Motion Pictuj-e Theatres in the United States 34 Miscellaneous Items News Notes Technical Hints Published Monthly by JAMES J. FINN PUBLISHING CORP. 1 WEST 47th STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y. West Coast Representative Hallett E. Cole, 846 South Broadway, Los Angeles, Calif. ('Phone: Tucker 6428) Yearly Subscription: United States and possessions, $2 (two years, $3) ; foreign countries, {2.50. Single copies, 25 cents. Changes of address should be submitted two weeks in advance of date of publication to insure receipt of current issue. Entered as second-class matter February 8, 1932, at the Post Office at New York, N. Y. under the act of March 3, 1879. Entire contents copyrighted 1932 by James J. Finn Publishing Corp. International Projectionist is not responsible for personal opinions appearing in signed articles in its columns. MONTHLY CHAT BY withholding the announcement of its new recording and reproducing system Western Electric Company has remained steadfast to that unwritten rule of the company which is to perfect a device first and ballyhoo it afterward. Of course, our reputation as a forecaster suffered as a result of this decision on the part of W. E., as we had promised our readers full details of the new system in tills issue. "VrOW that the matter of uniform i^ aperture procedure for both production and projection has been settled, emphasis should be placed on the necessity for strict adherence to the recommended aperture height of .600". Variance from this figure simply means that all the hard work done on this project will have gone for naught— for with the studios utilizing the full area for composition, the choice of adhering or not to the full height lies not with the projectionist. Just another usurpation of our powers over the cinema welfare of the matinee idols. TT OW many projectionists, taking -■-■ their cues from the item relative to lower insurance rates which appeared in our February issue, have asked their insurance companies for a reduction in rates? The facts with which to buttress your argument were included in this item; and if you haven't yet taken advantage of this situation, do so promptly. • . . Don't mention it. Just another one of our little services. SAMUEL BAGNO'S article, "Comparative Worth of D.C. Power Sources," which appeared last month proved definitely how little time most manufacturers of. power supply devices spend at their plants. The number of "out-of-towns" which were received in reply to our requests for comment on this article surpassed all previous high marks. On occasion we find it convenient to be "out of town," but never when something is said, or written, or done to reflect unfavorably upon our product. And particularly happy are we to be in town when an offer to run our comment verbatim is made. The inevitable ray of sunshine makes; its appearance in this case: we are overflowing with happiness to be able to report that the proper parties were available at Roth Brothers & Co., 1,400 West Adams St., Chicago, and at Electric Specialty Co., Stamford, Conn. — both houses being the manufacturers of very fine products for projection room use.