International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1937)

October 1937 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST 15 viewer from the screen. Considering the average viewing distance found in theatres, it is felt that the effect of a 2%-per cent increase in the dimensions of the screen picture will be negligible. The angle subtended by a 20-foot, 6inch screen at the eye of a spectator seated fifty feet from the screen would be exactly the same as if the spectator were viewing a 20-foot screen l1/^ feet nearer. Sympathetic to Large Area Although the foregoing remarks have been specifically connected with screen images, it is obvious that they apply equally well to studio sets and camera images. The Projection Practice Committee is sympathetic toward any attempt to improve photographic composi tion, scope of scenes, size of aperture plates, etc., that would result in any real advantage; but it is the Committee's feeling that the change, to be justifiable, would have to be entirely more substantial than is possible in existing mechanisms. In the case of the Academy's proposed specifications, it is the Committee's feeling that any advantage resulting therefrom will be negligible, and the difficulties attending the introduction thereof into existing practice would be very serious, as outlined in other sections of this report. (c) Screens and Masking. It is obvious that any enlargement of the projector aperture will produce an enlargement of the screen image, and that consequently the screen will have to be remasked. Moving the masking is in itself a fairly expensive job; but, in addition, it should be borne in mind that the screens in thousands of theatres throughout the country are by no means new. Many of them are quite dirty and discolored, and moving the masking will leave a white border around the edges of the dirty and faded portion. A twoor three-inch white strip around the edge of a 20-foot screen would be bad enough in the case of black-and-white projection, but it is obvious that the situation would be still more unfortunate when color-pictures are projected. This means, then, that either the screen must be cleaned or otherwise renovated, or a new screen must be purchased. Great Cost For Little Gain (d) Cost. It is extremely difficult to estimate exactly what the cost would be to effect a change from the present standard to the proposed dimensions. However, a fair idea may be gained by remembering that there are approximately 16,000 theatres in the United States that would be forced to buy new apertures, shift the screen masking, and probably be required either to renovate Director Slaps Projectionists On Aperture Rejection THE Hollywood Reporter provided the one humorous interlude in an otherwise serious and rational technical discussion when it published a wire dispatched by Edward H. Griffith, described as a "well-known" and "progressive" motion picture director, to the S. M. P. E. Convention then in session in N. Y. City. Typically Hollywoodian as to style, length and ignorance of the problem at hand, Griffith's wire, as culled from the Reporter, is appended hereto: GENTLEMEN READ WITH CONSIDERATION YOUR STATEMENT REGARDING CHANGE APERTURE SIZE TODAY'S REPORTER STOP HAVING BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED DIRECTING MOTION PICTURES FOR SOME YEARS AND CLOSE TO HOLLYWOOD PICTURE FEEL YOUR DISCUSSION RELATIVE APERTURE CHANGE COMPARABLE TO TAIL WAGGING THE DOG STOP CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY PROJECTIONISTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED RETARD IMPORTANT BUSINESS EITHER TECHNICALLY OR FROM FINANCIAL ANGLE STOP YEARS AGO PEOPLE OPPOSED CONSTRUCTING BROOKLYN BRIDGE BECAUSE OF EXPENSE AND TAXES STATING FERRIES PLENTY ADEQUATE STOP HOWEVER THAT ADVANCEMENT WORKED OUT BENEFICIALLY AS HAVE OTHERS SINCE STOP BY PROPOSED REDUCING APERTURE SMPE PUTTING PICTURES BACK SEVERAL YEARS BECAUSE OF EXPENSE TO THEATERS STOP YEARS AGO MOTION PICTURE HISTORY MADE BY D W GRIFFITH IN INTRODUCING CLOSEUP FOR EMPHASIS STOP HE BELIEVED AND IT HOLDS IF AN AUDIENCE IS TO UNDERSTAND QUICKLY IT MUST SEE ITS SUBJECT QUICKLY STOP DECREASING APERTURE HOWEVER SLIGHT DEFINITELY REMOVES THOUGHT FURTHER AWAY FROM AUDIENCE AND IS STEP BACKWARD STOP SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE IN MOTION PICTURE FIELD THERE ARE ONLY TWO ANSWERS TO YOUR DISCUSSION STOP EITHER KEEP ABREAST OF ADVANCEMENT AND SPEND MONEY IN THEATRES TO ENLARGE APERTURE GIVING PATRONS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS SCOPE OR LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE BUT DO NOT ADVISE A STEP WHICH FORCES THE INDUSTRY TO RETROGRESS HOWEVER SLIGHTLY DEPRIVING PATRONS EVEN TO THE SMALLEST DEGREE STOP SINCERELY EDWARD H GRIFFITH That ought to hold you projectionists of twenty-five years' or more experience who try to tell a Hollywood director about theatre nroiection. How dare you harass an ARTIST by considerations of film shrinkage and weave, projection angles, exhibition costs and sundry other matters too. too mundane to merit attention by the inhabitants of the Citadel of Culture? their screens or buy new screens. It is estimated that the change could not be effected even in small theatres for less than $50, and may amount to as much as several hundreds of dollars when necessary to purchase new screens. It is probably not too much to anticipate that the cost to the exhibitors of the country would approximate $1,000,000. In addition, it is obvious that all theatres could not make the change at the same time. Many theatres are in financial difficulties, and many of those that are not may not find it convenient to make the necessary expenditure. Accordingly, introduction of the proposed aperture would extend over a considerable period of time during which much confusion and many poorly projected pictures would result. Partial Change Impossible In the case of those theatres that could not afford to make a complete change immediately, they could, of course, install the proposed aperture; but in that case the picture would spill over upon the masking. If they persisted in using the present standard aperture, while the cinematographers were taking advantage of the enlarged photographic area by allowing their actors to approach closer to the limits of the ground-glass in their view-finder, such theatres would be cutting off more of the heads and feet than ever before. The Committee is unanimously opposed to the Academy proposal for the reasons given above. The American Projection Society also concurs in this action of the Committee. Furthermore, the proposed aperture would not accomplish the objective of the original S.M.P.E. proposal last Spring, namely, to provide the cinematographers with a hair-line as a danger signal, within the area enclosed by which they should keep their action. Even were a larger aperture accepted, such a danger signal would still be necessary. The Society's proposal remains the simplest, speediest, and least expensive method of avoiding edge-of-frame cutoff on the screen. On the other hand, the Academy's proposal is a major, extended, and costly matter. Accordingly, the Projection Practice Committee hereby reaffirms its original proposal and strongly urges its general adoption. Academy Reply to S.M.P.E. Recommendation REGARDING the divergence of technical opinion between the Academy and the S. M. P. E., Major Nathan Levinson, vice-chairman of tbe Academy Research Council, stated that the latter's original proposal of September 16, 1937, .... was distributed throughout the industry in an effort to obtain a coordination of technical opinion on the present aperture dimensions and the advisability of a revision .... at this time. "This memorandum," said Levinson, "did not 'recommend' an increase in the dimensions of the standard aperture, but merely 'proposed' a revision in the dimensions of the aperture for the purpose of obtaining the viewpoint of all technical authorities in the industry on the matter. . . Whether or not any re