International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1946)

Acetate vs. Nitrate Issue Revived THE immediate general replacement of nitrate film by acetate stock in the professional motion picture field has suddenly become a topic of "burning" interest to the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America, according to a statement by President Ed Kuykendall in the current MPTOA Bulletin. Citing the extensive use of both 35-mm and 16-mm "safety" film by the Armed Forces during the past four years, the exhibitor leader paints a glowing picture of the benefits that would accrue to the industry — production, distribution and exhibition— through the prompt introduction of acetate film. (The Kuykendall statement is printed in full on this page.) Of particular interest to the projectionist craft is; that portion of the statement which, hedged about by considerable wordage, is widely regarded as the real target of the MPTOA. Witness: "The argument for an extra projectionist (who has nothing to do) as a 'full safety crew' vanishes into thin air with the use of non-flammable film." Thus is the cat let out of the exhibitor bag. Parenthetically, current industry rumor has it that acetate film topic was suggested to Eric Johnston, new producer association president, as a "hot" angle that would insure a "good press." Whatever, if any, basis in fact exists for this report, the "angle" served Mr. Kuydendall very well indeed, since his release scored heavily in terms of lineage in the trade and general press. Incidentally, not a single trade paper essayed the task of examining carefully and commenting upon the merit or lack Acetate Film Now, Demands MPTOA Head Statement by Ed Kuykendall, President of MPTOA, in recent Bulletin WfOULDN'T this be a good time for the industry to swing over to acetate cellulose or non-flammable film? I am told tremendous quantities of this film, both 16-mm and 35-mm, were made and used extensively during the war by the Army and Navy. It is now just as cheap, durable and quite as efficient as the flammable nitro-cellulose film now used in theatres, and requires no change in projectors or cameras. And you can't burn it with a match. It reduces the fire hazard of film to an exact zero. We are about to embark on a great theatrebuilding program, replacing obsolete theatres with new, modern structures and building many additional theatres. Millions of dollars can be saved, better theatres can be designed, shorter throw between projector and screen to give a better picture with less light can be provided, if we do not have to build heavy fireproof projection booths, which are required solely because we use flammable film. The argument for an extra projectionist (who has nothing to do) as a "full safety crew" vanishes into thin air with the use of nonflammable film. And the distributors will save plenty, too. In addition to removing the risk to life and limb of employes handling film, there would be no more need for expensive fireproof film vaults, elaborate sprinkler systems, or the heavy steel shipping cases required by the I.C.C. for flammable film. Now would seem to be an opportune time to start using acetate film on all prints; then in a year or so the inflammable ones will be out of circulation, so that the industry can make a continuous saving of millions of dollars every year in its operating expenses. Maybe by then we will need the economy. of it of the Kuydendall proposal, thus the industry was left high and dry for a means of evaluation. I. P. purposes that its readers shall not be left in this position. Extremely interesting is the statement issued by Eastman Kodak Company relative to the comparative merits of nitrate and acetate film. This statement by one of the world's foremost research organizations— which, incidentally, assuredly views the matter with strict objectivity since they make both types of stock — is in sharp conflict with the Kuykendall Eastman Position Anent Acetate Film TN VIEW of the numerous, and sometimes inaccurate, articles which have recently appeared on the subject of Safety motion picture film, the Eastman Kodak Co. has authorized the following statement covering their own position: Following years of research and development, the quality of motion picture Safety film, particularly with respect to its ability to stand up under theatre projection, has constantly improved. The Eastman 35-mm Safety film used in large quantities by all governmental agencies during the war performed 'satisfactorily under the conditions under which it was used. This included regular theatre projection but, generally speaking, the length of run to which these prints were subjected was considerably shorter than that for normal nitrate prints. Numerous tests of Safety film, both (standard and experimental, have been made by Eastman in recent years in their own laboratories and under trade conditions. Such tests will continue. So far, however, both laboratory and trade tests have shown that the best Safety film is not equal in wearing quality to nitrate. Any attempt to generally replace nitrate film with the present Safety would inevitably result in substantially increased print damage and much higher print costs to the industry. No experience to date has indicated that Safety base can be produced as cheaply as nitrate. When and if a completely satisfactory Safety base can be made and sold in quantities comparable to the present output of nitrate, the price might be lower than the present 1.25-cent price of current Safety positive, but there is no present prospect that it could reach the low price level of nitrate film. The outlook for the eventual transition of the industry to Safety film continues to be hopeful. Improvements, however, are still essential and certainly no specific date for a possible shift to Safety base can be set at this time. premise. (See Eastman statement herein.) Considering the MPTOA contentions seriatum: true, the Armed Forces did use enormous quantities of acetate film, both 35-mm and 16-mm, during the war, much of which was devoted to regular theatre projection in cantonments. It is also true that acetate stock requires no change in either projectors or cameras. But these facts do not sustain the Kuykendall view anent the cheapness, durability and efficiency of the acetate base. Acetate film has inferior mechanical properties as compared with the nitrate base. Eastman points out that the Army and Navy acetate prints were satisfactory "under the conditions under which they were used," being subjected to "considerably shorter" runs than are normal nitrate release prints. The substitution of acetate film at this time, continues Eastman, would "inevitably result in substantially increased print damage and much higher costs to the industry." (Italics ours.) No improvement has been made in acetate stock in recent years which would enable it to equal the projection performance of nitrate prints. By the use of special cellulose derivatives, such as mixed esters with certain solvent combinations, the mechanical properties of the resultant acetate base would be improved to a point where it would approach the production performance of nitrate film. However, competent authorities rate the projection performance of even this improved acetate at about 60% of that {Continued on page 27) FEBRUARY 1946 IS