International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1951)

estimates even put the figure at 50%). This percentage, moreover, is rising as the advantages and methods of using films become better known. "For 1951 Tv will use an estimated 300 to 350 million feet of film. Most of this will be black-and-white, 16-mm motion picture film; the rest 35-mm." Discussing the usefulness of film in television, the article states: "Film enables producers to make some programs . . . that would be next to impossible to do 'live.' . . . Again, film can be slowly and carefully edited — 'on the air' pressure is absent. There are no 'flubbed' lines. Special effects, like animated cartoons, can be created. "Films can be used repeatedly. In this way the cost of a show can be spread out over more air time and more sponsors. Larger audiences can be reached — a film show can be projected at the best time for advertising regardless of time zones. Interestingly, a number of producers are already shooting Tv films in color. These are printed on black-and-white film for screening now. But, when needed, they'll be ready for use again on color telecasts." Tv Greater Threat to Mags News and picture magazines which are prematurely burying the motion picture industry as a victim of television are more likely to supply the corpse, Allied's general counsel, A. F. Myers, warned. Myers had reference to a recent story in Life magazine, based upon a survey in which interviewers were shown agreed that Tv will kill off the movies. "Weekly news magazines, like Life and its stablemate Time, have a lot more to fear from Tv than the movies," said Myers, reminding that "Tv's great contribution is the instantaneous transmission of important and interesting events by sight and sound. As an art medium, even as an entertainment medium, Tv has limitations which cannot be overcome. It can never be more than a parlor peep show or animated billboard. But as a medium for the instantaneous depiction of great events, it has no rival." Marconi's Famous 'Why?" Hitherto unpublished correspondence of Guglielmo Marconi has been incorporated in a new booklet written by Orrin E. Dunlap, Jr., vice president of RCA. Unfolded here is story of Marconi's yearning to learn the mysterious cause of the great invention he fathered. "Indeed, the 'why' of radio continually challenged Marconi," Mr. Dunlap writes. "After a night of vigil in long-distance test of wireless between the English Channel and Australia, he turned to a friend on board the Elettra (Marconi's yacht) and with a perplexed expression remarked: " 'There is one thing I would like to know hefore I die — why this thing works!'" To the Editor of IP: I have read the articles on "The Magic of Color," by Robert A. Mitchell, with great interest. There is one point in Mr. Mitchell's treatment of the subject which I should like to correct — namely, where he refers to me as "inventor" of Technicolor. Actually, the Technicolor process was not invented by any one man but by a group of men; and no doubt Mr. Mitchell intended to convey that I was one of the group of which I have functioned as Director and General Manager from the outset. Herbert T. Kalmus President, Technicolor Motion Picture Corp. To the Editor of IP: I read with great interest the article on film damage in IP for July ("SevenYear Survey of Film Print Damage," p. 12) and I am wondering whether similar surveys have been made covering 35-mm film. Film exchanges keep booking records, but they do not seem to tabulate the number of runs during a single booking, a figure that would be needed in any accurate evaluation of film life. From time to time replacement footage is inserted in features of recent release, particularly the so-called big pictures, but the data on such replacements, other than that required to order the footage from the laboratory, is sketchy. I believe that it would be interesting to have such information on 35-mm film recorded and published. L. F. Adams Beverly Hills, California [Inquiries by IP reveal that no such data in the form outlined by Mr. Adams is available. Such a project would certainly be very much worth-while, particularly in view of the present critical shortage of film stock. IP is exploring the topic further and hopes to be able to present such data in the near future.— Ed.] To the Editor of IP: I am extremely interested in your excellent magazine which is contributing highly thought-provoking articles in the field of motion picture and sound projection. Unfortunately, we here do not enjoy the many facilities available to your people — magazines, books, laboratories, etc. I have received your magazine for the past three years, but we have missed many fine articles in past issues which are now unavailable. I am particularly interested in data on drive transmission and on sound picture equipment circuits. Shortly I shall send to you the prospectus of our course. M. Ram Murthy Instructor, Sound Dept., S. I. Occupational Institute, Bangalore, South India To the Editor of IP: Will you please kindly teach us the competent authorities for motion picture theater projectionists as followed in the United States? In Japan, the Ministry of Labour and the fire-brigade are both the competent authorities in such matters. Also, we should like it very much if you could send us samples of the questions asked in the United States. Toshio Miyamoto Manager, Shinkoiwa Theatre, Tokyo, Japan [Every possible assistance will be rendered to these advocates of better projection in foreign lands. It would seem that the examination of projectionists in Japan does not differ in the main from the pattern established in the U. S. A. Here are two standout examples of people who are thirsty for information, so readily available, that we in America so blithely gloss over or, worse, ignore. — Ed.] To the Editor of IP: Having resurfaced hundreds of motion picture screens, I have become convinced that the weakest link in the projection chain is the screen itself. Deterioration takes place slowly, insidiously, and is often not noticeable to the exhibitor and the projectionist who view the surface daily. Checking screen efficiency is a simple matter: go on stage and switch on the footlights or the border lights; if such lights are not available, use a 150-watt flood or spotlight. Take a freshly laundered handkerchief and hold it against the screen. The contrast is amazing! A new screen is, of course, the best solution. But lacking this, resurfacing, which is 90% effective, is the answer. A simple process, resurfacing can be done by anybody — provided a special paint properly compounded is used. A diffusive-type paint and a highly reflective surface are "musts." Our product, Arctic Blanch, can be applied successfully by anyone familiar with the operation of a spray-gun. Use 40 pounds pressure, which is enough to go through the sound perforations without occasioning clogging. A large majority of screens are in a 20 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST September 1951