International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1954)

ITTERS TO THE EDIT liiiiiiiiiii iiii A Caustic Complaint from the West Coast To the Editor of IP: After receiving the June issue of IP, I was amazed at your lack of knowledge on stereophonic sound and wide, curved screens. First, let us analyze the situation. You say, "One down — Much More to Go," "3-D is Dead!" Why? Who killed it? Who helped kill it? 3-D will never die. When CinemaScope came along, a lot of us projectionists were against it for technical reasons as you seem to be. We didn't believe that this process could produce a picture of adequate quality. However, I take definite issue with you on the question of stereophonic sound. That's another horse, and there you are dead wrong. Where do you get your information? Surely not from the West Coast. You make a statement that magnetic sound is not as good as optical. This is ridiculous. You have never heard optical sound go to the range that magnetic sound does. Of course magnetic sound is sharper and crisper! It's bound to be. When presented properly it makes optical reproduction sound like the old Edison Gramaphone. If you want to talk about stereo sound, let's get the facts straight. Then you denounce the curved screen. Why? And the metallic-surface screen! Why? You go on to say that a manufacturer of lamps suggests using 135 amperes to obtain 15 foot-lamberts at the center of a white matte screen. This also is ridiculous. We are burning 78 amperes using water jackets with 9-mm black positive carbons and 8-mm negatives in a Peerless Magnarc. Our results, checked by the Motion Picture Research Council, showed 45 foot-lamberts on the center of a Bodde metallic screen, so you cannot sell me on your test. Who made it? By the way, our screen is 45 feet by 24^2 feet, making your comparison seem even more foolish. Harold T. Goldstein Chief Projectionist, Phil Isley Theatres, Los Angeles Editor's reply: Thank you very much for giving us permission to publish your interesting letter. As you already know, we have been predicting the demise of 3-D for a long time, feeling that binocular pix had been accorded fatal handling in production and distribution. We also felt that most of the boys who do the experimenting took the day off when 3-D came knocking at their door. Yes, we were all set to crow "we told you so" when your letter arrived to inform us that "3-D will never die." Apparently, this process lives on in spirit even though no significant 3-D features are in production. Aluminum Screens So you don't care much for CinemaScope? We've had doubts about it ourselves, but the very things that bothered us you seem to like — magnetic sound from narrow tracks and curved, aluminum screens. We have also found plenty of fault with anamorphic lenses in the past, though we are happy to report that the newer ones are quite an improvement. You say your optical sound resembles Edison's first attempt. Well, perhaps you should come to the East Coast to hear an optical track played on top-notch, high-fidelity sound equipment which represents the criterion of expected quality back here. Hollywood can be proud of us Easterners for having exhibitors, projectionists, and sound service engineers who know tlieir business. Frankly, we are concerned about your terrible optical sound. Are you sure that your equipment is in good running order? Optical sound easily attains 10,000 cycles of undistorted signal with either the older 1-mil or the later 1^-mil scanning beams, which is anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 cycles higher than modern theatre speakers are designed to reproduce. Except in very unusual cases, nothing over 9,000 cycles ever reaches the ears of a motion-picture audience from the screen, no matter what type of soundtrack is played. In regard to your special questions, we'll play the same old record over again. We condemn curved screens because (1) they produce unequal amounts of perspective distortion for observers in the side seats, and (2) they distort the picture very badly for all patrons except those in the highest balcony seats when a moderate or large projection angle exists. It was explained by Robert A. Mitchell on page 8 of the May issue of IP why this distortion, intolerable from the ground floor, cannot be seen from the projection room (where the audience isn't). On the same page of IP you will also find a diagram of this curved-screen distortion. Disapprove Aluminum Screens We strongly disapprove of aluminum surface screens in all but long, narrow theatres because : ( 1 ) They produce an excessively bright picture for patrons seated in the middle of the auditorium and an excessively dim picture for patrons seated in the downfront side seats; (2) they reveal every tiny wrinkle in the screen by a blotchiness of the illumination; (3) they reveal seams as dark lines; (4) they exaggerate pictorial contrasts in the deeper pictorial tones while masking the fine detail in the highlights, and (5) they usually impart a grainy appearance to the picture for patrons seated close to the screen. Some of these defects are minimized in long, narrow theatres, in which aluminum screens enable relatively low-powered arc-lamps (such as yours) to be used. You have been so severe with us concerning the matter of arc lamps that we are forced to accuse you of neglecting your homework. If you will turn to page 11 of the June issue of IP, you will find out who made the tests on screen illumination that you object to. On that page is an advertisement of the Strong Electric Corp., an ad that contains the screen-light data you seek. You must have missed seeing it. The Strong test is quite factual, and not in the least misleading. This test proves that the Strong Super "135" lamp burning 135 amps, gives almost twice as much light as your water-cooled lamp burning uncoated positive carbons at 78 amps. It is possible for you to get more light at (Continued on page 30) INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST • AUGUST 1954 13