International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1957)

This month's discourse by our overseas projection expert telis how British technicians beat the problem of film mutilation, plus a description of the introduction of Technirama. From the British Viewpoint By R. Howard Cricks, FBKS, FRPS IN EVERY country in the world where there are cinemas, print condition has always been a source of worry to the conscientious projectionist. You may be interested to know how we have combated the trouble in Britain. In the years before the war the position was really serious. The projectionist who wanted to put over a firstclass show had to reckon on spending several hours at the rewind bench before the films were fit to show. I can claim to have made some contribution towards improving things by a campaign which I ran month in and month out in the Ideal Kinema. But in general, the trade was rather indifferent towards it. During the war, both the patriotic aspect and the high cost of replacing damaged prints effected some improvement In projection for the Army, which was my chief wartime interest, we were able to give effective training, and print damage was a matter of military discipline. There are three aspects to this question of print condition. First is the care which a renter takes of his prints. Second, the damage caused in the cinema by faulty equipment. Third and most vital, is the efficiency of the projectionist. Print Damage Committee Practically every cinema has installed new projection equipment since the war, and the quality of modern machines rules out faulty equipment as a cause of film damage. Biggest factor in improving matters has perhaps been the formation by the Kinematograph Renters' Society (the allpowerful association of the film exchanges) of the Print Damage Advisory Committee. Under the chairmanship of the former assistant secretary of the KRS, this committee included representatives of every interested section of the trade: the exhibitors' association, the circuits, the projectionists' union, the manufac turers, the laboratories, with myself included as a representative of the Ideal Kinema. Our object was education, not coercion. However, first one or two of the exchanges had to mend their ways. It was established, for instance, that some print managers refused (generally on higher orders) to have their first-run copies waxed; it was laid down by the committee that, no matter what other processes might mave been used such as the Peerless process, waxing was still necessary, and today it is universal. The only argument nowadays is how much wax is needed. We also brought about some improvement in the matter of print examination between bookings. Unfortunately, the direct cross-over (when a print travels from one cinema to another, without being returned to the exchange) is still an obvious difficulty. Another problem is shortage of time; many prints arrive at the depot and are shipped out again within a matter of an hour or so. The answer is of course more copies — but copies cost money. The cooperation of other organiza CRAFTSMEN ABROAD This month our personality from England is Sydney Swingler, chief engineer of Circuits Management Association, a member of the Rank coterie. Swingler started his career as a projectionist with the late Oscar Deutsch, Sydney Swingler founder of the Odeon circuit. Nowadays Swingler has over 500 theatres in his charge, and it is said that his memory is so prodigious that he can remember every detail of each. tions in the industry was sought. The Film Laboratory Association disciplined some of their members who were rather lax in regard to changeover cues on prints; with a big-hearted gesture they acceded to the request of the projectionists that all splices should have a %-inch overlap, although this entailed the alteration of most of their splicers, and notwithstanding the fact that they themselves were not convinced that the narrow splice was unsatisfactory. In spite of the improvement in the standard of cue dots, there were many projectionists who preferred their own private form of cues. I have seen illustrations of identical cue marks in IP, indicating the one-track minds of such offenders. The British Kinematograph Society (our SMPTE) and the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association cooperated in arranging a number of lectures to projectionists, at which they were given technical information on many subjects, notably cue dots and safety base. The Kinematograph Manufacturers' Association followed up one or two complaints ( in fairness it must be said of a very trivial nature ) relating to projection equipment. In those days the exchanges sent out films in 1000-ft. reels, which practically every projectionist doubled up in order to project them as 20-minute reels. When a pair of reels was spliced together a couple of frames were lost, and again when they were broken down for return to the exchange — and not every splice was perfect. The British Standards Institution prepared standard specifications (Nos. 1492:1948 and 1587:1949) for a 2000-ft. film reel and a corresponding spool, 15 inches in diameter. Notwithstanding the heavy cost of scrapping all their 1000-ft. cans and transit cases, exchanges cooperated in doing so, and today only a few old films distributed by the smaller exchanges are still despatched in small reels. This fact alone has resulted in a very considerable reduction in mutilation. Major Causes of Print Damage In studying the question of print damage in the cinema, the Print Damage Advisory Committee first studied the matter statistically. A form was prepared on which the print manager of each exchange reported on any damage. These forms were summarized, INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST JUNE 1957 15