International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1957)

International PROJECTIONIST R. A. ENTRACHT, Publisher ROBERT C. MacLEOD, Editor R. A. MITCHELL, Contributing Editor Volume 32 AUGUST 1957 Number 8 Index and Monthly Chat 5 For a Brighter, Flickerless Picture 7 Robert A. Mitchell Television and Motion Pictures 10 Allan Lytel New Non-Magnetic Sandpaper Holder for Splices. . 12 Some Methods for Solving Focus Drift Problems. . 13 Joseph Holt Super Cinex Improvements 14 Clarence Ashcraft Telecasts 16 Ernernann "Anterior Gates" 17 In The Spotlight 20 News and Views from District 2 22 Hank Boldizsar Projectionist License Exam Questions 23 Floating Screen Considered for All Todd-AO 70-mm Shows? 24 Personal Notes 25 Projection Clinic 26 Letters to the Editor 27 New Products for the Industry 28 Obituaries 28 Book Review 29 Miscellaneous Items — News Notes — Technical Hints INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST, published monthly by the International Projectionist Publishing Co., Inc., 19 West 44 Street, New York 36, R. A. Entracht, President. Telephone: MUrray Hill 2-2948. Subscription Representatives: AUSTRALIA— McGills, 183 Elizabeth St., Melbourne; NEW ZEALAND— Te Aro Book Depot, Ltd., 64 Courtnay Place, Wellington; ENGLAND and ELSEWHERE— Wm. Dawson & Sons, Ltd., Macklin St., London, W. C. 2. Subscription Rates: United States and U. S. Possessions, $2.50 per year (12 issues) and $4.00 for two years (24 issues). Canada and Foreign countries: $3.00 per year and $5.00 for two years. Changes of address should be submitted four weeks in advance of publication date to insure receipt of current issue. Entered as second-class matter February 8, 1932, at the Post Office ot New York, N. Y., under the act of March 3, 1879. INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST assumes no responsibility for personal opinions appearing in signed articles, or for unsolicited articles. Entire contents copyrighted 1957 by INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST PUBLISHING CO., INC. D420 Wlonihhj Ch** The Lost Audience Albert Sidlinger, the researcher, has made an honorable reputation as a compiler of statistics concerning the motion picture industry. These statistics, by and large, have tended to lean to the bright side, but that is Mr. Sidlinger's business — and it must be admitted that all those neat compilations of figures looked formidably solid enough to convince even the most skeptic. You can't argue with figures. Or can you? Recently the Sidlinger office clashed with the Alfred Politz media studies (being surrounded by researchers is just a facet of this era) with regard to motion picture theatre attendance. Unbiased Politz maintains that during a certain week in February 23,600,000 patrons attended a motion picture. Unbiased Sidlinger just as stoutly maintains that Politz did not take into account: multiple admissions: children's admissions; drive-in admissions; free admissions. (And people like us who are authentic, inveterate movie-goers but who just happened to be sick that week.) His figure is 34,396,000. These figures are impressively and carefully based on a breakdown of age, sex, annual household income, metropolitan versus non-metropolitan areas, and geographic regions. All very complete, or so it would seem. But we would like to propose a task for Mr. Sidlinger's well-equipped organization. We take no sides, except that of being in the technical country of this industry. But being there, we have seen the advent — or the onslaught — of technical innovation after technical innovation tumbling in on top of each other. Some of these have become casualties, happily so. Some have stayed on through novelty value, but inevitably are doomed. Some probably are here to stay because of excellent technological research and development. And some have been foisted upon us by a small group of dictatorial no-talents who decide what the movie-going public wants sheerly on the basis that they want it that Avay. Now these new processes have been born out of many things ranging from an honest attempt to improve the industry to hysterical desperation. But between the introduction of sound and the arrival of TV, this was perhaps the only major industry in the world that turned its back on research and development. Imagine what your automobile would be like today if Detroit had felt the same way in 1929! And so here we are looking for the lost audience. But it seems to us that the researchers have missed one important survey: has anyone bothered to ask the moviegoing public just what it wants? Being fairly close to projectionists, we know that there is as much diversity about new processes versus old, sound, projection techniques, etc., as there are personalities. But nobody took a survey of projectionists, who for a time looked dangerously like the whipping boys in the new deals. It isn't a lost audience. It's just unasked. So let us put aside for the time being age, sex, annual household income, geographic regions, et al. and ask the public what it thinks of the new processes. The answer might turn out to be something simple, like good pictures. INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST AUGUST 1957