International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1958)

From the British Viewpoint: On (phint (pJwbknu The British Kinematograph Society has "further ventilated" the print problem, and we think that certain shortcomings delineated will be familiar to projectionists on this side. By R. HOWARD CRICKS C OME MONTHS ago I discussed the ** view widely held here, that prints of many American films shown in this country are of inferior quality. At two recent meetings of the British Kinematograph Society the matter has been further ventilated, and it is a problem which American producers should seriously consider. At the first of these meetings, my old friend Bert Ellis, print manager of Associated British-Pathe, told us that while most prints of British films are struck from the original negative, overseas producers generally send over a fine-grain print only. F. E. Juett of George Humphries, Ltd., one of our leading laboratories, said that as a result of complaints over many years he is now receiving satisfactory facilities. But it seems to be a fact that, because of the peculiar customs regulations which I previously mentioned, the lab always has to work from a married print. Now a married print can be quite acceptable as a master if it is struck from the original negatives (both picture and sound) and specially processed. But a married print made from dupe negatives and processed as a release print is quite unsatisfactory. The extra cost in duty of sending over separate picture and sound negatives, as compared with a single positive, would be somewhere about $1000. Isn't it worth that expenditure to ensure perfect prints, not only for this country but for the whole of the European release, which is generally printed here? Dark Prints Another vexing problem discussed at the second of the above mentioned meetings was print density. I don't suppose the general run of American motion picture theatres are much better than our own shows in regard to consistency of screen brightness; our circuit theatres are invariably well up in the range permitted by the British standard (which is practically the same as yours), but among the smaller independents screen brightnesses of a very low level are to be found. The studio and lab people rightly ask: how is it possible to provide prints that will satisfy on the one hand the small theatre equipped with modern arc lamps which are run full out and produce a blaze of illumination; and on the other hand the large but ill-equipped theatre where the brightness measures only a very few foot-lamberts? A factor in this problem is the liking of the cameraman for low-key scenes. A number of projectionists condemned such camera work as "artycrafty" and demanded newsreel quality in their prints. But at last month's meeting one of our leading cameramen, Erwin Hillier, who photographed "Dam Busters," defended the low-key scene. This particular film contained many night sequences; he did not see why a film should be ruined because so many cinemas are badly equipped. The release print was, we learned, standardized only after lengthy tests in which Mr. Hillier co-operated with the laboratory and the print manager. Films for TV From the point of view of the artistic, creator Erwin Hillier is of course right. But I wonder whether a little more compromise is not possible, in view of the fact that most exhibitors just can't afford to re-equip . to bring their theatres up to standard. An aspect of this question which is becoming of increasing importance is the effect of such prints when transmitted on television. I used to think that an essential feature of any television receiver was DC restoration, which by locking the black level to the base of the sync pulses (or in your case I suppose to the peak of the pulses), assures that brightness of the picture on the screen shall be correctly related to the transmitted signals. But most sets today are made without this refinement, with the result that a night scene, instead of appearing black, is just grey, with poor definition. Picture steadiness in TV films has also been receiving attention. Any sign of picture jump will immediately brand a programme as having been filmed; picture jump is much more noticeable on the TV screen than on the cinema screen, because of the unpleasant effect produced by interaction of the TV raster, picture jump, and lines which are nearly horizontal. This defect is especially difficult to avoid with the 16-mm film. Pat Vinten (whose father founded the wellknown camera firm where I spent the first years of my business career) recently discussed problems of picture registration on 16-mm, and left us wondering how a reasonably steady picture could ever be produced from the narrow-gauge film. Chiefly for this reason, 16-mm is rarely used for either of our TV services. But knowing how widely it is used in the States, I have wondered how you overcome this trouble. Picture Definition Yet another subject discussed by the BKS was picture sharpness. Prints, it was generally agreed, are improving in this respect, but, quite apart from the projectionist who has not learned the delicate art of focusing, there are many factors giving rise to lack of focus on the screen. We were interested to learn from Nick Mole, one of whose jobs is handling technical complaints from the public for one of our two major cir INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST JANUARY 1958