International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1958)

International PROJECTIONIST R. A. ENTRACHT, Publisher ROBERT C. MacLEOD, Editor R. A. MITCHELL, Contributing Editor Volume 33 MARCH, 1958 No. 3 Index and Monthly Chat 3 Loudspeaker Characteristics and Sound Quality . . 5 Robert A. Mitchell New Negative Coating Step Improves Motion Pictures 8 Basic Projection Problems are Uncovered by Research Council Survey 11 Professional 16-mm Projection 14 Joseph Holt Projection Clinic 15 In The Spotlight 16 IA Elections 17 Book Review 17 National's New 110-160 Amp Arclamp with Jet-Shaped Arc, Dual Mirror 18 Audio-Visual 19 Century's New Projector Mechanism 20 Letters to the Editor 20 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, Canada, and U. S. Possessions, $3.00 per year (12 issues) and $5.00 for two years (24 issues). Foreign countries: $4.00 per year and $7.00 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 at 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 1958 by INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST PUBLISHING CO., INC. .■420 monthly Ch<*t Toll-TV? Why Not? The eminent David Sarnoff, board chairman of RCA, stated flatly before a Congressional committee that toll-TV would kill what he described as "free" TV. With this statement we agree absolutely, desiring only to add that in our view it would also kill toll-TV. It is for precisely this reason that IP, probably alone within the ranks of those on our side of the fence — the talent and craft guilds, and certainly the unions — is a rabid enthusiast in behalf of toll-TV. Anybody watching a feature movie on "free" TV these days must necessarily be nauseated by the presentation technique; and if toll-TV were introduced the requisite of a charge against the subscriber would inevitably and quickly chase people right out of their homes in quest of other entertainment, most likely the motion picture theatre. Apropos these notions, there is appended hereto a recent commentary by the radio-TV critic for the Scripps Howard newspapers, Miss Harriet Van Home, widely known and highly esteemed for her penetrating critiques. Under the apt heading, "What if TV Had To Roll Its Own?" Miss Van Home wrote: As one who roams the channels after dark, searching for buried treasure, I was pleased to read that the major film companies have declined to release their post-1948 productions to television. I say, bully for the film companies! I only wish they'd made this decision a long time ago, and set the date at 1938. If television did not have this cheap and easy access to old movies it might, of necessity, apply some ingenuity to developing live, inexpensive programs to fill the late hours. In consequence of this, the public might even develop a taste for plain, honest sessions of talk or music or instruction. I firmly believe that there must be millions of people who would prefer a lively lecture on bee-keeping (or old armor or the habits of earthworms) to another showing of "Andy Hardy Meets a Debutante." When I see a movie, I like to see it in a movie house, dark, hushed and insulated from reality. When I watch television I like to watch live, breathing people. They can sit around on boxes and discuss life, art, rock 'n' roll or the weather. They can play the piano or do magic tricks. My point is that such programs could be produced for a few hundred dollars. And oh, what a noble service they would be rendering ! I have another grievance against movies on television. You can't get involved with the characters and their conflicts. There are many reasons for this. The size of the home screen, the countless interruptions for commercials, the ringing of the telephone (yours and mine), the impulse to tidy the living room during the dull spots, and the fact that you are watching in your own busy, familiar home. Rarely does a TV film take you out of yourself and into its own special world. Rarely, after watching a movie on television, does the viewer long to discuss it with others. It's out of sight and out of mind, just like that. So complete is one's absorption in a theatre, however, that it's sometimes a jolt to find that the picture is over — and it's out into the streets again, with real life giving us a mean stare. A witty Englishman named Paul Jennings has suggested that the cinema makers ought to take advantage of the happy, dream state induced by two or three hours before the giant screens. Every movie house exit, he says, ought to lead to a rehabilitation {Continued on page 26) INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST • MARCH 1958