International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1935)

The essential conditions for producing pictures in stereoscopic relief are two: first, separate pictures must be made from different points of view, corresponding to the two eyes; second, each eye of the observer must receive its appropriate view. No compromise with these fundamentals appears possible. DR. HERBERT E. IVES Bell Telephone Laboratories THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOVIES 'RE-INVENTED' BY LUMIERE RIGHT behind "television just around the corner" as a prolific source of hokum, buncombe or what have you is the topic of three-dimensional motion pictures. Driven to cover by the salvo of facts turned on them by the relatively few people who know something about television, the purveyors of hooey anent this baby art are timidly emerging from their hiding places and are once more giving three-dimensional pictures a whirl. Of course, these merchants of mush find it convenient — nay, necessary — to forget the technical progress of the motion picture art to date, and they dismiss contemptuously the laborious research work of men like Drs. Ives and Kanolt, if in fact they ever heard of them. And so it is that the technical press is once more wasting pounds of ink to saturate its pages with stories and photos of the "latest scientific miracle" — threedimensional motion pictures. During the week ending March 17 (may Erin's patron saint forgive them) practically every daily newspaper in the world carried a story which stated briefly that the venerable Louis Lumiere, after years of work in his Paris laboratories, had "solved" the problem of motion pictures in relief. What matter it to editors, Working feverishly to make a final edition, that details were lacking. Isn't Lumiere a name to conjure with in motion picture circles? Certainly. Anyhow, it concerned motion pictures, so let it ride! Thus, the linotypes clicked, the stereos hissed, and the presses roared, and a vast reading public possessing incredible digestive tracts soaked in the news that three-dimensional motion pictures were a fact. Of course, it might be all of three weeks before this latest cinema marvel was exposed to view at the Garden Theatre around the corner. but one could wait. What clever devils these motion picture technicians be. But, alas and alack, neither Louis B. Mayer, nor the eminent Irving Thalberg, nor Joe Schenck nor anybody within the majestic circle of Hollywood celluloid conveyors (we nearly said purveyors) batted an eyelash. Nor did the good Drs. Ives and Kanolt rush madly to the cable office. Why even the Academy forgot to issue a publicity release — and maybe you don't think that's something. Such conduct was reprehensible. Something must be done. Something was done. The publicity pluggers promptly shifted their fire to the semi-technical and fan magazines and thus unveiled their fantasies, this time in greater detail, before another few millions of readers. Some yarn, to be sure — except that it was almost entirely boloney. Details of 'Re-Invention An outstanding example of misguided journalistic fervor in this respect was on view in the science section of the New York Times for Sunday, March 17. Nicely packed around a 3-column halftone of the august Lumiere and his projection contrivance was the enthralling story of how he "solved" the problem of three-dimensional motion pictures. In 2,500 words, more or less, the Times technical editor disclosed to a palpitating audience of scientific neophytes the real low-down on this topic. Consider these choice "revelations" of the Lumiere process as reported in the newspaper with all the news fitted to print : "... As might be supposed, anaglyphic movies were experimentally produced in both Europe and America. Red and green pictures were projected. With red and green spectacles (obligingly provided by the management) you saw what seemed to be a black-and-white picture in sculptural relief. . . . "The brightest rays are the yellowish [11] green in the middle of the spectrum. At opposite ends of the spectrum lie the dull red and violet rays. Lumiere divides the spectrum in two, straight through the portion of maximum intensity. Left-eye pictures are made by all the rays that lie to the left of the dividing line, and right-eye pictures by the rays that lie to the right. The luminous intensity thus is equally distributed between the two eyes. "It follows that each eye sees not a pure color, but a mixture of colors running from yellowish-green to red on the one hand, and from yellowish-green to violet on the other. The problem presented is one for the dye chemist rather than for the mechanical inventor. But Lumiere knows his chemistry as well as his mechanics. "To separate the two sets of colored pictures, spectacles are worn which are coated with gelatine suitably tinted. The left eye looks through gelatine dyed with a complex mixture of napthol green, eosin (red) and tartrazin — which transmits only the rays that lie in the yellow-green-orange portion of the spectrum. "The right eye looks through a double gelatine coating. One gelatine is stained with a cyanol blue and the other with a sacchrine solution of diethylmetamidophenol. The rays that pass through are complementary to those seen by the right eye. "Will the public wear spectacles merely to see favorite actors in sculptural solidity? ..." The answer to the last line is a positive no; and a hell of a lot of people can't see them at all. From all of which we gather that Lumiere knows his chemistry as well as his mechanics — and about a million others know it equally well, at least well enough to have long since abandoned the idea of using analyzers to solve the problem of motion pictures in relief. We also gather that that which Lumiere has "invented" is that which has been known in the art for more {Continued on page 30)