Journal of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers (1930-1949)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Aug., 1930] REPORT OP STANDARDS COMMITTEE 163 and a slightly lower magnification is to be preferred. Also, the amount of light flux passing through the film is already so great that only with difficulty could it be increased to meet the requirements of the larger screen. The ratio of width to height of the screen was discussed by the Committee at considerable length. It was felt that the best ratio depends upon the type of subject and that the old 4:3 ratio was not far from the best compromise. With the advent of sound films, the picture has become more nearly square, and it is quite generally agreed that this change was in the wrong direction. As the height of the screen can be increased only slightly in most theaters, any great increase in the size of the screen must be in the width. The Committee feels that the proper ratio can be determined only after comparative tests, and is arranging for a demonstration to which the producers will be invited. At the time of the January meeting of this Committee, it was apparent that the entire Standards Committee was too large to undertake the problem of wide film standardization. Consequently, a subcommittee was appointed consisting of Messrs. Batsel, Chairman, Davee, DeForest, Evans, Griffin, LaPorte, Spence, and Sponable. This committee has worked faithfully on the problem and has held no less than seven meetings since February 13th. Every possible phase of the subject has been examined exhaustively, with the result that it now appears that there is little to choose from an engineering standpoint between the present 65 and 70 mm. layouts. It is thought that the 65 mm. film would be somewhat improved if the margins between the exposed areas were increased, and the 70 mm. film would doubtless be improved by the use of five perforations per frame instead of four. As soon as it became apparent that the problem was no longer an engineering one, a second meeting of the entire committee was called on April 14th, which resulted in a resolution that the Chairman should interview the producers and acquaint them with the situation and propose that the producers agree to pool the cost of scrapping existing equipment where necessary in order that the industry may promptly arrive at a common standard for wide film. Pursuant to these instructions, the Chairman called on Mr. H. L. Clarke, G.T.E. — Fox; Mr. A. Zukor, Paramount-Famous-Lasky Corporation; Mr. H. M. Warner, Warner Bros.; and Mr. H. Brown, R.K.O. Mr. I,. P. Mayer is in California, and a letter has been di