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.

50 W. A. MUELLER AND M. RETTINGER Vol 45, No. 1 connected to this electrical equipment by means of a flexible goose; neck. Unfortunately it was standard motion picture practice at that time to photograph the long-shot, the medium-shot, and the close-up simultaneously from several different cameras each housed in a separate booth to prevent the camera noise from disturbing the recorded sound. This procedure frequently showed the microphone in the long-shot, and it became almost an art in itself to hide the unit unobtrusively among the props of the set. In fact, one of the essential talents of a good mixer was his ability to place the microphone so that it would not be visible in the picture but would yet record the dialogue naturally and intelligibly. This, of course, was a serious problem. Concealment of the unit in a vase, inside clocks, ash-trays, or underneath lamp shades frequently resulted in no little damage to the recorded sound because of sound shadows, cavity resonances, and other undesirable conditions created by these stealthy microphone locations. Still, many lines so recorded were surprisingly good — not equal to the best of today perhaps, yet clear enough so as not to detract the listener's attention or to tax his ears unduly. It may be well at this point to look at the condenser microphone itself a little more closely. Its chief impediment was the noise produced in it by moisture condensation. This condition could bring forth in it the most exasperating crackle of fire — as if a miniature hell had broken loose in it, with the result that every one was tormented accordingly. To relieve this condition the microphone, when not in use, was usually kept in a desiccator filled with calcium chloride to absorb the moisture from the little spit-fire. Again time marched on. By and by condenser microphones were constructed which were quieter and more trustworthy in their behavior. Also, the microphonic vacuum tube became less microphonic, and before long a heavy type of boom, practicable if primitive, made its appearance on the stage floor of many of the studios. Thus disappeared the many wires and ropes which had been used to suspend the microphone or amplifier, or both, and had reminded one of the strings in a marionette theater, and with them went many a sigh of relief, heaved by the mixer as well as the "grips" and "juicers," not to forget the cameraman. We have spoken several times of a mixer, taking it for granted that everyone knows what the word means. Technically, the word really has two meanings. So far we have used it only to denote the man who listens to spoken lines over a set of headphones to gain a peremptory