Motion Picture Herald (Nov-Dec 1934)

December 15, 1934 Motion Picture Herald 19 F. H. RICHARDSON'S COMMENT AND ANSWERS TO INQUIRIES MISSING CHANGEOVER CUES AND THE 2,000-FOOT REEL CHARLES S. EDWARDS of the Queen theatre in Pilot Point, Tex., tells of a trouble he and many, many others have, sending along a letter he had received from the film exchange. He says : "My Dear Friend Richardson: Attached find letter just received from our exchange. It is self explanatory and is in itself an admission of guilt in sending out films it knows have no changeover cues. I suggested to the exchange manager that the reason for their absence lies in the fact that the exchange permits operators to double up reels. I say 'operators' for the reason that that is vv'hat a man is, in my opinion, who would destroy cues. "It is extremely embarrassing to me, as well as to my projectionist, to have the screen go white. True, it could be avoided by pre-screening the pictures, but that costs money and is out of the question with us as we are just getting by as it is. "True, we could scratch in a changeover mark, but we know nothing looks worse than a lot of such marks affixed by 'operators.' If we affix a mark the next man wants his own, and soon it would be one sweet mess." I thoroughly agree with you in the matter of cue marks, but you seem to have the idea that I do not agree with doubling reels. In that you are in error. I believe thoroughly in the 2,000-foot reel, and regard it as very bad business that films are not delivered to theatres in 2,000-foot lengths, except of course newsreels and other short subjects. I recently talked with Mr. Gordon Mitchell, manager of the Research Council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who assures me the 2,000-foot reel is coming, and that in his opinion it will be here in the very near future. That, of course, will put a definite stop to the trouble. Meanwhile it is quite possible for your projectionist to avoid a white screen, although the method violates the "laws made an' pervided" in that it is necessary to open the upper magazine door. That is no novelty in projection practice, but is not to be approved of. During the first run the projectionist has paper and pencil handy. As the end of the reel is ap proached he watches the action closely, occasionally opening the magazine door to take a peek at the reel. Just before the film is run out, he makes the changeover, noting the precise action in the picture as he does so. For example, suppose that at the point of change an actor does some particular thing — raises hand to face, for instance. That act is recorded on the paper and is the changeover signal for that reel. I'm not saying this is a perfect method. I'm not saying it doesn't require close attention by the projectionist, but I am saying it can be done, and the danger of a white screen avoided. It so happens that every day hundreds of careful, wide-awake projectionists make their changeovers exactly that way when cues are missing. As to the missing cues, theoretically we could dam up the Mississippi river. Practically we cannot do it. In theory we can stop doubling reels. In practice we cannot do it until we have larger reels, for more than one reason. First (especially in oneman projection rooms), the average projectionist resents receiving film on 1,000foot reels and proceeds to double up. Secondly, many exhibitors and managers insist that the reels be doubled, presumably to provide additional time for the projectionist to attend to other duties than threading up projectors. I have not condemned reel doubling. Other Articles In addition to the material on this page, Mr. Richrdson's columns of this issue also contain: As a Worker Sees Conditions Page 20 Diagnosing Raspy Reproduction Page 21 Rearranging Gear Trains Page 22 A Message from New Zealand Page 23 New Type of Film Splicer Page 24 Where Should Rewinding Be Done Page 24 Eliminating Vibration Page 24 Taken in the Right Spirit Page 25 Film or Projector Fault? Page 26 though I deplore the condition that causes it. I believe firmly in the larger reel — the 2,000-footer, if you please, as that seems to have the favor of the Projection Practice Committee of the S. M. P. E. and of the majority of projectionists. Holhnvood is endeavoring to ascertain just what is best, and what particular type of reel will best serve the needs of the heavier strain involved in protecting 2,000-foot film rolls. Until the 2,000-foot reel arrives there is but one possible way in which the missing cues may be replaced, and that is by having exchanges add a replacement strip to the end of each reel just as soon as a certain number of frames are cut off. That is no tremendous item of either expense or bother, provided the exchange, knowing what will inevitably happen, orders a supply of film-ends containing the proper action. Half a dozen 2-foot lengths would probably see any reel through its normal life of bookings, or very nearly so, and until the 2,000-foot reel arrives it would seem good practice for producers to supply them for the proper reels of each production shipped out to exchanges. I'm assuredly not approving of cutting out frames. I am dealing with things as they are, with full knowledge that until the larger reel comes they can't and won't be much changed. I am rather excusing a practice of which I certainly do not approve because of the fact that I hold the 1,000-foot projection reel to be the worse evil of the two. LACQUERING SOUND TRACK SPLICES PROJECTIOXIST R. S. Slagle of Marion, Ohio, sends some splices for examination. It seems he and his coworker, H. J. Seekle, entered a protest concerning the failure of the exchange to lacquer properly splices at the sound track, only to receive a reply to the effect that some special process was employed by the exchange making lacquering unnecessary. Mr. Slagle sends a total of seven splices