Motion Picture Herald (Jan-Feb 1939)

COMMENT ON PROJECTION AFFAIRS and answers to inquiries . . . By f. h. richardson TRUE THEN, TRUE NOWBETTER PROJECTION PAYS" EXAMINATION OF files of Better Theatres will disclose the fact that for years it featured the slogan "Better Projection Pays" in its projection department. If memory serves me correctly, it also was featured in the projection department of the old Moving Picture World before that publication was consolidated with Motion Picture Herald. In days now hidden by the mists of years, when our great industry was in process of formation, the value of expert work in projection was but little understood, even by the men engaged therein. That one who was able to trim an arc lamp in some fashion, splice a film (usually in some pretty awful fashion), thread a film into a projector mechanism somewhere near properly and attend to a few other chores, was declared to be a "moving picture machine operator." The only examination to which he was subjected concerned the amount of monetary reward demanded. Years upon years of heart-breaking patient, persistent work were required to alter this set-up to any appreciable degree. As a battle cry, so to speak, the slogan "Better Projection Pays" was hit upon (though not by me). Its value was immediately recognized and we proceeded to popularize it by constant use in the projection department. Unquestionably it did much to direct attention to the value of projection excellence for the reason that the eyes of exhibitors and theatre managers are in the very nature of things, focused upon box office income, hence when it was assumed that expert work in projection affected box office income favorably, those eyes were switched to that possibility with a jerk that, I believe, was fairly painful. "Better Projection Pays" is not mere play upon words. It is true statement of fact, as is made evident the moment its effect be studied over a period of time. Accordingly, it is just as apt today as ever it was. THE REVISED SMPE PROJECTION ROOM PLAN at the fall meeting of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers the Projection Practice Committee turned in a voluminous report in which the entire projection room lay-out, as approved in its 1935 report, was overhauled and many changes and refinements suggested. In general the work may be regarded as excellent, except that many of the smaller theatres may regard it as too expensive for them to adopt as a whole. As a member of the committee, I raised this point in objection. However, while its truth was conceded, the majority held that the committee should put forward plans and specifications that might be regarded as ideal; that those feeling unable to follow them in their entirety might at least use them as a guide. Perhaps my colleagues are right. I cannot feel certain. Upon one point I must, however, strongly disagree. Though it is my earnest wish to be able to concur in the majority opinion, this I find myself unable to do when I regard that opinion in collision with the best results at the screen. I have for 25 years or more advocated a semi-dark projection room, with all light sources hidden completely from view, with all light coming from the rear of the room and with a dark color or even a black front wall. In search of the correctness of my position from the optical viewpoint, I have sought advice from several eminent opticians, every one of whom agreed that such a condition would afford a much better of view of the screen, except when the face of the observer be almost in contact with the observation port cover glass. Yet the committee has adopted a lighting recommendation that will flood the whole room, including the front wall, with light, as well as place within full view bright spots of light at each light source which, we must all agree, will tend to contract the pupil of the eyes and thus reduce keenness of vision of the distant screen. I most emphatically disagree with that recommendation. It means a nice, bright room to work in, but with lack of critically keen definition upon the screen. In all but lighting I heartily concur in the committees' recommendations. The report as a whole comprises 15 pages, with several informative diagrams. It may be obtained from the SMPE, Hotel Pennsylvania, New York City. However, here are a few items that I have selected more or less at random. Minimum height floor to ceiling, 8 FLOOfZ. PLAN Functional diagram of revised SMPE projection room layout for two projectors. See accompanying discussion. BETTER PROJECTION PAYS 26 Better Theatres