Motion Picture Herald (Jul-Sep 1953)

MOTION MARTIN QUIGLEY, Editor-in-chief and Publisher V ol. 192, No. I PICTURE HERALD MARTIN QUIGLEY, JR., Editor July 4, 1953 3-D Projection Simplification A N important step in assuring the continuance of 3-D motion pictures would be the simplification of the A projection procedure. By now persons in the industry — and many of the patrons — understand that to provide a true stereo picture it is necessary to present two images — one for the left eye and one for the right — for fusion in the brain of the spectator. When the Natural Vision system was being prepared it was decided wisely that as little change in standard booth practices as possible would be proposed. This explains the use of standard projectors, interlocked, and large film reels. That same 3-D projection system was used in the 1951 Festival of Britain and at the New York World’s Fair of 1939 and 1940. It may be found that the use of interlocked standard projectors will continue to be the best method for large theatres. However, for small theatres a simplification seems desirable. Synchronization frame by frame, in fact virtually sprocket hole by sprocket hole, is required for satisfactory 3-D screen effects. In addition, the two projectors must be properly lined up, their lenses must be matched and the light of each must be of the same intensity. Such standards are realizable in practice only through close supervision of good quality equipment in perfect operating condition. One human error in threading a machine may spoil the whole 3-D illusion. The obvious solution, at least for small theatres where the problem of obtaining sufficient light on the screen is not as great as in big theatres, may be to put both the left and right eye images on one 35mm film. A number of such systems have been demonstrated and suggested during the past twenty years. Industry attention in the United States has been drawn to such single strip systems by the recent showings of the Nord system, the announcement of a Norling system and by other tests. THERE are a limited number of ways in which the two images can be placed on a single 35mm film, although at least a dozen variations have been proposed. Images can be put side by side. This results in an unsatisfactory image ratio with the height greater than the width. (This is the system used by Bofex for 16mm 3-D home movies.) The images can be put one above the other, either compressed to occupy together the approximate area of a standard 35mm picture or each of them can be almost as large as the standard frame. In these cases a double lens or a beam-splitter must be employed to project the images simultaneously. Systems which project the two images alternately have resulted in objectionable eye strain. Another method of locating the two images on one frame consists of rotating the images 90°, i.e., lengthwise side by side on the 35mm. Through an optical system these images are twisted to normal in projection. In a special category is the Polaroid vectograph film method which has the two images on opposide sides of the same 35mm film. This method would eliminate the need for Polaroid filters at the projector. Spectators for all these methods must wear viewers. The whole problem deserves the attention of research experts within the industry. If a practical method of 3-D projection simplification can be worked out and standardized, even for thousands of theatres with a seating capacity under 1,500 seats, it should be done quickly m h b €J The way is now open for the development of a theatre television network. The Federal Communications Commission has approved the compromise suggested by the industry in which the licensed common carriers will be authorized to provide the transmission facilities needed for a theatre television network service. Under the FCC order of June 25 common carriers transmitting exclusive theatre television programs may use frequencies currently alloted to them or to other common carriers. The Commission will pass separately on the merits of each application. The report correctly noted that theatre television “will continue to expand or not, depending upon public acceptance and support.” a i b 4] Congressmen interested in the effectiveness of the State Department’s film program abroad might attempt to evaluate the impact of the program through the eyes of the peoples abroad who are supposed to be influenced. The latest of many disquieting reports about the film program is a report April 29 in The Statesman, Calcutta newspaper. That paper quoted a debate on film matters in New Delhi of the Council of State. Included were statements by one member that “he did not want the import of foreign information films” and by another member who “asked the Government to learn from Soviet Russia” about propaganda film policy. IJ Observers who have had an opportunity to compare the effectiveness of the test reels for CinemaScope in a large theatre with results obtained in the 20th Century-Fox home office screening room have been impressed by the adaptability of the process to small theatres. On account of reduced proportions of the room in relation to the size of the screen, the visual effects are even more striking than in a very large theatre. The 20th Century-Fox Little Theatre seats 200 and the CinemaScope screen used is 32 feet by 12 feet. — Martin Quigley, Jr.