Movie Makers (Jan-Dec 1931)

529 MOVIE MAKERS The film price myth CARL L. OSWALD HAT'S wrong with film prices? Nothing! Nevertheless, the first stirrings of interest on the part of a prospective amateur cinematographer are all too often killed forever by the thoughtless comment, "Oh, yes, it's great fun, a marvelous avocation, splendid for visualizing today's activities in terms of tomorrow's recollections and all that — but, the film is too costly!" This is written because the author believes that the ghost of "high film prices" should be laid for all time, haunting, as it now does, the background of the entire field of personal movies and affecting the logical expansion of the amateur movie industry as a purveyor of pleasure and profit to that constantly increasing number of persons who now realize its value but who also fear its alleged cost. It is generally contended by manufacturers and admitted by users that film for the "still" or snapshot camera is not only relatively inexpensive but, in view of the tangible and intangible values accruing to practitioners of photography, is really cheap in price. Nor is there any disposition here to dispute that statement. Rather, there is the intention to agree unreservedly that, value for value, both tangible and intangible, photography as a whole is the least expensive avocation or hobby as well as one of the most satisfying in which an individual can indulge. The inclusion of amateur cinematography in the foregoing is a corollary which is substantiated by the facts — these facts, in turn, having apparently suffered, up to now, by their not having been pointed out. Here you will find no impassioned plea for cinematic art as opposed to the beauties caught and translated by still photographic processes; I address myself, rather, to the solution of the hitherto (so far as I am aware) undiscussed question, "Where do we find the great difference in price between still pictures and 16mm. sequences of action?" To analyze the problem, we must consider its constituents — in this case film, developing and printing for the snapshooter; film and developing for the amateur cinematographer. In still photography, the film is purchased separately; developing and printing charges are made at time of delivery. In cinematography, the cost of the film includes developing cost and further expenditure is seldom needed, as practically all dealers provide means of transportation to and from the nearest finishing station without additional charge. When such transportation is paid by the consumer, the mailing charge averages eight cents for a hundred foot roll; return postage is always paid by the finishing station. For this analysis, we will confine the comparison to relative areas of sensitive material, as nearly as the two forms will permit and, further, will consider the present type of "chrome" films used for still photography as compared with Popular impressions of movie film cost attacked by expert the panchromatic film now regularly supplied to the world's 16mm. amateur movie makers. In still photography, a popular size is the "postcard" which measures three and a quarter by five and a half inches. Film for this size is supplied to give ten pictures, the actual film area of the negative being one hundred seventy eight and three quarters square inches. In amateur cinematography, four feet of film is generally considered to be sufficient for the average action record; therefore, twelve shots, or approximately the fifty foot cine roll, may be considered a fair basis of comparison. The actual picture area (exclusive of sprocket hole edges) of fifty feet of 16mm. film is two hundred twelve and a half square inches, this figure being based on an effective picture width of nine millimeters. Thus, on this basis, the actual increase in useful picture area in the case of the cine film is about twenty percent; the increase in the number of action shots over still shots is exactly twenty percent. So much for material costs per area. Quite evidently, we do not find a great price difference here. Now, let us compare shot by shot. A ten exposure roll of three and a quarter inches by five and a half inches "chrome" type film (including developing and printing) costs the user two dollars and fifteen cents or twenty one and a half cents a print. Cine film costs six cents a foot. We consider four feet of action sufficient for average cine scenes. If the user shoots more for a scene, it is because of carelessness or because he considers the subject worthy of more footage. With a still camera, similar carelessness or desire to get a complete record are not unknown factors in film consumption. Consequently, we again reach an even footing in which each still shot costs twenty one and a half cents and each movie shot twenty four cents. This difference of two and a half cents a shot, if it covered no additional values whatever, is a very small price to pay for the highly accurate additional work on cine film, such as perforating, placing on light tight spools, etc., and does not seem a sufficiently formidable obstacle to deter even the most timid from begin ning personal cine work at once if the bugbear of film cost has held him back. But there is more for the amateur in that two and a half cents. The "chrome" type of film, now being chiefly supplied for still cameras, is designed to give wide latitude of exposure and unquestionably delivers highly satisfactory and pleasing results. For the movie amateur, however, the film makers have provided an [Continued on page 565]