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.
WHAT MAKES GOOD COMMERCIALS 325 clearness and quality on both small and large screens. It seems be- yond doubt that more receivers are used in private homes than in bars or other places where crowds gather, and a film made for the home screen should be satisfactory on the larger one. If the film is properly produced and the following faults are avoided it should be entirely satisfactory on all screens: small print running to edges of screen—often lost in "blown-up" picture receivers or through mis- adjustment of scanning circuits; long and involved sequences or messages which confuse the viewer; lack of contrast which tends to wash the picture out; very rapid scene changes, i.e., too many differ- ent scenes in a film; and long shots which show very little on most screens— large or small. Turning to the production side, the pros and cons of 16 mm versus 35 mm film have not yet been agreed on by all concerned. If the producer or agency has Hollywood background and outlook then in all probability he will insist on 35 mm stock at least for the original shooting. The argument is whether 16 mm or 35 mm stock for the original shooting gives better quality when used for printing 16 mm release prints. As far as the quality is concerned, 35 mm does give better pictures, but comparatively few stations are equipped to handle this for projection due to the extra cost and building regula- tions involved. Generally speaking, a better quality picture print will be obtained if the original is made on 35 mm stock. Sound and animation are not affected in any way by the choice of film, and when film is reduced to 16 mm the added costs are less than equiva- lent 35 mm prints. Of course, if the whole operation is cut very close to the bone the cheapest job can be done by using 16 mm all the way. A point which has not received sufficient attention to date is the quality of film—photographically speaking — which is released for television commercial use. Too few producers seem to be aware of the fact television's appeal lies in its immediacy, i.e., the fact that the action on the viewers' screen is actually happening at the studio thirty or forty miles away. If he is watching a live show and then a low-quality film is thrown at him, the change in quality of sound plus poor resolution, contrast, and shading, make him very aware