Moving Picture World (Oct-Dec 1913)

i4o8 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD From New Orleans. New Orleans, La., sets forth the following, in bright green ink: (a) Would a bent outside shutter give travel ghost? (bl Can one compensarc be used for two machines? If so, how would you connect urt^ (c) Can an arc be struck an the second lamp while operating one of them? (d) With a rotary converter where the current passes through a transformer and is stepped down to 60 volts, is any other resistance required between the converter and the arc? If not, how could you bring the carbons together and strike an arc without causing a dead short and blowing the fuses? (e) I have a g4-foot throw, using 40 amperes of 110 volt, 60 cycle current throug'h a Fort Wayne compensarc. Use two yj^ condensers. Was getting a fair light, but had to move my lamp (Edison 1913 model) as far back as possible, on the first show. After one and a half hours' run I reset the carbons, and found the spot was smaller, so had to slide the whole lamp, and lamp-house forward to get the proper spot. The next day I set the carbon holders forward as far as the lower one would permit. For two nights everything worked beautifully. I got a larger spot and moved the lamp-house further away from the aperture. This killed the ghost, which was always present in the center of the screen, but the third night things went back to the old condition and I had to move the lamp-house forward again to get the proper spot. The gate only misses the cone of the lamp-house 3/g of an inch when it is open, (f) Why is the Edison 1913 lamp not more stationary and solid? fg) Why does the lower wire terminal burn off more frequently than the upper? (a) No. But why have a bent shutter? Take it off and straighten it. (b) Yes, you can either connect the compensarc's secondary leads to the center poles of the D. P. D. T. switch, and one lamp to either end, or you can wire the two lamps in multiple, and steal the current from one to the other. To do this connect one secondary lead to one pole of one of the machine switches, and the other to the other pole. Now branch one of the leads to one of the poles of the other machine switch, and branch the other lead to the other pole. That is all there is to it. When you strike the carbons of one lamp the other lamp will go out, and vice versa, (c) No. (d) I do not understand what you mean when you say that "with a rotary converter where the current passes through a transformer and is stepped down to 60 volts," though probably you intend to convey the idea that the rotary converter has an a. c. input and d. c. output of 60 volts, the original a. c. voltage being reduced to 60 by a transformer, though why this should be I fail to understand. Yes, you would have to use resistance enough to bring the arc voltage down to somewhere between 45 and 55. probably about 48. If you had no resistance you would establish a dead short with the carbons, but that would be all right if the converter capacity was not greater than the capacity of your fuses; if it was there would be trouble. Ce) The size of the spot may be increased somewhat by shoving the lamp-house forward, but that is not the way to do it — move your lamp forward in the lamp-house — closer to the condensers. However, you say the lamp was as far forward as you could get it. If that was the fact, and your carbons were set in line with each other, then there is something radically wrong. Better take it up with the Edison Company, to whom I have sent your letter. Just what caused the difference in spot size I cannot say. of course, but it must have been some variation in the set of the carbons (f) I have not seen one of these lamps named, therefore do not know that they are or are not "stationary and solid." Let us hear from other operators. If anything is wrnng we will get after the Edison Company with a sharp stick and most likely can get it remedied, (g) Because ordinarily they are closer to the arc. but you have no business in allowing them to burn off at all. See the Handbook, second paragraph, page 200. absent, then the operator, whoever he was, will never be able to truthfully call himself a good operator, much less a high class one, for the man who only produces excellence when he is watched is — well, I'll leave it to yourselves, and to himself, to fill in the proper words. Now. Mr. Marcus Loew Operator Man. don't get sore at the editor. He only relates what he saw, and if what he saw is not to your credit, why that is no one's fault but your own. Saturday evening, November 15, I dropped into the Criterion Theater, Bedford Avenue and St. John's Place, Brooklyn, at 9:07 o'clock, while a Selig was in course of projection. The speed was much too fast. At 9:10 an Edison was started with its title threaded out of frame; also the light was in very poor adjustment, causing heavy shadow until it was adjusted — crude work. Mr. Operator man. No possible excuse for it. At 9:15, 9:16 and 9:18 there were shadows, the last one very bad. The manager spied me just then and spoke to the operator, probably putting him wise. Anyhow, the rest of the short time I remained things were noticeably better. Now Mr. Criterion Operator, it is not up to you to get angry at these criticisms. Not at all. But it very decidedly is up to you to improve your work to such an extent that such criticisms will be impossible. There is seldom or never a valid excuse for a shadow on the screen. Excessive speed the operator may not be altogether or at all to blame for, but shadows are something else again, and starting a picture out of frame, while it may have been all right four or five years ago, is crude to the point of rankness now. The same evening the editor dropped in, for a few moments, at the Fulton Auditorium, on Fulton Street, a little way south of Bedford Avenue. The light here was not as white and brilliant as at the Criterion, but it was somewhat more carefully handled, though an occasional slight shadow appeared. The speed here was better, also. But, taken as a whole, the work was not what could be termed high class. I suspect, also, that the operator knew I was in the house, though this may possibly be an error. Now please clearly understand that these criticisms are not made with any view of being unkind. I have often said that projection in this city is far from perfect. I am now simply relating precisely what I see, and pointing out exactly the faults which I observe in the projection. If the faults are not there they cannot be pointed out; if they are there they ought to be — and there you are. What I Saw. Saturday, November 15th, I paid ten cents for a ticket to the Loew Theater. Broadway and 41st Street, intent on seeing what Mr. Operator was doing in return for his salary. This is one of the has-been Broadway legitimate theaters, which, having passed under the control of Marcus Loew. is now devoted entirely to the silent players. The house seats approximately 2,100, and is apparently well managed. And right here let me say that the sixteen-foot picture is ample in size for this large house. It is surrounded by a very wide border of black. In fact, the entire proscenium opening, except for the actual screen, which is located at stage-floor level, is solid black. The effect is splendid. The picture overlaps on the back just a trifle. Whether the idea came from this department or not, it is precisely what it has advocated for this long, long time. The projector, a Power's Six A. was in excellent condition, as evidenced by the steadiness of the picture. The light was white and brilliant, but its handling could have been very considerably improved. Here is what I saw: I entered at 2:50 p.m., Friday, October 14th, The Pathe two-reel "General and His Children" was on. At 3:09 there was a bad shadow at bottom, and another at 3:12. At 3:20 the Vitagraph, "Sandy and Shorty at the Circus," was put on, with the title threaded out of frame. In this film, as well as in the former, there were misframes, though not many. This, however, is very crude work for a Broadway house of such high class to display. I was more than surprised that it was tolerated. The fault lies, presumably, with the exchange. The manager, however, is not blameless for accepting films in such condition. At 3:25 there was a bad shadow at the bottom and a slight raisframe. At 3:30 a Lubin came on with title threaded out of frame (crude work on part of operator) and during the running of this film there were four bad discolorations of the light, two at bottom, one on bottom and left and one at top, also when horses were galloping the speed was too slow, producing the well-known floating effect to some extent. The next film was threaded in frame, but the handling of the light was about the same. I do not know who was in charge of the projectors, but the work was, while fair, as New York projection goes, still far from being high class. It is not the kind of work which calls for a forty dollar salary — not by several good, long jumps. It was significant that when I showed the manager the record of the show, as above indicated, he said: "Umph! yes, the boys knew I was out — I just returned." Now if that is the fact, and the faults were in any measure due to knowledge on part of the operator that the manager was Boston Operators' "Schools" Rapped. Boston, Mass., forwards a clipping from a Boston daily paper, and says: As you will observe, someone has made a move against the operators' "schools" of this city. Boston is infested with these sharks (that is a hard word, but it is the only one which fits the case). One Boston evening paper carried ads from eight different "schools." If the victim lost only the $20 or so he pays for tuition it would not be so bad, but to lose this and the time he spends in school, and then, on top of all that, loaf around from two weeks to two months waiting for the promised "job." which does not materialize, is something else again. Many of those poor chaps can by no means afford such a loss. Do you not think it would be a good scheme for our union to use space in the daily papers setting forth the truth as regards the operator situation? The cost would not be large and it would, I should suppose, be very beneficial all around. From the clipping it seems that there have been a great many complaints coming in to the police lately concerning an alleged scheme to educate young men to handle moving picture machines — to make operators out of them. The complaints finally becoming so numerous, the district attorney placed the matter before the grand jury and secret indictments were returned. Some schools have already been prosecuted, though with what degree of success the clipping does not say. Some of the witnesses claimed they bad received but a few lessons, while others were sent to the State House to take the examinations, although they were not only incompetent but under the age limit, and known so to be by the men who sent them. As to the union paying for space to expose this swindle, it does not seem to me that ought to be necessary. I have not much sympathy with the boob who is such a double distilled A-i superfine brand that he is willing to put up real money on the promise to teach him a trade in two or three weeks. The man who is that "easy," would probably lose his money some other way if he did not get roped in on that particualr scheme. I believe, however, that it would be entirely feasible and practicable for the Boston Union, without much expense or trouble, to secure evidence and prosecute these alleged schools for obtaining money by false pretenses. It is to be hoped that the present move will be the means of putting some of these men in jail, where, in my humble judgment, they ought to be. Lens Size. Mr. P. M. Boothe, Davy, W. Va., writes: Wh3t focal length lens will it take to make a 14-foot picture on an 81 -foot throw? I wrote the company and they shipped me a lens that gave too large a picture, and informed me there were only three sizes of them. Why don't you send $2.50 to the Moving Picture World and get a Handbook, which will tell you all these things, as well as hundreds of others, the particular information you ask being contained on pages 356 to 363 inclusive. For your benefit I will say: with an inside calliper measure the precise width of the aperture of your machine, in fractions of an inch; multiply your throw, in feet, by the width of the aperture, in fractions of an inch, and divide that product by the width of the picture you want in feet, which in this instance is 14 feet. A six-inch e. f. lens will probably be about as near as you can get to it, but it is possible to get a great many different focal length lenses; they run in half sizes; that is to say, 2H. 3. 3V2, 4. etc.. up to, I think, 7 inches; beyond that size the lens becomes a special. Goes Us One Better. Mr. Ray E. Crockett. Bethel, Maine, replies to the "Puzzle," and says that a sheet of white paper or a piece of tin will reflect the light sufficiently for the purpose, therefore the mirror is not absolutely necessary.