Moving Picture World (Nov-Dec 1923)

170 MOVING PICTURE WORLD November 3, 1923 (Continued from ['age 16S) feet wide by 15 high; two Power 6B projectors with standard motor equipment, but with Grippo carbon jaws; two Kollmorgen “Snaplite” projection lenses, 5.75 inch E. P. ; condenser, 6% collector. 7% converging; carbons, Columbia % cored positive, 7-16 Silvertip negative; available current supply, 90 to 100 amperes, from Martin converter; minimum distance face converging lens to aperture, 10 inches; maximum distance face of converging lens to aperture, 18% inches; projection lens free diameter, 1 9-16 inches; projection lens working distance, 4 inches. It is my earnest desire to project as nearly a perfect picture as may be upon the screen — not to be the barnyard mechanic who merely works for a set wage, to whom ability to “get by” and continue to draw that wage is the sum total of everything. Any suggestions regarding improvement will be gratefully received. I suppose you need no introduction to our Chief Projectionist. Charles A. Dentlebeck, to whom 1 shall forward your reply when received. I have not yet met him, but from what I have read and heard of him he must be a roung peg in a round hole, which is all any of us may hope to be. In closing let me earnestly wish every future success for the World Projection Department. No, I certainly do not need any introduction to Dentlebeck, whom I saw last week at the meeting of the S. M. P. E. in Toronto. He wanted friend daughter and me to drive to Toronto and visit the Dentlebeck wigwam, but time would not permit. He is all you think he is, but for two years past he has had a “boil” which caused the round peg, normally fitting the hole snugly, to fit “not so good.” The boil is now, I am more than glad to say, removed, root and branch, so Charlie again is 100 per cent. Chief Projectionist for the Canadian Paramount — more power to him ! First of all the crater impressions were well made and show that you are carrying your crater at least at a fairly efficient angle. You should, unless you aready have done so, study “Crater Angle,” pages 405 to 412, inclusive, of the Bluebook, and apply the information on page 408 so that you may always know that you have your crater exactly at the right angle. Possibly you have already done so. Inasmuch as all your crater impressions are about the same, it is quite likely you have. Mirror Screen Efficient In the first place, your auditorium is one in which a satin finish mirror screen would be enormously efficient, except for a few of the front side seats. With that screen the patrons seated in the rear seats would be able to see every detail of the picture and you could reduce your amperage by at least one-third and still have a far brighter picture than you now have. Mirror screens are costly, yes, but were that theatre mine I certainly would have one. Failing in that you should have a highly reflecting type of screen, and a Crystal Bead would give excellent results in such a theatre. Your craters average 7-16 inch in horizontal diameter. You may tell both your manager and Dentlebeck that the projection lenses you have are totally and entirely unsuited to the work they are TRYING to do. It is worse than foolish to keep such lenses. They are enormously inefficient when used with the ordinary condenser, horizontal diameter and, looking in the 6)4 Your craters are 36-64ths of an inch in 6)4 column, we find that in order to get the minimum distance from crater to lens for this amperage we would have to have a distance of 11 inches from face of converging lens to aperture, under which condition chart B shows us that even a 2^-inch free diameter would not pick up all the beam. That, therefore, is “out” — impossible. Turning Around Turning the thing around we find that your lens would not pick up all the beam even with the face of the converging lens 21 inches from the aperture. The thing is so atrociously bad that I hesitate to sug \ gest any compromise. The only right thing to do is to throw your present optical system into the discard, though it is possible you might use a Cinephor condenser with your present projection lenses. I have submitted your case to Griffith and he says : “Cinephor condensers would be very good in this case. Working distance 4 — 2—2 inches; Y distance 13—2=11 inches. Use 6)4 piano convex collector and a Parabolic converging lens (Cinephor consists of a piano convex and a Parabolic lens. — Ed.). Crater distance will be approximately 3)4 inches and the spot 3-64ths of an inch greater in diameter than for ordinary condenser, because the crater is 1 -64th of an inch greater than chart size. You thus see that in this case Cinephor makes a bad condition good.” Correct! Before I had consulted Griffith I had forgotten the fact that Cinephor in effect reduces the projection lens working distance. Griffith is a wizard at doping out these things, which is the natural result of concentrating on just one thing for a long while. From Toronto From Harry T. Dodson, Toronto, Ontario, comes the following: First and foremost, here is one perfectly good dollar, for which send me a copy of the new lens chart; also accept my support, thoug'h darned late, for the adoption of the name “Projection Room” as against the proposed “Projector Room.” Tou express surprise at the laxness of the various locals in not indorsing the name “Projection Room” as a body. Well, Brother Richardson, I am not! I think that after a local has been formed and has run along smoothly for a certain time, it gets to feeling that WE are about the best there is, or ever was. OUR conditions and OUR results are equal to all the others — and better than most of them, and you can’t stir up pride, ambition or much of anything else in them. They just slide along year aftqr year, with an increasing scale each year, giving exactly the same old results for the increased money. This does not apply to the entire membership of most locals, but to the great majority, and you very well know it does. The discouraging thing is that the few men who do study and try to give maximum results at minimum cost to the exhibitor don’t get any more pay than the slide-along dub. He does not even get any credit for his hard work and endeavor. Friend Manager says; “If you're not satisfied with the scale I can get plenty who are,” and that’s that ! Who Gets the Credit? There may be two theatres running within a block of each other. One does a good business and the other a poor one. The first has A1 projection, in all that entails. The other has a punk screen result. WHO GETS THE CREDIT IN THE PAYING HOUSE??? The projectionist? Ye gods, no!! It is the popular manager, the won-der-ful orchestra and the be-yu-ti-ful house! That is the whole story, and the man who puts on what the people really pay to see at 100 per cent, value gets — well, maybe a little credit, but not much. I know your answer, Rich. It is “classify the men” — but it can't be did. because the majority vote counts and the great majority is class Z, so it is promptly voted down. I’m going to write every time I see anything iq the department you want a discussion on. Maybe it will at least induce some one else to write, if only to show me what a sap I am, and how darned little I know, and we will thus learn something anyhow. By the way, can you tell me who used that little green handbook of yours — the vest pocket one? I remember getting one from the Laemmle Film Exchange, in Winnipeg, in 1907, I think it was. Everyone I met said the N. Power Company was the only one who put them out. Everyone Wrong Then everyone was wrong. They were put out by about every film exchange and projector manufacturer in existence at that time. I sold 80,000 of them, as I remember it, but not all had the green cover. As to the locals, what you say is exactly true, and it is a condition which demands drastic treatment, because it is a condition which works injury to the industry itself. To date, though, every one but my ’umble self seems afraid to tackle it. I would not feel so keenly about it did it not result, in practice, in keeping many competent, high-class men out of the union, hence out of work, until the union DUBS (oh yes, there is such a thing alright, and he is a numerous species, too), as well as the competent union men, are all at work. I have neither liking nor respect for the DUB, union or otherwise. By “Dub” I mean the incompetent, shiftless or lazy man, who will not deliver the best there is in him, and make every possible effort to improve. I came very near visiting Toronto October 6, on my way back home from the S. M. P. E. meeting. Daughter .and I talked it over and concluded the path was too long and the time too short. It meant about four hundred miles added driving. Glad to hear from you any time, brother Dobson. Backs Us Up Local Union No. 433, I. A., Rock Island and Moline, 111., through its Educational Department, writes . as follows : Dear Sir and Brother: This is to advise you that Local 433 is behind you in your endeavor to advance the PROJECTIONIST (capitals by the writer of the letter) to his proper position in the industry. Now that the summer is over, the school has started again, and the boys will have something to argue about after the show. This semester we are equipping the school with projection apparatus, and will put into actual practice that which we learn at the time we learn it, thus avoiding a whole raft of blackboard work and a (deleted) of a lot of examinations — maybe. You may say: why can’t each man put into practice that which he learns from the Blue book on his own equipment? Probably he can, but we believe that when we all get together and work together, the results will be more satisfactory: also by swapping ideas I think more will be learned than by one man studying a book alone. No matter hpw well the book may explain a thing there is always the chance of getting the wrong slant, but when several are together, studying the same thing, with the actual equipment before them, it is a combination hard to beat. Probably it will interest you to know that this local will order the new lens chart for each of its members, every one of whom owns a Bluebook already. Attached find our action on the Projection Room matter. The letter, which is on the stationary of and under the seal of local union 433. I. A., reads : Dear Sir and Brother: This is to certify that this organization endorses the term “PROJECTION ROOM” as the correct term to be used, and condemns the use of “Booth” or any other term than “Projection Room” to designate the enclosure housing motion picture projectors and other equipment used in a theatre showing motion pictures. If agreeable, please place this communication before the Society of Motion Picture Engineers. SEAL K. T. SIMPSON, Secretary. It is indeed good to know that at least one educational department of a local union has been able to withstand the test of time, and is still doing business after an extended period of existence. I thoroughly agree that much more can be learned, and learned much better, by a group of men studying together than is possible by an individual studying alone. The equipment will help, too, if used intelligently. As to your endorsement of the term “Projection Room,” it will be placed before the S. M. P. E. at its next meeting. Warning When endorsing the name projection room, always make a separate letter of it. DON’T stick your endorsement in the body of a letter dealing with other matters.