Moving Picture World (Jan-Feb 1927)

550 MOVING PICTURE WORLD February 19, 1927 ctur ways es An Array of Facts to Focus On If You're Interested In the Theatre and Your Eyesight HEN is a motion picture theatre too dark? • Guy A. Henry, of the Eyesight Conservation Council of America, says it is too dark all of the time, and he is urging a scientific investigation to determine just how dark a theatre should be, to the end that a legal code may be adopted. Well, that’s what he’s here for. If his council did not function, there would be small use for his council. And, as usual, he finds the motion picture a fine target. Attack any phase of America’s most popular indoor sport and you are bound to attract more attention than if you went after something more constructive but less well advertised. Mr. Henry argues that “the human eye does not function to its best advantage in the dark or in looking at a fairly well illuminated object when the eye itself is surrounded by darkness.” We are at all fours with Mr. Henry on the first part of that proposition. The human eye does not function well in the dark. Now cats are a different matter, but the human eye is a complete flop when the lights go out. But for the latter half of the proposition we do not feel the same enthusiasm. Apparently it is all wrong to use eye shades, to use lamp shades that reflect light onto work.' Window shades are a scientific error and hat brims should be abolished. We have been walking in semi-darkness for quite a number of centuries, but now we are all wet, for to look at a motion picture in the partly darkened theatre is to “provide a coreal area which does not permit of focal accuracy,7 and this, in turn, “requires constant iris action more difficult of accomplishment than under normal dilation.” Gosh ! • For thirty years we have been a victim of abnormal focal area and we do not wear eyeglasses even yet. Back in the old days the “flicker” was annoying if you sat through more than three or four reels of film, but today it is possible to sit through two or three hours of steady run without experiencing much fatigue unless your eyes are badly out of repair. As a matter of fact, the trouble does not seem to arise from the dim illumination of the theatre but rather from the over-illumination of the screen. By E p e s W . Sargent Just at the present time we are going through a fad for “brilliant” pictures. Without particular regard for other conditions, the highest possible amount of juice is shot through the most highly reflective screen, and the result is not too dark a house, but too light a screen. The normal eye is not all embracing. It does not take in “all outdoors” at a single glance. It is focused upon a single object, and often the eye is so sharply focused that it does not take in even the entire screen. Such being the case, it does not seem plausible that the absence of light beyond the path of vision should have much to do with the matter, since the eye deals largely with the focal point. Of course, if the general surroundings are overlight, the picture on the screen will be dim, and therefore trying to the sight. This is one of the reasons for the overuse of high intensity lamps. They are trying to overcome the general house lighting. However, it would seem that a better result would be attained if the lighting were kept more nearly to normal. The other afternoon J. H. Hallberg repeated for the benefit of the students of the Publix School for Theatre Management an experiment which he had shown this writer a few days before. The visit of the class was made at our suggestion as the result of this experiment. Against a blank wall Mr. Hallberg pinned a sheet of white paper, a crushed glass surface and a patented metallic screen. These were overlapped so that all four surfaces were illuminated by the ray from his low intensity Reflector Arc Lamp. Inserting a paper cutter at the aperture to cut off a part of the beam, he manipulated this so that the shadow rested upon all four surfaces. By far the darkest shadow was cast upon the unprepared wall. The paper gave the next best definition and the patent screen the least of all. As Mr. Hallberg points out, a motion pio ture is no more than the contrast between black and white in its various gradations. It follows that the screen which gives the best shadow should give the best picture. The higher the reflecting surface of the screen, the greater the amount of light returned from the supposedly shadowed portions. In other words, on the patent screen, the black is not black but a thin gray. There is an absence of the contrasts which alone constitute the difference between good and poor photography. Moreover, the highly reflective surface is shooting back into the eyes of the spectator so much more of the light that the iris is closed almost to nothingness in order to shut out the unnecessary light. The writer has not seen Mr. Hallberg’s device tested out under actual exhibition conditions, but the office in which this display was made was more brightly illuminated than the average theatre, and yet the contrasts were present. In view of these facts, it would seem that Mr. Henry is arguing from the wrong angle, and we would suggest that a visit to Mr. Hallberg might prove as instructive to him as it did to the Publix class. It would seem reasonable to argue that the eye-strain of which Mr. Henry complains, and which he seeks to remedy by the usual ponderous legal means, might be solved by the acceptance of the proper facts. Beyond a certain point, light on the screen is a detriment rather than a help. The higher the reflective value of the screen,, the more excess light exists under a given power at the lamp. And the greater this reflected light, beyond a proper point, the poorer the picture. The highlights may be more brilliant, but the shadows will be thinner, and the resultant picture will be out of proportion in the relation of its lights and shades. This is not an advertisement for Mr. Hallberg’s lamp. F. H. Richardson’s approval carries far more weight in this direction than we possibly could bring to bear. We do not seek to advertise Mr. Hallberg or his goods, but he has been known since the infancy of the business as an expert on projection. His opinions carry far greater authority than those of a man who approaches the subject merely from the orchestra chair of a spectator, and since the demonstration seems so conclusive, it would seem no more than intelligent to relegate the “brilliant picture to obscurity and return to a more rational scheme of projection. It is evident that the too-brilliant picture is attracting the attention of the busybodiesWhy not cut it out before their activities become too pronounced !