Moving Picture World (Jul-Sep 1911)

THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 621 Projection Department Edited by F. H. RICHARDSON Follows Our Idea. — For some time past the editor of this department has been calling attention to the fact that with thoroughly fireproof walls, semi-automatic fire shutters over the holes in the operating room wall and an ample vent flue from the operating room ceiling, the fire danger problem would be entirely solved, so far as concerned the audience. It is with pleasure we have just learned that the authorities of New York have realized that the vent flue plan is feasible and sensible and have recommended the passage of such a regulation. That there will be much objection on the part of exhibitors goes without saying, but it is a thing which should be put through nevertheless. The complaint will be voiced that the plan cannot be followel out in a large percentage of the houses, but while this may be true in isolatel cases, it is not true in very "many, though it would doubtless to some extent mar the beauty of the house. However, let us ask why it is that in those theaters where such a vent could be installed with the utmost ease it has not been done. In a very large percentage of even the one-story building motion picture houses, where the installation of such a vent would involve merely the cutting of a hole through the roof and installing a properly hooded pipe, nothing of the kind is found. Such a vent, supplemented by proper walls and shutters, would not only eliminate absolutely all fire danger, so far as anything outside the operating room be concerned, but it would also add largely to the comfort of the operator in hot weather. Let me' add, however, that this cannot be accomplished by a dinky little six inch pipe. One and onehalf square inches of vent flue area to each square foot of floor area, with a minimum of of 150 square inches, and a maximum of about 360 square inches, will serve the purpose. I have said, and I repeat, that with such an operating room one can burn a reel of film, or half a dozen of them for that matter, and the audience absolutely be none the wiser. One trouble has been, however, that operating room walls have been of altogether too flimsy construction. Considering the added factor of durability, stability and safety; brick, hollow tile or concrete walls are not at all prohibitive in the matter of expense. Many an exhibitor has constructed an asbestos "booth" at a cost fully equal to, or even exceeding the cost of really good walls of concrete or brick. We fully realize that there is a certain advantage in having the lighter form of construction in some instances, also that the asbestos room is more readily removable. We do not agree, however, that such makeshifts ought to be allowed to continue. The motion picture business is gradually settling down to a solid, substantial basis and the future construction of motion picture theaters, including their operating rooms, should be of a permanent, lasting character. I have in mind right now one really beautiful house recently erected, here in New York City, at a probable cost of close to $100,000 in which the operating "room" is a little crowded-up affair about six by eight feet, the walls of wire lath and plaster on light metal studding. This joke is hoisted up on stilts, or hung from the ceiling, I forget which, and one must climb into it through a hole in the floor reached by a ladder. This "room" is jammed right up against the roof, but there is absolutely no opening of any sort from it to the open air. Can idiocy go further? There is ample space and the room could just as well have been made twice, or even four times its present size. It contains two machines. We do not by any manner of means wish to harass exhibitors or cause them a penny of needless expense. Far from it. We do, however, want to get them divorced from the idea that any old thing that they can manage to get by the inspectors is good enough for the operating room. We desire, in place of that mistaken idea to bring them to the realization of the fact that the operating room is; after all, the one most important department about a motion picture theater. It is a hard task, but our efforts are not being wasted. Gradually there is tendency to attach greater importance to the operating room, what it contains and the quality of what comes from it. Double Spot Remedy. — New York City writes: "Further experimenting has shown me that the 'double spot' at the aperture is the result of one condenser lens being out of center with the other. Perhaps you or a brother operator have noticed that when putting the lenses in their mount one will go in quite easily while the other will have to be forced in with considerable pressure. This shows the lens which goes in hard to be higher, thus bringing its center above that of the other one. The result is a double spot." I grant that the lenses being out of center may cause the double spot effect, but the fact that one goes in hard and another easy is not proof positive that the lenses are out of center. If you have a 7j/> and a 6^ lens it is quite possible that the thicker lens will go in harder than the thinner; speaking of mounts of the square, box type. It does not follow that they are necessarily out of center, however. Nevertheless the point is worthy of attention by operators troubled with double spot and we thank you for calling attention to it, New York. Come again! the latch spring is always out for men with ideas. Sensible Letter. — New York (name of town suppressed) writes: "Have been reading the World for a month and like it very much. What is price of the handbook? Am operating a Standard machine and use D. C, generated by a small single cylinder gasoline engine run by the proprietor of the theater. When everything is running well (not always the case, however) I get forty amperes at sixty volts pressure. Have a rheostat built for 40 amperes at 60 volts, which has half the resistance cut out and it gets just warm, not hot. My picture is 15 ft.; throw 85 ft. When the light is good I have a fine show, but I have to work pretty hard to keep a clear, white picture. When light is thrown on screen with no film in it, it jumps in waves about twice a second. This is not noticeable when film is running, but as voltage drops nearly one-half at each 'wave' it is some task to put up good projection. Often the voltage drops so much that if I separate the carbons more than eighth of an inch I loose the arc. I run two four-reel shows each evening have an assistant to rewind and nice outfit to work with. I start all reels in frame and shut off light before a tail-piece is dragged onto the screen or the white light is flashed on the curtain. I inspect my reels, taking out all mis-frames and bad patches, so that show will run smooth. Have given sixty-four performances since opening, June 27th, and only had film break on me twice. Keep machine perfectly clean and in perfect order. Have flickerless picture, no jump and no side motion with good film. Have had two years in the business, most of it running a machine. Have as good a show, from every standpoint, as I have seen to date, barring fact that light is not what I could wish at times, due to bad current, as before stated. The admission is ten cents and we play to capacity (700) every night, all educated, well-to-do people, which proves that I am delivering the goods. We have the finest house in the Catskill mountains. I receive $15 per week, out of which . I pay $8 back to the proprietor for board. They seem to think they are paying me too much. In fact, when I came they told me they would not pay $15 for operating alone and I would have to help with the other work, which I am doing. I think the position is worth $20 at least. What do you think about it? I would like to get with someone with a good outfit this winter, who would be willing to pay for good service. Am a painter by trade, 19 years of age, but have decided to stick to moving pictures if I can make a living at it, but must have $15 or $20 a week. Being under 21 must stay up State awhile yet. What union can I join? To whom can I write concerning same? The seven dollars (and board) I now get does me, but it's too cheap a job for me." I have given space to this letter for the reason that it comes from a young man who, while he is being taken advantage of, does not resort to abuse, but sets forth his case plainly and sensibly. Here is an exhibitor who, if the letter is correct, is not doing less than seventy dollars a night in business* presumably at a comparatively light rental cost for bu'ilding. He employs an operator at fifteen dollars a week, assuring him it is too much unless he does other work and then charges him eight dollars a week for board. Evidently, while he thinks operating isn't worth much, board is no cheap thing in his estimation! Probably the proprietor justifies himself with the shop-worn argument that the oper