The Moving picture world (January 1921-February 1921)

226 MOVING PICTURE WORLD January 8, 1921 good, and so it goes pretty much all down the line. And that is no meaningless "bull" either, but just plain statement of FACT. Is Really Funny Every once in a while we get a letter which is, in a way, good comedy, though its writer has evidently labored hard to make it personally insulting. To the credit of the profession they are few — maybe half a dozen in a year. Their tenor almost invariably is that the editor of the department knows nothing at all except what he has learned from projectionists. They seem to think it a crime to ask our readers to help the advancement of projection by themselves supplying the answer to anything that we do not ourselves know. They seem to imagine that unless the editor is an unfailing and bottomless mine of information on all the multitudinous ramifications of all the various subjects connected with both practical and theoretical projection, he is just a plain, simple fraud, with no right to a place in the moon, much less the sun. We think it entirely useless to argue with men holding such perverted ideas. They very evidently have not the slightest conception of the work of the editor of a department of this kind. They fail to grasp the simple fact that one of the fundamental functions of this department is to get men to study, and to understand the underlying principles of things, rather than to provide an answer to questions, which merely tell the inquirer the answer, without supplying any real knowledge of the why and wherefore of that answer. Suppose — Suppose, for instance, a man asks a question, the answer to which we may or may not know perfectly well. In any event we put the matter up to our readers. What is the result, as compared with just answering the question? Think a moment 1 If we answer the question, some thousands of projectionists in this and other lands will read the answer and— for the most part more or less promptly forget it. But if instead we ask our readers to supply the answer, is it not a fact that the AVERAGE man will be very much more interested in knowing what the answer may be? Is it not the fact that the thing is very much more apt to be discussed by groups of projectionists? Is it not the fact that some will make a real attempt to dig out the answer, if for no other reason than to be able to say they "beat Richardson to it?" Is it not the fact that many will have their curiosity excited to the extent that they will dig out the answer for themselves, who would otherwise in all human probability never have known it, and above all is it not a fact that under these conditions those who do dig out the answer will remember it for all time, whereas they would probably have forgotten it in a day if they merely read it in the department? And anyhow waddy y' think, we are an Encyclopedia Brittanica or sump'n? We lay claim to no extraordinary knowledge, though we certainly must know at least what is in the Handbook — don't you think? But new things arise almost daily, and as we have times almost without number said, that man does not live who knows it all about projection or anything else. He who claims to know it all had best keep a sharp eye out for the fool killer. One of the rare letters we have cited just came. It is from a chap in a western Canadian city. He made it as insulting as he was able to by the evident expenditure of considerable time and effort toward that laudable end. His plaint was that (a) we have learned all that we know from projectionists, (b) That we print a few of the complimentary things in letters concerning the department and Richardson. He hoped we would "have the courage to print" his literary effort (which we certainly would have done had he not been in a city the men of which we admire, and presumably also a member of a local in which we have the honor to hold honorary membership, and we do not care to bring discredit upon either the city or the local) and in the letter he spelled many words — and mis-speiled quite a few too. May we ask him by what right he presumes to send us a letter containing words he learned to spell from others ! The gall of him I Learning his spelling (some of it) from others and then using it to write to us with. He should head all his letters by a statement that the spelling, grammar, etc., was obtained from others. Piffle! As to printing a few of the complimentary things in letters, why, yes, we plead guilty. Make the most of it. If we printed anything like all of them you might have a real kick coming. But, Anyhow — But anyhow we hold such views as mostly comedy. We have referred to them thus mostly to let you see what queer ideas reach our desk. In closing let us say, once and for all, that the editor does NOT know it all. He does not know half of it all, nor yet a quarter of it all. The editor has learned much from those he has tried to help — the projectionists and operators; he expects to learn more. The projection department is, in its true sense, a CLEARING HOUSE OF PROJECTION KNOWLEDGE, and its main purpose is to help projectionists help each other, a minor function being the aid the editor is himself able to supply in the matter of information directly given. New Zealand Waking Up It is evident that, as a recent New Zealand correspondent said, New Zealand projectionists are fast awakening to the importance of study, and to the fact that there is much to be gained by keeping abreast with the times in the profession of projection. Before us is another letter from New Zealand, this time from Louis E. Read, who signs himself Chief Projectionist, Arcadia Theatre, Dannevirke, New Zealand. He says: Dear Mr. Richardson: Having been a constant reader of the Moving Picture World, more especially of our department, I feel that I must write and tell you that I, like many others, find the department to be very interesting, and that from It we obtain some very valuable information. I have been projecting for eight years, during which time I have handled all classes of films and a number of different makes of projector. I am at present running two Power's 6-Bs, which I must say I like better than any other that I have handled. We show six nights a week and two matinees, doing good business. Of course, like others, we have an opposition theatre. We use Fox, Metro and Paramount films. Wants Lens Charts I note you have the lens charts for sale at 50 cents. As I am anxious to have one, will you advise me if you will accept New Zealand stamps of that value. I have also ordered a handbook from New York, which I consider (have already examined one) as being of great value. ..s this is my first letter to our department 1 will not write more now, but later will have some questions for you to answer, if you will. Cannot Use the Stamps. No, brother Read, we cannot accept New Zealand stamps, for the very simple reason that they would have no value here, since they could not be used on mail. United States stamps would, as you doubtless know, be of no value to you because to mail anything there you must have New Zealand stamps. Send a post office money order for the amount and the charts will be promptly forwarded. Would be glad to answer any questions you may ask, if we can. We are, of course, glad to know that you find value in the department and the handbook. Neither is perfect, but we try hard to make them the best of their kind, and must leave it to others to judge as to how well we succeed. We are well pleased to know that the progressives of New Zealand are adopting the title projectionist. Remember, however, that whereas "operator" has little or no meaning (that is why it was rejected), Projectionist is a distinctive title, meaning very much more than the mere operation of a mechanism. Having adopted the title Projectionist, it is up to vou to make good and be a credit to the title. As to Nomenclature and Standards It is with sincere regret this department feels the necessity for criticising the work of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers. A year ago the editor took it upon himself to privately point out to the committee many glaring discrepancies and contradictions in the nomenclature already adopted, with result that the whole list was revamped and, without that lengthy consideration it should have had, was adopted by the society at its Montreal meeting. At the time the report of the Nomenclature Committee was read we were attending an important meeting of the Committee on Optics, else we certainly would have objected to some of the things we shall name. In the first place, the committee has refused point blank to include many of those names which have, through years of work, been established in projection room practice. Not only is this true, but some of the names and standards it has set up are either objectionable or very largely meaningless. The standard set for film speed is sixty feet per minute, whereas the veriest tyro in projection knows that with present methods this speed is entirely impractical in any scene where the photography is of slight density. Using a brilliant screen and light source of great brilliancy it simply cannot be done. Moreover it is a well known fact that camera speed is now very decidedly in excess of sixty per minute. Why adopt impractical standards? Why the "Gear" "Intermittent Gear Ratio shall be expressed in degrees," says the committee. "For example, a gear in which the pin is engaged with the slot for one-quarter of a revolution of the driver shall be called a 90-degrce movement." Why the "gear"? Why mix up things thus? And where is the "slot" in a Power's intermittent MOVEMENT? Defining the movement as a 90-degree movement is all very well, but the average man who occupies the throne of a projection room will understand what a "five-to-one" movement is very much better than he will what a 60-degree movement is. Granting that the conclusion of the committee is substantially correct in this matter, in so far as has to do with the movement, though not as to "gear" and "slot," why could not the committee for the time being at least have given in a table in which the equivalents in the terms to which we are accustomed are opposite the terms they propose. It seems to us the committee is deliber