The Moving picture world (January 1924-February 1924)

PPJ3J ECTION EDITED BY F. H. RICHARDSON Excellent Work O. H. Butler, projectionist, Majestic Theatre, Centerville, Iowa, has sent in, for examination, certain comparative tests he has made with shutters of various projectors. It would hardly do to publish these tests; also they would not be quite fair, unless such publication be accompanied by elaborate explanations. However, the work was creditable to friend Butler, and was very interesting to me. In one or two spots it gave me somewhat of a surprise. It served to emphasize the fact that projector manufacturers are, in the very nature of things, compelled to send out a rotating shutter suitable for the very worst average of conditions and that it is merely accidental if the projectionist who is unable to test his own rotating shutter and adjust it to efficiency under his own local conditions is getting efficient results, or even fairly good results, insofar as efficiency goes. Many "Operators" (I think I will not accuse the Projectionist, because he could hardly be one if he failed to thoroughly understand so fundamental and vital a thing) imagine that because the rotating shutter which came with the projector was made by its manufacturer, it must, perforce, be right. One might just about as well write to a New York clothing store from Missouri, ordering a suit of clothes for a man six feet tall, and expect them to fit, as to expect a projector manufacturer to be able to make a non-adjustable shutter which will be right (will fit) for all local conditions, when local conditions vary so widely. Handbook Error M. G. Lee, projectionist, Cuthbert Theatre, Cuthbert, Ga., calls my attention to an error in cut numbers. On page 690 of the Bluebook, in paragraph headed "Caution," you are told to refer to figure 270. This is an error. It should read figure 264, instead of figure 270. Owners of the Bluebook please pencil in the correction. Many thanks to Brother Lee for having called my attention to the matter. Can You Beat It! From "no matter where" comes the following : I wish to get a license to operate a motion picture machine in my home town. Please send the examination questions so I can secure a license, which I can get in Harrisburg. The Star Theatre has no operator for their machine. Really now, can you beat it? Presumably if locomotive engineers were licensed and there was a vacancy, this man would ask for the examination questions asked, learn tin answers, get a license and calmly mount the footboard of a locomotive with a fixed idea that he could "operate" it! It really gets my angora to see the projection of photoplays held so lightly. Of course, if this chap could get a license and could thread a projector, rewind a film and make some sort of a splice he would -think that everything was lovely. What happened to the picture? — oh well, that don't count! The audience is the goat, and they like to be goats anyhow ! Tell this man that it is nothing less than a CRIME to undertake the projection of motion pictures without at least a year of apprenticeship, coupled with hard study, and he probably would think you stark, raving crazy. Exhibitors themselves have fostered this idea because of a desire for cheapness in the matter of projectionist wages — a cheapness which is about the most expensive thing they could possibly have handed themselves, and some day they are going to understand that simple fact — some of them, in fact, already do. Automatic Dousers In the Bluebook I gave space to an apparatus known as the "Weaver Automatic Douser." This was only done after I had received every assurance that the device, which seemed to be excellent of its kind, would be pushed and become a permanency. However, shortly after the new book was out the Weaver dropped completely out of sight, nor was I able to find out what had become of it. I published something about it in the projection department not long ago and it woke things up. I now have two letters, one from the Western Theatre Supply Company, San Francisco, which concern says it has bought out the entire stock of Weaver dousers. The other letter is from the Weaver Brothers Manufacturing Company, Watts, California, and says the activities of the concern organized to push the sales of the douser in question were stopped by the death of its leading spirit, but that now Weaver Brothers have all rights back and will proceed to get busy. Well, we shali see what we shall see ! The douser is a good piece of projection room equipment, but even so it won't sell itself, nor will people buy it unless they at least know it is on earth. I would respectfully suggest that if many of the dousers are to be sold it will be necessary that Weaver Brothers remove the cover and let their light shine forth. Merely a suggestion— merely a suggestion. Don 't Look Good C. C. Hamberger, proprietor Rex Theatre, Platteville, Colo., sends pictures of some Mazda equipment and asks: Would you be good enough to pass judgment upon attached clippings, telling me exactly what you think of it? Will you be good enough to tell me what to use. I have two Motiograph projectors. The projection distance is 65 feet and the picture 12 feet wide. I get a good, clear picture, but must steal the arc as the line is overloaded. J.uice is 110 volt A C, 60 cycle. Screen is Crystal glitter. Please help me in this matter, as I want to go ahead and not backward. Certainly the Mazda equipment as illustrated in the clipping you send does not look very promising. It is what is known as a "Mazda Adapter," designed to be used in any make of lamphouse. As yet I have not seen any equipment of this sort which I could conscientiously recommend. All that I have examined has been too light in construction and lacking in any possible means of the accurate adjustment a Mazda MUST have to give good results. I can recommend the Mazda equipment put out by the General Electric Company and that put out by the Nicholas Power Company. I do not know whether or not the Baird puts out a Mazda equipment, and I am not familiar with what the Motiograph may be doing in this respect, though I un derstand they use the General Electric Mazda equipment. With either the General Electric or the Powers you can get very excellent results with a 12-foot picture at 65 feet projection distance. I would recommend it, but DON'T try to use anything but high class Mazda equipment, because Mazda is a temperamental thing and MUST have fine and very accurate adjustment. You will find full directions for installing and using both the General Electric and the Powers Mazda in the Bluebook of Projection, a copy of which I presume you have. Amherst, Mass. Ethan Holden, projectionist, Town Theatre, Amherst, Mass., says: Do you remember the offer you made me when visiting Mr. Duel in Amheist in October? It was to advise me as to my optical train, so I am sending you both upper and lower carbon tip. Use 65 amperes A C at arc. Current 110 volt A C. Condenser 6% meniscus collector and 8% bi-convex converging lens, piano convex. Projection lens 5Vz inch E. F. Recently something has happened which worries me a lot. I seem to have a good light, but the writing has a haze. No one has noticed it but me, but it is there all right. Have put in new condensers and have cleaned the projection lens, but it is still there. I .iagine my surprise when the man I most wanted and least expected to see walk into my projection room. Only wish you might have stayed longer so that we might have become a bit acquainted. My thanks are due Mr. Duel for bringing you. What You Should Have You have left out two very important things, brother Holden, viz: the working distance and free diameter of back factor of your projection lens. I can therefore only tell you what you should have and not what you ought to do to work efficiently with your present equipment. The upper carbon carries an excellent 14 inch diameter crater, and for this diameter light source a 6y2 — 6y2 piano convex condenser, with lenses spaced not to exceed 1/16 inch apart, is best. This will give you a 2$/% distance crater to face of collector lens. Your present distance is too great by reason of too great focal length of converging lens. With the combination named you will need about 19 inches from face of converging lens to film. This combination will require a projection lens free diameter as follows : Working distance 3" — lens diameter 1 9/16". W. D. 3.2"— lens diameter 1^". W. D. 3.4" — L. D. 1 11/16". W. D. 3.6" — L. D. 1J4". W. D. 3.8"— L. D. 1 13/16". W. D. 4.1"— L. D. V/s". W. D. 4.6"— L. D. 2". It is such data as this the lens charts give you, among other equally important things. With this combination you ought to get a decidedly better screen illumination. Try it out anyhow. Haze Trouble As to the other trouble you spoke of, you have not described the effect with sufficient clearness. However, since it has come on gradually I am inclined to think you either have allowed one of your projection lens combinations to become rather loose in its mount — not likely — or you have a very slight travel ghost. It is also possible that you have cleaned the interior surfaces of your projection lens and have either turned