The Moving picture world (March 1926-April 1926)

better Ppojection ^his Departimnt TIfas founxM La 1910 bif its present Sditor'^ O^K%iclmrdson Belgium' Qevaert Film J J. DEMPSEY, Projectionist, Winthrop, Massachusetts, sends various samples of • film along with this letter: During the past few months, our theatre has been using features printed on film marked at edges — Belgium and Gevaert. The perforations on this type of film have square corners, which, as a rule, will cause more noise in running through a projector than another type. On examination of this film before projection, in most cases the sprocket holes are found to have been cracked or strained excessively, which have caused me no end of trouble on one projector, which I shall call No. 1 for convenience. The sprocket holes appear in this condition throughout the entire print, hence could not have been made properly. That Is, they are either too near to each other or are too far apart. Either the perforating machine is out of adjustment, or the film has shrunk or buckled. In most cases prints have not given evidence of unusual wear, except for the cracked sprocket holes. In fact they mostly have the appearance of being new prints. About five months ago, I had a new Intermittent sprocket Installed on projector No. 1. In three prints out of eight of this type of film, the Intermittent sprocket would not pull the film. The sprocket holes ripped and film remained stationary at the aperture. As the film would run through projector No. 2 I immediately thought that some part was out of adjustment on No. 1. I checked over everything and the only condition I found that would ha\ e tendency to cause this trouble was the absence of circumferential movement in the intermittent sprocket. Recently I received a print from Universal which started off with Eastman Kodak film, continuing for a reel and a half, when the Belgium film appeared. Fortunately, this print ran through both projectors, but the picture on the screen was unsteady. The sprocket holes on the Eastman part were perfect in every respect, while those on the Belgium part were strained when I received the print. I took pains to note that my projectors caused no further damage to the strained holes. This goes to prove that the trouble lies in the perforating of certain prints, or that the film has a tendency to shrink. This is the only trouble I have experienced along this line, and it has been with one certain type of film only. The deduction I have made Is that the new sprocket might be slightly oversize, and. combined with a difference In perforations, caused this condition. I am sending a sample of this film for your inspection. Would like to have you compare it with a strip of Eastman. You will find that in a strip one foot long, there is one lesssprocket hole In the Belgium film than in the Eastman. That Is 64 in the Belgium and 65 in the Eastman. This would be sufficient cause for buckling at the intermittent. I am also sending a small strip of this Belgium film with the name Eastman Kodak on one side. This imprint has been transferred from the negative, I believe, but might give the exchange a chance to say it was Eastman film. Producers will use good film for themselves but as for us . I concluded, after deliberation, to send your letter and the film samples to the Eastman Company, which I did and now have their reply. I could not myself be quite sure what you meant by "circuinferential play" when you said the intermittent lacked it. Probably you meant that the adjustment was so snug that there was no play at all in the sprocket when it was on the lock, but that would have nothing to do with damaging the film. The Eastman Company say : "Friend Richardson: Referring again to your letter of September 21 and the difficulty as described by Mr. Dempsey, inasmuch as the film in question is not of our manufacture we do not feel that it is up to us to discuss it In the way we would if we made the film. We have carefully measured the samples, which we are returnin.g together with the letter, and for your information we submit the following. The black sample shows a shrinkage of one half of one per cent, together with a slight shrinkage but botli are normal and no more than would be expected in film which has been in use for some time and semine^lv the>-o Is no reason why it should not go through the projector with a fair degree of steadiness, provided of course the projector is in good condition. We find, however, that the black sample is considerably below the average thickness and this in part may account for the condition of the perforations, more especially if mixed with scenes printed on film of normal thickness. Under these conditions it would become affected more quickly In comparison with thicker film, more especially if used on a projector having excess gate tension. The tinted sample is of normal thickness or approximately .005%' — .005%', and this being the case will stand up better than the black sample. It was found that the squareness and centering of the perforations In both samples are good. It may, however, be possible that the unsteadiness can be attributed to slight variation in shrinkage in various sections of the film. It often happens that when intermittent sprockets are replaced they are not thoroughly inspected to see if the teeth are burred as is frequently the case. When iJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Bluehook School Question No. 475 — Name the ports necessary in a projection room, and indicate the size you consider best for each one. Question No. 476 — What should be the height of the center of the observation port from the floor when projection is level? How much should it be lowered for each five degrees projection angle? Question No. 477 — Draw a diagram of front wall for a two-projector, spot light and dissolving stereopticon installation, showing ports in place. Question No. 478 — Tell us, in your own language, why it is essential to consistently good work that the observation port have ample size. miiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^ found to be in this condition, honing with' a p -.. s!to..p would remove any imperfections of this kind, and prevent further trouble of the nature Mr. Dempsey describes. For your information, the dimensions and shape of the perforations on Eastman film are different from those on the film submitted, as will be noted by comparison with the small sample marked "KODAK" along the edge which we are enclosing. Film which shows perforation mutilation as per the black sample would naturally be unsteady on the screen in comparison wHh film in which this effect was not present. As a result of prolonged experiments and practical tests the Eastman Kodak Company proved beyond question of doubt that our present perforation has distinct advantages, including increased wearing properties, over the tvpe formerly used, and about eighteen months ago we changed over entirely to the present standard. It will be of Interest to you to learn that since the adoption of our present type of perforation we have definite information on the improved physical properties of our film from the projection standpoint. We trust the foregoing will be of service to you." The Eastman Company hesitated about taking this matter up at all, since very naturally it does not like to publicly discuss another manufacturers product. They finally did, however, which I hold to be right and proper. The Eastman Company is too big and too broad to be suspected of making the slightest attempt to "knock" the other fellow's product in order to gain commercial advantage. The Eastman Company is so big and so broad that none but the confirmed jackass would even think of voicing any thought of that kind, hence Eastman can and should discuss such matters, pointing out any errors found in manufacture which tend to produce injury to the business. I would especially direct the attention of Brother Dempsey, as well as all other projectionists, to the advisability of carefully inspecting all new sprockets under a magnifying glass. Great damage is sometimes done to film where this is neglected, and a sprocket with rough-edge teeth comes through — a» they sometimes do. This department has called your attention to this matter before. As to the shape of sprocket holes, the fillet corner (rounded corner) sprocket hole, S. M. P. E. has finally officially adopted the because after exhaustive research and test it was found to be the strongest, and to operate best in projection. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT FOR THE GOOD OF THE PROFESSION THAT EVERY PROJECTIONIST WHO RECEIVES FILM WITH SPROCKET HOLES WHICH HAVE SQUARE CORNERS SIT HIM DOWN AND WRITE A VIGOROUS PROTEST TO THE PRODUCER OF THE FILM, IF YOU KNOW HIS ADDRESS, AND TO THE EXCHANGE IF YOU DO NOT, PROTESTING, AND DEMANDING FILM WITH FILLET CORNER SPROCKET HOLES. Don't imagine such an act would be foolish. If enough of you do it the squace corner hole will very soon disappear.