Moving Picture World (Sep 1916)

September 1(>. 1CM(> THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 1827 '"""ff.i'y """"""""'"" ' "m">" .-.^11111 ii um— ■ <m y«^AAAAAAAAAAAAA>^ >w ^—*" -i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •*•" Projection Department ^ Conducted by F. H. RICHARDSON Manufacturers' Notice. IT IS .hi established rule ol tins department thai no apparatus or oth. >i i be endorsed or recommended editorially until the once of such articles lias been demonstrated to its editor, Important Notice. Owing to the mass of matter awaiting publication It la Impossibl replj through the department In less than two to three weeks. In order to give prompt service, those Bending four cents, stamps (less than actual cost), will receive carbon ropy ol the department reply, by mall, without delay. Special replies, by mall, on matters which oannot i>e replied to In the department, one dollar. Both the ins' and second Bel of questions arc now ready and printed In neat booklet form, the second half being seventy-six In number. Blither booklet may be bad by remitting '.'•"■ Cents, money or stamps, to the editor, or both for 40 cents. Cannot use Canadian stamps. Every live, progressive operator should gel a copy of these questions. You may be surprised at the number you cannot answer without a lot of study. Question No. 154. Whut is for and against a larpe picture say above 17 feet? N. Y. : J. J. Wilson Hays, Tampa, Fla. port, Md. ; F. Roll of Honor on Question No. 145. The Roll of Honor on question 145 consists of Joseph H. M. Smith, Fort Worth, Texas; M. M. Moon. Sherman, Texas; Dean A. Snyder, Bangor, Pa.; G. A. Yager, Anadarko, Okla. ; W. C. Crawford, Brooklyn, Bell, Palestine. Texas ; W. B. Allen, Edmonton, Canada ; Barton, Md. ; C. K. Linstruth, Carthage, N. Y. ; M. Nosti. W. E. Bryncr. Springfield, 111. J L. C. Pagenhardt, WesternN. lrvin, l.ufkin, Texas; M. Capobianco, Roscto, Pa.; B. C. Nye. Jr.. Wolf Point. Mont.; .lohn Koltzan, Brooklyn, N. Y. ; Raymond Brown, St. Louis, Mo., and E. R. Havener, Marquette, Michigan. The replies to question 145 brought out a divergence of opinion as to whether the operator should stand or sit at bis work, and many were the arguments advanced for and against. The large preponderance of opinion was, however, that a chair or stool should be provided, and the ports so located or arranged that the operator be enabled to either sit or stand, at his pleasure. I am publishing three replits to this' question, the same being, in my opinion, one of very decided importance, as applied to excellence in screen results. First we will present the negative Reply to Question No. 145. By M. M. Moon, Sherman, Texas. The Question : > In your judgment, is it better that the operator be compelled to stand up or that he be seated at his machine? Give reasons for your opinion. In answering, lay aside personal preference and consider the question entirely on its merits. The Answer : In my opinion the operator should be required to stand up, for the following reasons, viz. : because the standing operator will always be on the alert for any trouble which may occur ; also he will be in the most convenient position to work, and, in case of any sudden accidents which might occur while the machine is running;, he will not have to get up out of the chair and take time to push it back out of his way in order to have room to move around, and when I say "move around," I mean it. since it is very essential for a man to work faster when things are going wrong, especially when the screen is dark. Of course, it is nice for the operator to have a chair, but an operator will get a little careless or lazy if sitting, but where a man is required to remain in the operating room from eight to fourteen hours each day, he should have a chair, though it is not best for screen results. Where an operator is compelled to crank his machine he should always stand, since it permits a more even turning of the crank. Reply to Question No. 145. By G. A. Yager, Anadarko, Okla. The Answer : In my opinion the operator should be allowed to sit at his machine. Of course, there are many arguments both for and against this practice. Many managers, examiners, fire chiefs, etc., claim an operator cannot possibly make the same headway in case of fire that he could if he was standing, basing their claim on the fact that if he should become excited he would, in all probability, overturn the chair or stool, which would vastly impede his movements. Another claim advanced by those not in favor of the operator being seated is, he cannot project as good a picture. i s view however, the operator who would become excited In i in iii-e i inn a propei person to be In an operating room at all, ii he did have a Bra he would verj likely cause a panic "i tarn regardless ol whether be was standing or seated, ai o an operatoi who has t» work from six to el i day cannot reasonably be t ipected tand up tor thai length of tune ae be would become o tired that he would not ear. much whether he projected a good plcturi or not. In constructing an operating room the port bolei should be made so that the operator can gel a clear view ol thi plcturi eltbei tandln sitting. Reply to Question No. 145. b> Dean A. Snyder, Bangor, Pa. The Answer ; In my opinion to secure the maximum efficiency from an operator he must be supplied with a comfortable chair, which should be light, n vovable, comfortable, having a slightly curved back about two feet high. If space permits, there should be one of these chairs at the right of each machine. The chair should be so located, and the ports -o mad' that the operator will have a clear view of the screen, either sitting or standing. The advantages of having a chair may be most clearly shown by enumerating the disadvantages of standing. First : the operator who is continually on his feet will soon become tired, and. a a result, will not deliver satisfactory projection. Second ; standing promotes restlessness, and the operator will be inclined to roam around the room, and that, in turn, is bound to result in shadows on the screen, lack of proper gauging of speed, and at some time probably serious disaster. Third : the standing operator will not keep h is as steadily on the picture as will the sitting operator, from the fact that be is more tempted to look around due to restlessness and uncoml'ortableness. I make the assertion that the sitting operator can handle the machine just as well and just as efficiently, If not even better and more efficiently, than he can when standing, therefore, there is no reason under heaven why the sitting operator won't do just as good work. or better work, than the man who is standing. To the three foregoing I append the short reply by W. (' Crawford, Brooklyn, since it brings out a point not covered by previous replies. I believe an operator can do his best work while standing, and there are times when standing is absolutely necessary. However, the operator cannot stand for a long period of time without weariness, and a tired man cannot. In the very nature of things, do his best work. When things are running smoothly the work can be done in a very satisfactory manner when the operator is seated, and a (hair should, therefore, be provided. The good man will not abuse the privilege, and a lazy man would be about as Indifferent standing as seated. In either case, it would be better to keep the chair and get rid of the man. My own view in this matter is, I think, well known. I believe firmly In the operator being allowed to either sit or stand, preferably sit, because of the fact thai when seated we know where be is, viz.: right beside the machine where he ought to be. whereas, my own observation, taken in hundreds of operating rooms, is that you very seldom find the -tanding operator at the observation port beside his machine, unless it be a crank-driven projector, and even then he more often than not is looking at something else beside the picture, whereas, on the other hand, you will almost always find the seated operator rubbering out of the observation port at the picture, as he should do. In my opinion, the objections of fire chiefs, examiners and managers to the seated operator are not well founded. A False Rumor. For sonic weeks past there has been a rumor floating around that the manufacture of the Edison Super Kinetoscope was to be discontinued. For the benefit of all concerned, I would say that there is absolutely no foundation for this story. The Edison Super Kinetoscope was and is a high class machine, built to project pictures at normal speed. It was found, however, that the demand of the "speed demon" was so insistent that it was necessary to make such changes in the machine as would enable it to handle film at high speed. I am informed that the Edison Company now has the machine in such shape that it will handle film at eight minutes to the reel, which ought to be fast enough to almost satisfy everybody, though I imagine there are those, and not all of them in low class theaters, either, who will want a minute or two cut off the eight. The Super Kinetoscope is, as I said, a high class machine, and I personally was rather pleased to know there was one machine which would not handle film at jumping-jack speed. I have said before, and I again repeat, that the running of film at greater than 70 or at most BBBBBBBBSI