The Optical Magic Lantern Journal (November 1898)
Reading and Downloading:
Record Details:
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!
Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.
Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.
View OCR Text
We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
3th October, 1898. Walter Philip Barltrop. Improvements in acetylene gas lamps.
1dth October, 1898. William-Noman. Improvements in apparatus for the generation of acetylene gas.
14th October, 1898. William Friese-Greene. Improvements in taking and in projecting photographic images in means therefor, and in photographic negatives.
14th October, 1898. David Van Praag and Frederick William Harker. Improvements in acetylene generating apparatus and the like.
15th October, 1898. Herbert George Flaxman Spurrell. The improved cinematograph.
15th October, 1898. Frank Theodore Williams. Improvements in lamp burners.
15th October, 1698. Frank Harvey Urry. Improvements in apparatus for exhibiting pictures of objects in motion.
21691.
SPECIFICATIONS PUBLISHED.
Copies of the following specifications may be obtained by remitting 1/for each specification to W. P. Thompson & Co., Patent Agents, 322, High Holborn, London, W.C.
11910 of 1898. Soe lamp
of 1898. Gastaldi. acetylene.
1898. Barber. ramic views.
1898. Billwilier and Rosenthal. Generators for the production of acetylene gas.
1897. Ageron and Wirth. Apparatus for the generation and combustion of acetylene gas.
1897. Karpoff: Photographic cameras.
1898. Bollé. Apparatus for generating acetylene.
1898. Marshall. Lamps.
1898. Noble and Newton. taking and exhibiting moving pictures.
1890. Hedgeland. Acetylene lamps.
1897. Reibel. Devices for feeding the carburet in acetylene gas generating apparatus.
1898. Rosenthal. Generators for acetylene gas.
1898. Manger. Acetylene gas generators. 1897. Wartenweilerand Spengler. Automatic apparatus for the production of acetylene
Acetylene gas generators for
14959 Apparatus for generating
5532 of Apparatus for exhibiting cyclo
14050 o
i
22648 of
27562 11964
of
of 12276 of 15195 of
16723 o 27300 o'
on
14049 of
17449 23547
of of
gas.
1897. Lundstrom. Preservation of carbide and its subsequent treatment for use in the production of gas.
1897. Pompeo Guadagnini (commonly known as William Johnson). Apparatus for the production and use of acetylene and other gases.
1897. Newman and Newman and Guardia, Limited. Apparatus for producing limelight or the like. ;
1897. Grubb. Apparatus for the generation of acetylene gas.
1898. Boult. Photographic cameras.
1898. Moore and Karr. Acetylene gas lamps.
1898. Gehlert. Apparatus for producing acetylene gas.
23793 o
=n
23977 of
27541 of
28264
16256 16317 17079
of of of
The (Optical Magic Lantern Journal and Photographic Enlarger.
Apparatus for
| een | [CSL SRS SSS S SRSuSs FATS S i} z.
ge Gorrespondence. 3
cone
ISSSHSNSNSNGNSNSGNSNSE TSG2NSGRS>
STEREOSCOPIC PROJECTION ON A LANTERN SCREEN.
To Mr. J. Hay Taylor, Editor.
Dear S1r,—I consider that I am greatly favoured in having replies in last Journal from such great stereoscopic authorities as Mr. W. I. Chadwick and Mr. Theodore Brown, and I thank them for their kindness, and I am sure they will take in good part what I am about to say, for I feel I have much to learn from them, but at the same time, either rightly or wrongly, I must confess that under the circumstances stated by me, to me at least a sort of stereoscopic effect is given. I will quote Mr. Chadwick: “It is only when two eyes are used with the slightly different picture on each retina that we see stereoscopic.”’ True, but in the case I cited wherrin the cinematographic camera is on the deck of a steamer skirting the shore taking as an instance a great number of boats lying at anchor between the steamer and the shore, one’s two eyes would at no time take in precisely the same view by reason of the boat moving. Here then we have dissimilar pictures which Mr. Chadwick says ‘‘must be present to the two eyes as in Nature.”” Is not this done when transparencies from these negatives are projected on the screen by means of the cinematograph, for as Mr. Brown states that owing to the eeparation of the eyes “ it would be only every twelfth picture that would be taken from the point at sufficient separation.” If, then, the subject was still life, or in other words the boats spoken of were Jying at anchor, the pictures would be stereoscopic, although there would be several images not actually required, but these would lead up to the next twelfth. I had the pleasure of seeing some short time ago a series of pictures taken under the circumstances I speak of, and to me they had a stereoscopic effect.
Yours truly, F. A. HOWARD.
FILM PATENT RIGHTS. To Mr. J. Hoy Taylor, Editor.
DEAR Si1r,—Our attention has been called to an extraordinarily erroneous paragraph. which has appeared in some London daily papers and other journals. It relates to alleged litigation between Mr. Goodwin, of Newark, U.S.A., and the Eastman Kodak Company of the United States, to settle a claim to the right to the patent in manufacturing & form of photographic film. The statement that this claim was settled in favour of Mr. Goodwin is absolutely untrue. The comments on this subject that have appeared recently had their origin in an article published four or five weeks ago in a sensational Sunday paper published in Newark, where Mr. Goodwin lives. The statement that there has been any litigation whatever in recent years between Mr. Goodwin and the Kodak Company is also untrue. The only controversy that the Kodak Company ever had with Mr. Goodwin was in the U.S. Patent Office, and not in the courts, and was decided some years ago in the first instance in the favour of Mr. Goodwin. This decision was, however, soon reversed in favour of the Eastman Kodak Company. The Kodak
“Company has the prior patent, and Mr. Goodwin's patent, which was issued very recently, cannot by any possibility be held to include the subject matter of the Kodak ‘Company’s patent. The Goodwin patent, if it
covers anything, covers a chemical process not in use by