In approaching the problem of applying suitable standards to appliances in common use in the motion picture industry, it is well to remember that the thing which may seem precisely right when viewed from the standpoint of theory may fall utterly under the crucial test of actual practice. This is particularly true where the appliance is to be placed in the hands of an incompetent man, or a man of mediocre ability.
In this connection it is well to consider that insofar as machinery and appliance for the theatre operating room be concerned, a large proportion of it will be handled by men of relatively small ability in the handling of machinery or optical appliance; a very considerable proportion will be handled by men of no ability whatever and only a relatively small percentage will be placed in the hands of those who could by any stretch of imagination be termed experts. Remember, gentlemen, this is the condition which prevails and is not easily altered; hence it must be reckoned with. It would be foolish indeed to ignore this condition merely because it ought not to exist. It does exist and will continue for at least several years to come.
The effect upon standardization of this condition is, that in operating room machinery standardization, we must studiously avoid the too-delicate. For instance, the spindle which might be perfectly capable of carrying its load under proper conditions at 5-16" diameter, may carry it far better at 3-8", 7-16" or even 1-2" diameter, if it is to be placed in charge of a man who knows little or nothing about proper lubrication and who is careless and generally incompetent. In other words, it will be well to lean always to the side of generous dimensions in operating-room moving machinery parts. In the fixing of standards for operating-room machine parts we must, for the present at least, take into consideration the conditions under which such machinery will, or may work, else difficulty will surely be encountered.
The question of which particular things require standardization is one which cannot be answered by any one man. In my opinion, the standardization of projector parts should only be undertaken upon the recommendation of the committee on projection machines. This committee should hold meetings and recommend to the body such standards as may seem in its wisdom to be right and proper. Unless this is done, I believe there will be more or less confusion and liability to error. The same applies to cameras, optical appliances and such other things as are covered by committee.
I would further respectfully suggest that any proposal of a standard presented to the body by an individual be not acted upon finally until it has been referred to the committee within whose jurisdiction it comes, or to a special committee, of which he shall be a member, the committee to consider the matter and make its recommendation at the next regular meeting.
The foregoing is, of course, a digression, for which I trust I may be pardoned because of its seeming importance.
In general there are several things not coming within the duty of any committee, which ought to receive attention from this body, unless it be held that camera speed falls within the field of the committee on cameras.
Camera speed is, perhaps, the one thing needing the attention of this body more than anything else. Lack of uniform camera speed is doing literally tremendous damage to the silent drama, both artistically and physically. The present condition is that different directors or producers adopt their own individual views as to camera speeds, ranging all the way from sixty feet of film per minute to as high as seventy-five. This would be bad enough, but to it is added the variation in speed by individual camera men, who often take scenes intended to join each other in the finished product. This variation runs as high as, in extreme cases, five each way from normal, making a total variation as between adjoining scenes, of ten feet per minute- a variation of two to five feet is quite ordinary. Projectionists, as a rule, either do not or are not allowed by circumstances (running to "schedule") to vary the speed of projection to suit variation of speed as between various scenes in a film; also the schedule for the show is made up without knowledge as to the speed at which the film (footage always known, at least approximately) was taken, hence the reproduction of the photoplay upon the screen is a sort of haphazard, happy-go-lucky performance, which can only be right by pure accident.
With camera speed standardized, the proper time for the proper artistic reproduction upon the film would merely be a matter of dividing the total footage by number of feet per minute standard. Without entering into detail, this would also work out to immensely lessen the physical injury to films, now mounting into the tens of thousands of dollars per day.
For several reasons I would respectfully recommend to this body a higher standard per minute for camera and projection machine. Our present rate is too slow with present powerful illumination and semi-reflective screens. It is not sufficiently high to eliminate flicker under those conditions, especially if the local shutter conditions be bad. Seventy will, on the other hand, place no unduly heavy burden on the film itself, or upon projection machinery, and will eliminate flicker in all but the very worst cases.
Another thing which might well receive attention is the minimum distance from front row of seats to screen, which should, I think, be based upon picture size, but with an absolute minimum of fifteen feet for a ten-foot picture, with one foot of added distance for every foot of added width up to twenty feet.
Exit signs is still another thing which cries to heaven for standardization, though anything we might do in this respect would be at the mercy of ill informed officials and law makers. But this does not excuse this body from acting. I would respectfully suggest the following: the letters E X I T on plain ground glass, the letters to be of size to comply with local law, and to be blocked out in black, so that light shows through the letters only. Behind the ground glass bearing the letters and between the letters and the illuminant, there to be a sheet of dark ruby glass, or two thicknesses of standard photographers ruby glass. This allows only the letters E X I T to be visible to the audience and in dark red.
Still another proper subject for standardization is the width of black border for screen.
In the operating room itself, aside from machinery, etcetera, the observation ports are in sad need of standardization, both as to width and height from floor, though the latter is difficult by reason of projection pitch. The operating room size also needs attention. Present standards were adopted while projectors were very much smaller than at present. Operating rooms should be not less than nine (9) feet front to back; ten (10) would be better.
Operating room ventilation standardization is necessary, both from the standpoint of health and fire hazard. The state law of Massachusetts will form an excellent basis for study of this subject.
There are other things I might mention but it seems to me I have said enough (perhaps you may think too much) for one time. I would, however, again utter warning as against adopting standards from the purely theoretical point of view. I have for many years preached to projectionists the gospel of combining theory with practice. I now respectfully ask this body to apply that doctrine in reverse. Be very certain that practice, as it is, will combine at least fairly well with theory, before setting up a standard which, while theoretically perfect, will fall when placed in actual operation under the conditions prevailing.
F.H. Richardson, "Theoretical vs. Practical as Applied to Standardization and Some of the Things to be Considered as Proper Subjects for Standardization," Transactions of S.M.P.E., No. 6, meeting of April 8-9, 1918, pages 33-35.
© 1998, David Pierce, on editing and revisions (if any)
Return to the Silent Film Bookshelf Home Page