Download Report - Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

lamp or globe replacements, as compared to carbon
renewals ?
4. Speed: Does incandescent illumination speed
up production by reason of lightness of equipment
and reliability of steady light? If so, please give a
comparative estimate.
5. Defects: Give a statement o{ the present
short-comings of incandescent lightings :
(a) General lighting equipment, broadsides,
domes, scoops, etc.
(b) Modelling Iighting, spots, suns, etc.
6. Photographic Qualit3t: 'What are the comparative
qualities of incandescent and arc lighting?
(a) What, if any, photographic results have you
been able to obtain by incandescent illumination
with panchromatic film not obtainable with arcs ?
(b) What results are obtainable with arcs not at
present possible with incandescent ?
7. Lenses: Have the camera lenses you have
been using given entirely satis{actory results ?
8. Summary: What has been your general reaction
and conclusion as to the value and results of
the demonstrations and researches undertaken by the
Academy in co-operation with the American Society
of Cinematographers and the Association of Motion
Picture Producers?
REPLIES TO QUESTIONNAIRES
For convenience of reference, the replies received
from the producing companies responding to the
Questionnaires of January and March, 1928, are
here submitted in the form of a digest, with answers,
comments and data on each principal subject, collected
under their appropriate headings. In some
instances this has made slight repetitions necessary
in order to avoid separating statements from their
contexts.
On the whole, however, it is felt that this form
of report will serve a more useful purpose than
would the mere transcript of the individual replies
as received.
Attention is called to the fact that replies to the
question regarding different raw stocks used in
photographing with incandescent lights have been
omitted, the purpose of this omission being that
investigations were started and conducted primarily
for information on lighting problems and not as a
competition of any kind as to raw stock or indi-'
vidual camera achievements.
All replies as quoted must necessarily refer to
conditions as they existed at the time of writing.
In some cases these conditions have changed, so that
certain opinions and conclusions should be considered
with due allowance for this fact.
It should be noted, also, that the replies were
frequently signed by studio executives but were the
results of information collected from various department
heads. In all instances where possible, credit
has been assigned to the department from which the
statements originated.
In designating the Questionnaire to which various
replies were made, "Q. 1" refers to Questionnaire
No. 1 as of January 11, 1"928, and "Q. 2" to Questionnaire
No. 2, as of April 2, 1928.
LABOR COSTS
AS OF JAN., | 928
Replies from nine studios, to Questionnaire No.
1, brought forth a uniformity of opinion that the
substitution of Incandescent lighting would reduce
electrical labor costs approximatelv 50%. Production
cost figures to support this opinion were submitted
by three studios that had recorded their
experiences with Incandescent lighting in actual
production. Others based their opinions upon observation
and experiment.
A table submitted by First National Productions
(per D. L. Faralla, Business Manager) compared
electrical labor costs of three pictures photographed
with the majority of lighting by Mazda, with three
pictures photographed with the total lighting by
Arcs. A 42%% reduction in labor costs as a direct
result of the substitution of the Incandescent lights
is reveale d. The table follows:
No.
88
103
100
78
84
85
Total or Average.
Tender Hour..
Naughty but Nice.
Stolen Bride.
Total or A
Terr,n SrrowrNc Conrenltrvn
of
Lighting
Mazda
Mazda
Mazda
of
Film
Pan
Straight
Pan
No.
Days
38
AO
oi
104
Cosrs
No.
Man
Days
327
483
229
662
846
a9a
Ave.
Men
Day
Operating
Cost
$3305.00
4321 .00
2659. 00
Aver.
Cost
Day
s87.20
102.80
110.10
1039 99.00
139.50
173.00
211.80
126 ,rg5 18.0 21642.00 172.ffi
[10]