Download Report - Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

Regarding this table Mr. Faralla remarks:
"We have tried to reduce costs to a daily basis
thus eliminating the length of the shooting schedule
as a variable. The three pictures classed as Mazda
lighting were not 700% Mazda because there were
certain shots which required hard lighting due to
lack of equipment or limitations of the Mazda
equipment. When the Mazda High Intensity Spot
is developed, or when there is sufficient equipment
available to completely light with Mazda, the comparison
will be even more {avorable for the Mazda
equipment. As the table shows, the ratio of man
power per day was ten Mazda to eighteen Arc, or
55%% of the man power was used to shoot a
Mazda picture compared to the Arc picture. In
dollars the percentage is 57 ft% wlnich is in reasonable
accordance,"
IJniversal's experience in photographing "No' 13
Washington Square" with Incandescents showed in
the post analysis submitted by W. L. Stern, Manager,
a saving of 50% in electrical labor. He
remarks in connection with the following statement
that "it is interesting to note that we saved at least
$2,000 with equipment costing $8,000. It will be
seen therefore, that on four pictures of about the
same type this equipment will have paid for itsel{,
which comparison it is well to bear in mind."
Estimated cost with Arcs-----------,$3,478.57
Cost with Incandescents- t,7 69.07
ActuaI Saving --------- .___- 1,709.50
*Plus Labor Credits,-..----- 376.44
Possible Saving 2,085.94
An even further reduction in labor costs was
accomplished in the Samuel Goldwyn production
which used incandescents exclusively. R. B. Mc-
Intyre presented a statement showing electrical
labor costs approximately 40% of the estimated
cost had Arcs been used. For statement see "Equipment
and Maintenance."
Comments from other studios follow:
"Our experience to date is that the cost of labor
for handling Incandescent equipment is approximately
50% oI the cost of handling the equipment
had Arc lights been used."-A. George Volck,
Ass't. G. Mgr., De Mille Studio.
"We feel, up to the present time, that the use of
Incandescent lighting exclusively will reduce our
operating costs approximately 50%. In figuring
this percentage saving I have in mind rigging, operating,
striking, maintaining, etc."-J. J. Gain,
Exec. Mgr. Paramount Famous Lasky'
"From our experience we find thaf sets requiring
seven and eight men to operate, we have run with
three and f6s1."-p12nk Murphy, Chief Electrician,
Warner Brothers.
"It is logical to assume that cost of operation
would be considerably less."-L. V. Johnson, Chief
Electrician, United Artists.
---
* Rai"r" to extra men used on the set as a safety
factor during the filming of the picture.
"Lining-.u*e as Arcs; operating-4O%less than
Arcs; striking-same as r{16s."-f. Kolb and John
Nickolaus, M.-G.-M.
LABOR COSTS
AS OF APRIL, I92B
The experiencesubsequento those recorded in
the replies to the first questionnaire tended, on the
whole, to crystallize and substantiate the opinions
and predictions contained in the original replies.
The estimates of a saving in electrical labor cost of
approximatelv 50% by substituting Incandescent
for Arc lights was given added weight by the following
statements:
"Covering a period from January 1st to March
31st with twelve companies using Incandescents
(not exclusively, however) we find, where the
cameraman ls experrenced in the use of Incandescents
and has sufrcient equipment, our labor costs
are reduced 40 to 50%."-D. L. Faralla, First
National.
"The chief saving is in the number of electricians
used. For example, on one set Incandescents were
used for nearly two weeks with five men on the
job. Later the directors had to do a day's work in
the same set and as the Mazdas were in use elsewhere,
he had to use hard lights. Fifteen men were
required to operate this set."-Comment by Paramount
Cameraman i" J. J. Gain's reply.
"Our experience in this matter has shown a
considerable reduction in labor and runs well below
50% ; in some cases it has dropped down to as low
as 33Vo."-Walter J. Quinlan, Fox Studio.
A valuable thought is contributed to the forum
by Mr. W. L. Stern of Universal with the observation
that the saving in labor expense is not dependent
upon exclusive use of Incandescents for
"the use of Arc overheads and domes, operated from
switchboards, requires nominal attention and does
not materially increase the labor costs."
The following table in which Mt. J. J. Gain of
Paramount gives figures comparing costs of different
phases of the electricians' work (i. e. rigging, operation,
and striking) carries the analysis of labor
costs a step {urther:
C ost Incandescent Arc
Rigging 88.71 72.84
Operating per hour------- - 12.48 t7.89
Striking 30.88 21.48
The same set was shot under practically identical
production conditions. The above figures show that
Incandescent rigging cost 227o more than Arc, "the
reason being the facilities for handling and hanging
overhead equipment not having been developed to
the point of Arc equipment. The operating of Arc
lighting is shown to be 431% higher than Incandescent,
and the striking cost of Incandescent
43s/t% higher than Arc. Current figures at I cent
per K. W. H. Electrical Calculations on the basis
of 100 volts.
| 111