Download Report - Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

amount to be moved. Undoubtedly, though, there is
a saving in the time of the company."
Harvey I-,eavitt of the same company answered
the second questionnaire: "I would say for medium
size and small sets they could be rigged and struck
cheaper, but for shooting it would take equally as
many men on the floor on account of more lamps
to be moved, but there is a saving of labor, no
doubt, on high spots placed on parallels. I do not
believe that the use of Mazda equipment speeds up
production, but it probably will when all cameramen
are educated to the use of this class of equipment.tt
Based upon his experience in the current production,
R. B. Mclntyre of the Samuel Goldwyn Company
concludes: "The use of Incandescent lamps
has speeded up production so far as the lights and
electricians are concerned for the following reasons:
The Incandescents are lighter and therefore can
be handled more easily and more quickly, and time
is saved that would be spent in trimming hard
lights."
L. Kolb and John Nickolaus from M.-G.-M.
agree that "There is an indirect saving which varies
with the co-operation given on the set," and L. V.
Johnson, Chief Electrician at United Artists, believes
that "time can be saved with Incandescents,"
which belief is supported by Karl Struss, Chie{ Cinematographer
for D. W. Griffith: "Lightness of
equipment and hence ease of portability insures
quicker set-ups as well as lining up of sets. Quick
adjustment to photographic alignment and subsequent
accessibility."
Mr. Quinlan of Fox states that "Incandescents
ofier an advantage that is not shown in the Arcs,
due to the loss of time in retrimming carbon impurities,
which very often are the cause of particular
shots being lost."
That speeding up of production is unlikely until
after the cameraman and electricians have acquired
some skill in the handling and use of the new lamps,
is the observation of Mr. Stern, based upon his experience
with Universal's production of "No. 13
Washington Square." "We do not think," writes
Mr. Stern, "that Incandescentspeeded up production
in comparison to Arcs and do not know why it
should in the future. We keep a clerk on the parallels
who keeps a time record of each minute of the
shooting, setting up, rehearsing, delays, etc., with
the net result that we found that there was probably
six hours lost the first two or three days during
the experimental work of commencing the use of
Incandescents on this picture. This loss, however,
we feel will be avoided after the cameraman and
electricians gain additional experience." But F.
Graves of the same studio is a bit more hopeful:
"We found that after the men had been accustomed
to the new lamps and the cameraman had seen
some of this work, we were able to set up faster,
owing to the fact that the equipment is lighter, and
there are no delays necessitated by having to trim."
Paramount's replies to both questionnaires consistently
point to a saving of time, due to the substitution
of Incandescents. Mr. Gain writes: "Due
to the light weight of Incandescent lamps, we have
been able to handle the same faster. We have also
saved considerable time because it was not necessary
to trim, burn in or wait for the lights to adjust
themselves to the proper candlepower. In reply to
the second questionnaire, Mr. Gain states further:
"Lamps on the floor are moved much more rapidly
because of the weight not being as great as that of
the Arc, but the possibility of mechanical injury to
lamps is very much greater, due to the fragile construction.
Lamps must be removed while hanging
overhead equipment, or in nearly any move for that
matter, but aside {rom this disadvantage, while in
operation there are no delays waiting for Arcs to
settle and extremely long footage may be shot. A
conservative estimate of time saved would be from
5 to 15 per cent, dependent upon conditions."
INCANDESCENT
LIMITATIONS
References to limitations of Incandescent Illumination
due to lack of equipment are omitted as the
remedy is too obvious. Other comments are as follows:
"In photographing small or medium sized sets of
no bigger floor space than 750 square feet or 18 feet
in height, the Mazda units, such as broadside domes
and strips are very practical for general illumination,
but for sets of. larger area or greater height,
from my experience, I believe one should incorporate
Arcs in the lighting. Due to the fact that Mazd,a
lights do not have the carrying power of Arcs, it
is hard to maintain an even balance between figures
and walls."-Harvey Leavitt, DeMille Studio.
(a.z'1
"Hard lights are still the best for big sets or sets
to be shot at night, providing they are large, as it
takes less lights, owing to the fact that they pull a
larger wattage."-;'. J. Gain, Paramount (Q. Z.S
"At our present stage of development we have
nothing in the Mazda spots which has the intensity
of a 72}-Ampere Spot or a G. E. spot, and we are,
therefore, limited in our use of Mazdas where the
flood of these hard spots, or the efiect obtainable
with those hard spots is necessary. The chances are
greatly in favor of the eventual development of'
Mazda spots of greater intensity than we now have,
but there is no positive assurance that the intensity
of the G. E. Sun Arc will be duplicated."-D. L.
Faralla, Business Manager, First National.
"The only limitation that we know is the impractical
condition of the large 10 K. W. Incandescents
and also the housing for the light. This
calls for considerable development, in our minds.
So far the Mazda equipment has not been developed
to a state where the Sun Arcs can be entirely and
satisfactorily eliminated."-A. George Volck, De
Mille. (Q. t.1
"No satis{actory lamp has as yet been developed
to replace the Sun Arc nor the Rotary Spot."-J. J.
t 14l