This is topic Projectionist test in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007125

---

Posted by Kevin Owens (Member # 3100) on 04-19-2005, 08:08 PM:
 
My GM recently told me that I needed to come up with a test for my projectionists to see if they all know as much as they should. Could anyone give me a few examples of something that they think every projectionist should know?
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 04-19-2005, 08:50 PM:
 
are these just going to be operators? if so, I guess I'd do something like this:

Hands On:
Threading
Cleaning
Basic Troubleshooting
Buildup/Teardown

Written:
Any of your policies
Terminology
Basic Theory
And just for shits and giggles, have them write out how to thread and projector, how to clean it, etc.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-19-2005, 09:00 PM:
 
Look for "Projectionist Study Material" in the "Manuals" section on this site. There are a few aspects of that file that are somewhat dated (stuff about cement splicers, etc.), but it's still a useful file, and it should be pretty easy to turn most of it into a written test. You'll need to add some questions that relate to your specific setup, particularly if you have a "modern" sound system.

Also see if your state or city has a requirement for projectionist licensing. If so, try to find out what is covered on that test and include that material as well.

You should definitely have a practical review covering basic equipment operation, correct terms for equipment and major parts, film handling, troubleshooting, maintenance, etc.

My personal feeling is that a "test" for this sort of thing is of questionable usefulness, and that you would do better to observe your employees at work and get a feel for their general level of competence, however.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-19-2005, 10:08 PM:
 
Of course the LAST question on the test should be... How Much of the time is an image actually on the screen duiring a two hour movie......? If they don't know this answer then they don't know the theory. They should be sent back to the popcorn stand.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-19-2005, 11:31 PM:
 
Funny you should mention a test.

I've been working on a test, on and off, for quite a while, now.

Click Here

(PDF/Acrobat Reader format.) (400 KB.) (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike.)

There have been several versions of this, some better than others. Some of you may have seen it in one of its other lives. (Esp. Cinemarkers!)

Because of where I work I will soon be expected to pull this out of the closet, rework it and use it as a Final Exam for my students.

Anybody who sees anything useful in this document, feel free to make use. (See Creative Commons above.)

I would be appreciative of any suggestions or criticisms as well. (Especially in specifics on technical details that I may have gotten wrong or phrasing of questions/answers.)
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-19-2005, 11:37 PM:
 
Godamn those fratistats!
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-19-2005, 11:51 PM:
 
I have lost count of the number of people who have fallen for those "sucker answers"!

I get people who SWEAR that film is made of "Tricloro-S-Triazinetrione" or that there actually IS a fratistat in a movie projector!

It never ceases to be funny to me when somebody falls for one, even after all these years.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-20-2005, 04:14 AM:
 
I gave daily quizzes during training to aid in memorization and then a standard all-inclusive test came at the end of a practice period during which time the trainees started the weekday matinees in the smaller houses only.

I can remember a few of the points on the test:

A frame of standard 35mm film is 4 sprocket holes in height.
Soundtrack orientation is toward operator when threading.
Clear the intermittent before threading.
Identify frame lines on a sample strip of film.
Differenciate between scope & flat film (use the same 6-8 frames from a flat and scope version of the same trailer).
Names of soundtrack formats and locations.
Standard fader setting is 7.

Practical tests...

Turn projection system on.
Threading.
Manual start.
Adjust image: out of focus, out of frame and back to normal.
Turn projection system off.
Splicing.
 

---

Posted by Jason Miller (Member # 2341) on 04-20-2005, 07:19 AM:
 

quote: Randy Stankey

---

I've been working on a test, on and off, for quite a while, now.

---

I hope I can be present the day that someone catches a print on fire by cinching it.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-20-2005, 08:39 AM:
 
I. What does ASPECT RATIO mean?
A. The height of the picture on the screen compared to its width.
B. The height of the image on the film compared to its width.

As the question is worded, either answer would equally apply. The frame on the film has an aspect ratio, and there is an intended “projected” aspect ratio, which is not always the same.

II. Match the aspect ratios to the names of the formats below:
1. Flat 1.85:1 2.39:1 1.33:1 1.66:1
2. Cinemascope 1.85:1 2.39:1 1.33:1 1.66:1
3. Television 1.85:1 2.39:1 1.33:1 1.66:1
4. Academy 1.85:1 2.39:1 1.33:1 1.66:1
5. European 1.85:1 2.39:1 1.33:1 1.66:1

1.33 is a “TV” format. It has not been an aspect ratio for projected 35mm movies since the early 1930’s. I believe the official aspect ratio 1.37.

Technically, 1.85 1.75 1.37 & 1.66 are all flat.

If you run older movies from time to time, remember that the scope aspect ratio was 2.35 (2.55 for mag only), not 2.39. I forget when it was changed to 2.39.

Academy would be 1.37.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-20-2005, 09:27 AM:
 
It MIGHT catch fire if you cinch a piece of NITRATE film!

The aspect ratio question is one that I've been wrestling with:

PROJECTED aspect ratio would be correct. But, how far into terminology should I go when training newbies? Most of these students have only been donig the job for a few months. They only work once per week, as opposed to every day like they would in a commercial theater.

I've been flipping back and forth on that one. I think I'm going to put the work "projected" back in.
.

Same question with the Academy/TV vs. 1.33/1.37 thing:

Is is sufficient to simply point out that movies USED to be the same size as what your (standard) TV screen is today?

In my booth, we can project 1.85 - 1.66/1.77 - 2.39 - 1.37

Yes, I know that 1.85, 1.66, 1.77 and 1.37 are all considered "FLAT" but I'm boiling things down a bit.

In daily use, I call them "Flat", "European", "Scope" and "Academy". With the "European" lens there are two aperture plates. Since my screen is on the stage's fly system I can adjust the screen to match the picture. It's a little bit more legwork but it's cheaper to cut another plate than to buy another lens.

The lens collars and aperture plate handles (Simplex PR-1003) are all marked with the names of the format in paint marker. Each week I write the correct information on the label at the tail of the print. The operator simply has to go read the label and install the lens/aperture that's called for. Most of the time the correct lens is already in place so it's just a formality to check it.

So, do you think I've boiled the question down too much?

You don't realize how hard it is to take information that you know by heart and put it down on paper so that it's clear to other people until you try it!
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-20-2005, 12:06 PM:
 
This will probably make me seem like an insensitive prick but...

Avoid turning this into an opportunity to show off. Those multiple choice examples are needlessly complicated and you will confuse your projectionists, especially if they are complete newbies. Trick questions are silly and unprofessional and, in addition, can create an atmosphere in which the student is mistrustful of his teacher. I can understand how exciting it is to have the opportunity to train someone. Still, I would urge you to keep it simple. You can always offer "advanced training" at a later time.

The typical American film handler newbie only needs to know how to identify the scope format versus flat. From a practical standpoint, they need to know which lens and aperture plate is for which format and how to mount/dismount (or engage/disengage) the lenses and plates. If your theatre has moveable masking they will need to learn how to use it. The average newbie doesn't need to know what the numbers mean.

Unless you actually use 1.66 (and all that jazz) there is no reason to even bring that up in a "basic training" situation. Even with flat/scope I only mention the actual aspect ratios in passing. If they retain the information that's fine but they are not expected to learn/memorize any of it because it doesn't figure into their ability to do the job at the most basic of levels.

Again, if your theatre uses 1.66 and 1.85 then you *do* need to delve into the subject of aspect ratios a little deeper than this.

In most cases, however, the reality will be that your projectionist-in-training doesn't plan on being one for the rest of his/her life. Don't burn yourself out because, once in a while, you will find an excellent operator who is interested in learning more. Conserve your energy to groom that one when he/she presents him/herself.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-20-2005, 01:10 PM:
 
The people who trained me some decades ago used the term "half frame flat" to refer to 1.85. I have never heard anyone else ever refer to it that way, so I don't think it was official terminalogy.

I don't know anything about 1.77, but 1.75 was a Disney aspect ratio.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-20-2005, 01:16 PM:
 
The problem with not addressing stuff like 1.66 and Dolby A and <insert some other picture or sound format not normally encountered at a first-run multiplex> is that eventually, everyone will have to deal with a 1.66 or Dolby A print, even in a standard multiplex. There will be a theatre rental or Summer Movie Camp or any number of other reasons why films in oddball formats will show up and,when that happens, the operator will have to deal with them. If he is aware that these formats exist, then that reduces the chance of an emergency call about "the subtitles are getting cut off" or "the sound is bad."

Is there anyone here who has worked in a theatre for over a year who _hasn't_ handled an Academy or 1.66 print?
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 04-20-2005, 02:09 PM:
 
The nature of the test would depend on the aim of your training; if all that is required is people able to perform basic projector operation then most of the more complex items can be missed out, if you want projectionists who understand about film projection then it is worth introducing them to the more complex stuff.
If the course is part of their eductation it is worth going into the technical detail since this add to skills that will be usefull in other areas of their eductation.

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Those multiple choice examples are needlessly complicated and you will confuse your projectionists, especially if they are complete newbies.

---

quote:

---

I don't know anything about 1.77,

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Is there anyone here who has worked in a theatre for over a year who _hasn't_ handled an Academy or 1.66 print?

---

How many cinemas (especially multiplexes) showed those films using their 'flat' lense not noticing that the subtitles are off the bottom of the screen.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 04-20-2005, 02:16 PM:
 
Here's a good test, take a more seasoned projectionist, one that already knows how to build, breakdown, thread, and do minor maintenance, have him/her read this thread. If any of it is confusing to him/her, then imagine how confusing it would be to a newbie.
 

---

Posted by Kris Dirix (Member # 3012) on 04-20-2005, 02:30 PM:
 
I hate tests.
 

---

Posted by Tracy Bellar (Member # 3049) on 04-20-2005, 02:44 PM:
 
Most Important thing is to know how to shut down a projector get lights up without a cue. How to start and run manually if needed. proper cue placement.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-20-2005, 05:08 PM:
 
I never intended this test to be given to anybody unless they've been taught the material. Even though I put information on a passing score at the top of the first page, I never intend to flunk anybody who takes it.

A long time ago, I had to take the Pennsylvania projectionist's license test. That test is so easy as to be silly. (It's mostly just a formality, if you ask me.) Still, where I worked, there were a few people who were worried about not passing it. So, me and another guy sat down and started writing up a "practice test". The idea was that the practice test would be harder than the real test. If you could pass it with an 80% or better, you should be able to pass the real one with no problem.

There have been few times when the test has been given in an official capacity. Mostly, we just sit down and read the questions aloud then discuss them. On one occasion, I gave out the test to everybody and let them work out the answers as a group. Then they all came back and we discussed what the right answers should be.

I'd say the majority of people laugh at the sucker answers. The people who fall for them are the ones who see the test and try to be big shots but really don't know the answers.

I think some questions that seem like sucker questions... How many sprocket holes in a SCOPE film?... How many sprocket holes in a FLAT film?... SHOULD remain as a way to reiterate that all standard 35mm films (that you are likely to see) have four sprocket holes per frame, no matter what the screen aspect ratio.

I also pick and choose which questions make it to any version of the test I actually administer. As I said above, if there is anything you don't like about it, feel free to leave questions out or modify them.

Simply put, I look upon this like the question pool for the Amateur Radio license test.

One last thing... There will ALWAYS be at least one question with "fratistat" in the answer!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-20-2005, 09:29 PM:
 
...wonder if there should have been the question on this test to identify "fox" sprockets and when are they used...lol -Monte
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-20-2005, 10:36 PM:
 
When I train new projectionists, I always show them what happens when they put the wrong lens with the wrong plates. We don't have turrets here, but we do have 1.37,1.66,1.85 and 2.35. Everyone makes mistakes, and I want them to know what's wrong and what to do when they've made one.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-22-2005, 09:19 AM:
 
You mighn't want to add a question to determine if the person can tell which is head and which is tails on a piece of film with no leader. It may save you an upside down reel in some future buildup.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-22-2005, 10:07 AM:
 
I actually have charts for that.

I have:

• Head/Tail.
• Scope/Flat.
• Aspect Ratio Comparison.
  Including what it looks like when you use the wrong lens. (Via Photoshop)
• Automation Sequence.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Of course the LAST question on the test should be... How Much of the time is an image actually on the screen duiring a two hour movie......? If they don't know this answer then they don't know the theory. They should be sent back to the popcorn stand.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

close. 1/24th of a second due to the film speed at 24fps.

---

That would only be the case in a shutterless projector. The image is changed every 24th of a second, but not illuminated for the full 24th of a second.
[/pedant]
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-26-2005, 06:47 AM:
 
Ah but using persistance of vision one could claim that you see each image 1/24 of a second on average...but you are correct...each image is actually on the screen somewhat less that 1/24...with a 50% shutter it is 1/48...and such

To be technical...most records have 2-gooves since there is one on the back and one on the front. An arguement could be made that the "run out groove" is its own never ending goove. But there have been odd records that had 3-grooves (a Monty Python record comes to mind) where on one side, depending on where your needle went down...you would get the other goove.

But your point is taken Monte.
 

---

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 04-26-2005, 07:10 AM:
 
Here in Michigan, there is a Michigan Occupational Competency Assesment examination for individuals wishing to become certified as vocational instructors in the educational system. This test consists of two parts. The first part is the written examination which takes (or is limited to) 4 hours. The second part of the assessment is a 4 hour practical test where the person is given a task which requires the use of all of the skills of the chosen occupation.

When this assessment is successfully completed, the person taking it may be able to comp out of as much as 4 years of education in that particular field. For instance, a BA in graphic arts, with the addition of a few extra credits from the University.

There is currently no such assessment for the cinema technician/engineer occupation.

KEN
 

---

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 04-27-2005, 01:13 AM:
 
Q1 - the distinction between A & B seems irrelevant for a basic ooperator (though it's important at a more advanced stage).
Q2 - if you are terming ARs as height to width (ref Q1, you should express them as 1:1.85, not 1.85:1.
Q2 (more) - Flat may specify 1.85:1 to you, but it doesn't limit it as such to me: it simply expludes anamorphic. And European might be a common term in some areas, but it doesn't reflect any written standard anywhere.
Q2 again - Television is both 1.33:1 and 1.77:1 ( widescreen TV) but neither format is expressed that way in the TV business - it's 4x3 or 16x9. Not a ratio by the way, it's - illogically -expressed as an area hence the x.

Q4 (sorry QIV) How many sprocket holes for each frame? 8 on most pieces of film I've seen - 4 each side. Well you might assume it's only one side that is counted, but your trainee might not.
Q XVI Triacetate film is also flammable (try it, not at work or at home) - but unlike nitrate it can be esxtinguished. Polyester film can also burn.

Q XXI - I'd say any but B is common - maybe you have a favourite cause, not everyone would agree.

QXIII - How to tell if the image is bright enough? - well of course we know it's B - the meter reads 16 ftL. But worded this way could easily leave the impression that you measure the brightness of the image with a meter. Right? Wrong. You measure the brightness of an empty gate.

Parts of a film? THe DTS "soundtrack" isn't really a soundtrack. It's the control track. The soundtrack is on the disk.

Nitpicking? Not to someone who is trying very hard to learn, understand or distinguish all the different aspects of film technology.

A question that measured their ability to tell head from tail of a reel would be useful. It's been known that people get it wrong. Also to tell emulsion from cell side. And your illustrated questions might show a frame or two of a 'scope film and a "flat" one and maybe a hard-matted one, and ask the trainee to pick out the 'scope one.

Finally, none of this test actually measures competency. It just measures the ability of the trainee to name parts, etc. in a test. That's useful - but educationally, you are better off having them demonstrate their ability to identify the format of a range of films, lace it up correctly and screen successfully.

This may appear critical of your hard work, but that's what you asked for and it's meant to be helpful. I've had a lot of experience of setting tests and having students genuinely find ambiguity in what I thought were simple statements.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-27-2005, 11:09 AM:
 
No. Don't feel like you're being too critical! Your input is quite helpful!

As a matter of fact, as soon as I get some time I will edit the document according to the suggestions you give.

You're not nitpicking. You're weeding out ambiguity!

Thanks for the help.

I intended this test to be only one part of the whole training process, not the end-all. I'd say that 70% is practical knowledge and only 30% is the test score. (Maybe even 80/20.
 

---

Posted by Brent Burkett (Member # 3120) on 04-27-2005, 01:13 PM:
 
We had a three part test. Written/Hands on threadin and cleaning/ bulb change.

Written had things like:
what are shutter ghosts and how do you fix them?
How do you set the projector so the film starts in frame?
What causes a Washed out blurry image on the screen?
What is the operating range of a 2000watt xenon bulb?
Which auditoriums are DTS?
Which auditoriums are Digital EX capable?
and so forth
The Hands on included threading all 8 projectors with NO errors whatsoever, cutting the bad parts out of a boogered up trailer and splicing it back correctly, and detail cleaning their 2 projectors for that day.
The bulb change was just to give them a hands on of their own. they wouldn't fail that unless they opened the lamphouse with the power on or no safety shields on or if they blew up a bulb!

We only have Scope and flat lenses/ aperture plates, so no uncommon formats to worry about.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-27-2005, 01:30 PM:
 
For a number of years I was asked to author the NYC written test because until that time, the same questions that were used dated back some 30 years and were still on the test. They wanted more relevant questions. And I can wholeheartedly agree with Dominic -- phrasing questions so that there is no ambiguity and so that what you are going after is what you are actually asking in the phrasing of it. It is no easy task. The problem is that you know exactly what you mean -- you are "in the box" already....the student is thinking outside your box and will take everything literally, while you do not. You write with all the blanks filled in and you make assumptions that they don't have the background to make. So when you ask a question about film flamability, you already make assumptions in your head based on knowledge that the test taker does not. You know that safety film was introduced to avert the highly flamable properties of nitrate film -- you have that knowledge that goes unspoken into your question, but the student doesn't and thus the confusion it could engender since, as Dominic says, all film is flamable.

I ran into that kind of thing all the time; the trick was to look at each question from a blank slate and from a very literal perspective. It wasn't as easy as I thought it as going to be.

Then they decided to make the whole licensing concept not one to determine an applicant's knowledge and expertise, especially about safety issues, but it became just another way for the city to collect money without having to say they are leving a tax. They wanted me to change the test so that any 10 year old could pass. I bailed out. I am not sure if they even give the test anymore in NYC. I think you just pay your fee and they give you a license. The city is happy; the theatre owners are happy (their ushers can now take the test and become licensed "projectionists").

I leave them to rot in their own stupidity.

But Randy, kudos for what obvously is a labor of love for you. Your students are very lucky for being able to learn under your hand.

quote: Manny Knowles

---

The typical American film handler newbie only needs to know how to identify the scope format versus flat. From a practical standpoint, they need to know which lens and aperture plate is for which format and how to mount/dismount (or engage/disengage) the lenses and plates.

---

I worked a booth where each lens had a piece of colored electrical tape wrapped around the front of the barrel; red for scope, green for 1.85, yellow for 1.66 and black for 1.37 (not actually any tape needed for black). The plate handles (the black XL ones) were likewise dipped in the enamel paint that they use on plastic models, matching the plate color to the lens color. It may seem like a kindergarden approach to projection practices, but no one ever missmatched in that booth. Plus, you didn't ever have to squint in the dim light to see some scratched numbers in the plate handle to know what you were putting in the gate. There was also a dot of silver or gold to distinguish projector 1 and 2 plates and lenses. It went a long way to avoiding simple errors. Simplicity usually trumps complexity most times.

Years ago I bought a few bottles of enamel paint but never got around to coating the plates -- naturally they are marked with 1.85, 1.37, etc., but the color coding would be a nicety if I ever get around to it.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 04-28-2005, 07:03 PM:
 
Manny Knowles said:

"Trick questions are silly and unprofessional and, in addition, can create an atmosphere in which the student is mistrustful of his teacher."

Not really. A good multiple choice question has:

A. the correct answer
B. an answer that is nearly correct
C. an answer that is incorrect
D. an answer that is far from correct

In the last instance (D), that answer can be "off the wall", and totally misleading. In the second instance (B), it is not unfair to make that question "tricky".

Any educator will tell you that it takes a great deal of time and thought to make up a good multiple choice test.

As an educator, you should be interested not only in the student getting the correct answer , but also in the student's "wrong" answers on the test. That can be a good indicator as to whether someone is "getting it", or simply "winging it".

I never knew a student to be "mistrustful" of the teacher who is trying to find out whether or not they know the material they were responsible to learn. Tests, while they may be unpleasant for the test-taker, are a necessary tool to measure understanding.

Good job, Randy. You have taken training a lot further than many people. You are to be commended.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-29-2005, 03:04 AM:
 
Only stupid lazy so-called "educators" rely on multiple choice questions for one-on-one training or small classes.

Fill-in-the-blanks, short paragraph answers and practical exercises are the way to go.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-29-2005, 01:58 PM:
 
Okay, I'll go... exactly what does the employee get for passing this test? A raise?

If they can make just as much money flipping burgers, there's no incentive for anyone to learn.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 04-29-2005, 02:01 PM:
 
They get to stay in the booth away from customers. And at least at our theater they make more money then the floor staff.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-29-2005, 05:29 PM:
 
If you really want to get nitpicky, question IV doesn't have a correct answer unless you reword the question. The way it is now, the correct answer would be 8.

(Sorry but I couldn't resist.)
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 04-29-2005, 07:20 PM:
 
Manny Knowles wrote:

"Only stupid lazy so-called "educators" rely on multiple choice questions for one-on-one training or small classes.

Fill-in-the-blanks, short paragraph answers and practical exercises are the way to go."

So, Manny, where did you get your degree and teaching certificate? I might point out that up until this year, the entire college board test was multiple choice. They did add an essay this year, and anyone with common sense would tell you that the so-called writing sample is highly subjective.

Fill in the blank answers require only rote memory to answer correctly. They do not evaluate one's ability to reason or problem solve.

Short paragraph answers are only as good as the question that is being asked, and the criteria for which they are being graded.

What is "practical" is also a very subjective, depending on the discipline you are teaching.

Are you implying that Randy is "stupid and lazy" for devising a multiple choice test? You should re-read what he said. Quote Randy:

"I intended this test to be only one part of the whole training process, not the end-all. I'd say that 70% is practical knowledge and only 30% is the test score. (Maybe even 80/20."
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-29-2005, 08:52 PM:
 
Manny said "Only stupid lazy so-called "educators" rely on multiple choice questions"
Almost any trade related exam I have ever been involved in is multiple choice and fill in the blank with several short awnser questions as well
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-29-2005, 09:14 PM:
 
Ya know, the only time it applies, he didn't post his disclaimer:

quote: exBooty

---

This will make me seem like an insensitive prick, but...

---

quote:

---

Only stupid lazy so-called "educators" rely on multiple choice questions for one-on-one training or small classes. (emphasis added)

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

...I am a Master Baiter.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

They also got a raise from something like $6 to $8 per hour (projection shifts only) and a fair shot at a promotion

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

Actually I think is test worthy material
the historical background is often necasssary

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

There's certain core information that ought to be in a basic training course. Only a show-off would put miscellaneous trivia like this on a test.

---

I have never once in my life seen a student pass up the possibility of earning extra credit
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-01-2005, 02:14 AM:
 

quote: Manny Knowles

---

A wrong answer on that one would not prove/disprove his/her suitability for the job

---

quote: Chase Hanson

---

I have never once in my life seen a student pass up the possibility of earning extra credit

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

So...How old are you chase?

---

23

If you would like to contrive some tenious arguement reguarding age and experience. Now would not be the right time or place to do so.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-01-2005, 04:17 PM:
 
I don't mean to sound like an insensitive prick, but it would seem that Manny had some alternate lesson plans in mind.
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-02-2005, 12:31 PM:
 
I've always wondered about this European standard of 1.66:1

For example, I'm in England and all the cinemas I've visited project at 1.85:1

What countries actually use this standard?
 

---

Posted by Chris Brown (Member # 2800) on 05-02-2005, 04:39 PM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

In this small company that I work for, I have an actual booth certification programs that have 4 levels within. One-for basic booth knowledge and requirements. Two-Required for make and break films. Three-Machine maintenance-both preventive and routine. And the last, Four-which is an optional level..is the knowledge of xenon bulb handling.

---

quote: Michael Brown

---

I've always wondered about this European standard of 1.66:1
For example, I'm in England and all the cinemas I've visited project at 1.85:1
What countries actually use this standard?

---

quote: Michael Brown

---

I'm in England and all the cinemas I've visited project at 1.85:1

What countries actually use this standard?

---

quote: Chris Brown

---

Sounds very much like Regal's....

---

..Yeppers, it is. Based ours from the REG's list (that I remembered when I was with them and the one that I have with EDW's...) with some revisions/additions/subtractions from these two lists to fit to our operations in a more simpler, understandable form ....

Congrats, on getting Level 4 with REG, Chris. It isn't that hard once you can master the bulb thing-and with those Strongs you have. -Monte

[ 05-03-2005, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 05-03-2005, 01:30 AM:
 

quote: Stephen Furley

---

Wide screen films go back a long way. In the earliest days there were no standards, but within a few years 35mm film, and the 1.33 A.R silent frame became just about universal. With the coming of sound on film most, but not all, of the proposed standards retained the 35mm film, but reduced the frame width to make room for the track, reducing the A.R to around 1.1 something. This almost square picture was not liked, and so the height of the frame soon tended to be reduced to bring it back close to the old silent frame

---

quote:

---

The uniform aperture practice study had its inception in 1929, with a survey of new practices in projection that had developed as a result of the placing of the sound track on motion picture film.

This survey revealed that immediate coordination of practice was necessary, though there was still so much full frame disc release that it was too early to attempt standardization.
As a temporary measure the Academy established a "Recommended Practice," specifying that in photographic composition all vital action be kept within a rectangle marked on the camera glasses, of such size that the picture would not suffer when projected through a reduced proportional aperture.
This practice was adopted by the studios and for the past two years cameramen have thus had to fill about 20 per cent of' their frame -- the 10 per cent of sound track area, plus 5 per cent at the top and 5 per cent at the bottom -- with unessential views of the set.

---

quote:

---

New product already is being released with the uniform picture frame size, which is the same for all types of prints; movietone, disc and silent. The new releases can be recognized by the fact that the frame lines are about four times as wide as previously. No changes have been made in the sprocket holes or sound track. An initial minor adjustment of aperture plates
and projection screen masks will be necessary to show the new product to best advantage and give to the audience the full value' of the picture photographed by the studio. When this adjustment has been made, all prints may be run with the uniform aperture.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Congrats, on getting Level 4 with REG, Chris. It isn't that hard once you can master the bulb thing-and with those Strongs you have. -Monte

---

quote:

---

I'm just waiting for the paperwork to be sent in and for it all to happen. I've got my fingers crossed that it'll be so

---