text:
The Sydney Morning Herald, one of Australia's leading newspapers, is far left even by the standards of the New York and L.A. Times. But this is beyond the pale. The Herald has assigned crack-pot Richard Neville to explore the mystery: "Who Killed Nick Berg?"
Needless to say, Neville doesn't fall for the obvious explanation–the al Qaeda guys, who tend to decapitate westerners whenever they get the chance. No, that would be way too simple:
Iraq in flames, Washington an object of disgust. What to do? At this pivotal moment, CNN and Fox News are tipped off to a clip of an American citizen being beheaded. The victim is a 26-year-old idealist from Pennsylvania, Nick Berg. Despite the perpetrators being masked, the vile deed is deemed the work of al-Qaeda.
The clip was first "discovered" on an Islamic website in Malaysia. Its Arabic title reads "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American". al-Zarqawi is a 38-year-old Jordanian militant who fled to Iraq in 2001 after reportedly losing a leg in a US missile strike. al-Zarqawi's face is widely known and he credits himself with the deed, so why a mask?
The timing of the video was brilliant for the West. Media pundits judged the crime a deeper evil than the systemic torture of innocent Iraqis. But some people sensed a rat. But if it was not al-Qaeda, who? Surely not Uncle Sam. That's too dark, even for the CIA.
Well, no, apparently it isn't. Not only did the CIA kill Berg, they were incited to do so by none other than Free Republic. Here is Neville's cogent analysis:
On March 7, 2004, two weeks before his arrest in Mosul, an "enemies list" had been posted on a conservative website, FreeRepublic.com. The list was compiled from signatories to an anti-war petition, and its implied purpose was to encourage readers to harass those it named.
Berg's father was on that list, as was the family firm, Prometheus. This information may well have triggered the arrest of Berg in Iraq.
Gosh, if we'd only known that we could get someone arrested by mentioning his father's name in a Free Republic post! The possibilities are endless.
So this is the pass we have come to. Liberals, not only here in America but world-wide, are so twisted and deformed by hate that they will gladly assume that if someone is found decapitated, the most likely explanation is that the CIA killed him, on instructions from a conservative website. The sickness spreads.
Via Tim Blair.


text:
The Hardings
Left to right: Francis "Wilmer" Harding (1905-1962), "Bessie" Lee
(Davis) Harding (1914-1963), Mary "Leona" (Harding) Long (1907-1995),
Richard "Harvey" Long (1907-1975). Standing behind Leona and Harvey is
Francis Wilmer "Billy" Harding, Jr. Picture was taken about 1942 at the old
Shell Station (now the site of the Corner Carryout) in Oraville, Maryland.
The home of Thomas Vinton Harding and his wife, Frances Bernice Hayden is to
the left and no longer stands. Billy Harding, his wife Norma (Wright) and
their children, Cheryl, Laura, and Michael live in California.
Search This Site
The latin motto above is taken from the Great Seal of Maryland; it is the last verse of Psalm 5: "with favor wilt thou compass us as with a shield". The date, 1632, refers to the year the Maryland charter was granted by Charles I, King of England, to Cecilius Calvert, second Lord Baltimore.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Undergraduate Scholarship Program (UGSP) offers competitive scholarships to students from disadvantaged backgrounds that are committed to careers in biomedical, behavioral, and social science health-related research. The program offers scholarship support, paid research training during the summer, and paid employment and training at NIH after graduation.
Currently, the UGSP provides up to $20,000 per academic year in tuition, educational expenses, and reasonable living expenses to scholarship recipients. Scholarships are awarded for one year and can be renewed up to a maximum of four years. For each full or partial scholarship year, UGSP participants are committed to two service obligations: a ten-week summer laboratory experience under the mentorship of an National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) investigator, as well as one full year of research in an NHGRI laboratory.
To be eligible for the UGSP, students must:
The application period is closed.
For more information, see: The NIH Undergraduate Scholarship Program
Last Updated: June 14, 2013


text:
The STRICT SociaLab, Department of Theoretical and Applied Science, University of Insubria (Italy) announces the availability of Marie-Curie Ph.D. Fellowship Position for Early-stage researcher in Online Social Networking technologies with a focus on Privacy, Risk Analysis and Trust Management (code: iSocial-INSUB-ESR7).
The position is for three (3) years (with the possibility of extension to the 4th), starting in early 2013. The positions are funded by the European Commission under the Marie Curie Initial Training Network (ITN) program iSocial, which focuses on the design of distributed and scalable overlay networking and distributed storage infrastructures for open online social networks and for innovative social network applications that preserve end-user privacy and information ownership. The main objective of the iSocial Initial Training Network is to provide world class training for a next generation of researchers, computer scientists, and Web engineers, emphasizing on a strong combination of advanced understanding in both theoretical and experimental approaches, methodologies and tools that are required to develop Decentralized Online Social Networking platforms. For more information please contact prof. Elena Ferrari
Requirements, Eligibility Criteria and Funding
Successful candidates are expected to join the Ph.D. program of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Science, University of Insubria, to conduct original research in collaboration with the principal investigators of iSocial, and to contribute actively to the activities planned of the project (scientific publications, taking courses, secondments, participation to meetings and events, preparation of educational material, coordination of work, etc.).
We seek candidates with experience and research interests in one or more of the following topics: Privacy, Risk Analysis, Trust Management, Social Network, Machine Learning, Distributed Processing and Analysis of Large Datasets.
Preference will be given to highly motivated candidates with strong programming and analytical skills and a proven commitment to their studies. The working language will be English; knowledge of Italian is welcome but not required.
Eligible applicants are required to have obtained the M.Sc. degree in computer science or areas related to distributed computing from an internationally recognized university. Excellent grades from courses in distributed systems, security and privacy, networking, programming languages, computer architectures, and theory of computing are expected. The applicants must have less than 4 years of full-time research experience after obtaining their degree. At the time of recruitment by the Department of Theoretical and Applied Science, University of Insubria, the early-stage researchers must not have resided or carried out their main activity (work, studies, etc.) in Italy for more than 12 months in the 3 years immediately prior to the reference date.
Conditional acceptance
Students in their final year of Master education may also apply and if qualified, receive a conditional offer. If the applicant has not completed her studies, she should include a written statement from the degree administration office (or equivalent department), confirming that she is enrolled on the final year of her education and stating the expected completion date. If the applicant receives a conditional offer, the candidate should present the degree certificate to the Admissions Office at the time of the qualification exam.
Marie Curie fellows enjoy good salaries and working conditions, career development opportunities and work-life balance. We especially encourage women researchers to apply for the aforementioned positions. The monthly salary of a PhD student under Marie Curie iSocial ITN scheme at the Department of Theoretical and Applied Science, University of Insubria (Italy) is expected to be is approx 32k euros (year) after-tax. Marie Curie fellows will also get coverage of expenses related to the participation in research and training activities (contribution to research-related costs, meetings, conference attendance, training actions, etc.).
To communicate your expression of interest, please fill in the application form (doc, pdf) and send it together with your curriculum vitae, two (2) references, transcript of the grades (original and in English), by email to "openings (at) isocial-itn.eu". Please put in the subject line the code of the position of your first preference. While expressions of interest are accepted on a continuous basis, applications received by Dec 01, 2012 will be considered in the first evaluation cycle. The decisions are expected to be reached by the end of Jan 2013.
The iSocial ITN has started in October 2012 and will finish in September 2016. The following institutions participate in the iSocial ITN: Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden (asst. prof. S. Girdzijauskas, prof. S. Haridi); Univ. of Cyprus (prof. M. Dikaiakos); Univ. of Insubria, Italy (prof. E. Ferrari); ICS/FORTH, Greece (prof. E. Markatos); Univ. of Barcelona (prof. M. Boguna); IBM Israel (Dr. E. Dekel); Peerialism, Sweden (Dr. S. El-Ansary), and a number of associated research and industrial partners (IMIS/ATHENA, Greece; Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; TELEFONICA TID, Spain; FORTHNET, Greece; FMT Worldwide, Cyprus/Australia; Wadja.com, Cyprus/USA).


text:
General Questions
Q: What is Eclipse bug day?
A: Eclipse bug day is simply one day a month when Eclipse committers are dedicated to foster Eclipse community outreach.
For Developers (non-committers)
Q: What skills do I need to participate in Eclipse bug day?
A: If you have the code foo so to speak, you can pick through bugs that have been specially selected for Eclipse bug day (they have the special flag of bugday) and assign it to yourself. Once this is done, you claim the bug for yourself and can ask help from the developer via the bug or talk to them directly on IRC.
For Users (non-developers)
Q: What skills do I need to participate in Eclipse bug day?
A: There's plenty of opportunity to participate if you're not a developer! There are Eclipse bugs out there that need help with triage (see the question below) or if you're good with artwork, there's bugs out there that need help with art!
Q: How do I triage bugs?
A: Programming skills might help you fix particular bugs, but triaging most bugs will not require any programming knowledge. Bug triaging is a great way for people who do not know anything about programming to return something to the Eclipse community. To get started with triaging a bug, simply go to the Eclipse bug day page: (1) find the current bug day, (2) find a component your interested in triaging and click the triage link, (3) go through the bugs and see if there is anything missing in a bug or the bug may be out of date.
Q: What software is needed in order to assist in triaging bugs?
A: A web browser (like Firefox) and the latest stable version of Eclipse should suffice (note that some bugs may be tied to specific Eclipse versions, but those can be considered more advanced).
For Committers
Q: Why should I participate in bug day?
A: I assume as an over-worked Eclipse committer with little free-time, bugs tend to languish in the inbox without some coordinated effort to keep up with them. Bug days help keep bug-fixing on the radar and provide a great lightweight opportunity for contributors to help. Also, the community is given an opportunity to get to know committers via triage and bug fixing!
Q: How can I participate in bug day?
A: Make sure to tag bugs (bugday) you think are reasonable for new contributors. On actual bug days, please hang out on IRC to help contributors and take a look at the respective wiki page for the current bugday.


text:
Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY) reaffirmed its in-line fiscal 2012 guidance on Friday and unveiled an upbeat outlook for the following year.
The company also said it continues to bridge the gap between patent expirations and new drug approvals and is on track to meet or exceed expectations through 2014.
Continue Reading Below
The Indianapolis-based drug maker said it sees current-year earnings in the range of $3.30 to $3.40 when excluding special items, bracketing average analyst estimates of $3.36 in a Thomson Reuters poll.
"We remain on track to meet or exceed our minimum financial performance targets," said Derica Rice, Lilly chief financial officer. "From now through 2014, on an annual basis we still expect revenue to be at least $20 billion, net income to be at least $3 billion, and operating cash flow to be at least $4 billion."
For 2013, the pharmaceutical giant projects non-GAAP EPS of $3.75 to $3.90, topping the Street's view of $3.71. It sees revenue for the 12-month period between $22.6 billion and $23.4 billion, meeting average analyst estimates of $22.82 billion.
Both outlooks exclude recent changes to the tax code and the transfer of certain commercial rights outside the U.S. and Amylin (NASDAQ:AMLN).
Lilly said it continues to implement strategies to mitigate the effects of the so-called patent cliff that has caused it to lose exclusivity for some of its major blockbuster drugs and thrust it into much deeper competition with generic drug makers.
"We have made substantial progress in recent years and expect 2013 to continue that trend," Lilly CEO John Lechleiter said in a statement.


text:
Comments on Quiet Please articles
Senior Member
Usergroup: Member
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 260
Posted Aug 23, 2005 - 10:08 PM:
Syndicated radio and television columnist John Crosby devotes back-to-back columns to our good friend Wyllis Cooper.
[September 5, 1949 Oakland Tribune]
Writer Puts Unique Tone In Air Plays
By JOHN CROSBY
Wyllis Cooper, who looks like a cross between a gnome and Alexander Woollcott, is an arresting and, in one respect, almost unique figure in radio. He is one of the few writers whose own personality is impressed on listeners more vividly than that of the actors.
He is the author of "Quiet Please," now off the air, and of a short-lived television program. Any single drama on either of those programs was instantly recognizable as the handiwork of Cooper, whose mind works in strange ways. In almost all Cooper scripts a sense of dread, of imminent catastrophe, hangs over the characters from the outset to about one minute before the closing commercial. Yet nothing much happens in the half hour. There are long, long pauses, so long sometimes you wonder if your radio has gone on the blink. Networks are horrified at the amount of dead air they purchase along with Cooper. (A half hour Cooper script played at ordinary tempo would run about ll minutes.)
A Cooper story always ends with a surprise, a twist of some sort, many of them unexplained. The supernatural figures strongly, though in strange ways. Supernatural characters in Cooper's dramas are not terribly sinister. Many of them are more likable than the humans in the script and some of them are just ridiculous and a little poignant. They are likely to pop in unexpectedly. You'll see (or hear of) a couple of guys at a bar drinking beer and suddenly become aware that one of them has four arms and hails from the moon.
A Cooper story starts so slowly you can hear your heart beat, sometimes with a satiric twist right at the beginning. There was one about a private eye to whom nothing had ever happened. He'd had no adventures at all. And his secretary was no glamor girl, but a battleaxe, roughly 112 years old. Then a man walked in to discuss a murder. "Who was murdered?" asked the private eye. "I was," said the man, rather aggrieved about it.
Some of these twists are a little too elfin to stand analysis, but then Cooper is not long on plot anyhow. His gift is for mood and character. The listener gets so wrapped up in a Cooper character, wondering who he is, what he's doing there, and how it's all going to come out, he'll sit on the edge of his chair for half an hour. And at the end of half an hour, he may still be pretty fuzzy about what happened, depending on how explanatory Cooper feels at the moment.
Like Henry Morgan, Cooper has no respect for or interest in listeners who are doing the dishes or who drop out to the icebox for a beer during his stories. He never repeats himself. "Why should I make concessions to an audience that doesn't pay attention?" he says. As a matter of fact, he doesn't make very many concessions to the people who do pay attention. At the end of half an hour they may be just as baffled as the dishwashers.
Cooper's Holinshed, at least his principal one, is the Bible. "Quite a source book," he explains. Cooper loves to lift stories from the Bible and then wait around for the mail to see how many people recognized the source. Biblical stories are put into modern dress and sometimes re-arranged rather dramatically to suit Cooper's peculiar point of view. In the Cain and Abel story, for example, it was all Abel's fault. Abel was such a nasty character he provoked his brother into what Cooper considered justifiable homicide. (A lot of people wrote in to say they agreed.)
There are few characters in any Cooper script, two or three or sometimes just one, and he uses more straight narrative than almost anyone. Besides insisting--against all the rules--on long stretches of silence, Cooper frequently has two people talking at once--again, against all radio rules. In ordinary conversation, says Cooper, everyone talks at once and they appear to understand one another, so why not in radio?
While unquestionably a rare and entertaining writer, Cooper has some strong faults. He avoids cliches with such intensity that he's creating his own. Some of his characters, surprising as they are, bear as much resemblance to human beings as a baby in a bottle at Harvard. His tricky but obscure endings sometimes seem an easy way for a writer to get out of a bad hole.
In his single invasion of television Cooper's crotchets were as individual and startling as they were on radio. But that will have to wait until tomorrow.
[September 6, 1949 Oakland Tribune]
Writer of Eerie Stuff Tries Video
By JOHN CROSBY
Wyllis Cooper, a writer of eerie, sometimes incomprehensible though remarkably literate radio and television dramas, looks as if he'd stepped out of one of his own scripts. He's a short, bespectacled man, broad of brow and sweeping of girth. His double chin is an expanse of incomparable grandeur. He works, hunched over a typewriter like an intelligent spider, in a large office in the Hotel Brittany behind drawn blinds. The drawn blinds, he explains, are to protect him from street noises, which is the sort of contradiction he loves to use in his radio plays.
After his single brush with television, a six-program series on ABC-TV entitled characteristically Volume 1 (Nos. 1 to 6), he is brimming with theories about television, most of them heretical. Television, he says, is neither a movie nor an illustrated radio show. Too much television, he feels, is just a bad adaptation of Hollywood techniques with cameras running wild all over the place.
Television, says Cooper, is really a window in your living room and should be treated that way. In his own series, Cooper tried to get the home audience to forget all about the cameras, to become eavesdroppers. The audience was told, in the first of the plays, that it was seated behind a mirror. The audience could see every move of the characters; the characters, of course, could see only their own reflections in the mirror.
Into the room--a hotel room--crept a man and a woman who had just robbed a bank and were using the place as a hideout. The camera never budged throughout the half hour. The woman would tidy her hair in front of the mirror--which was your television screen--then walk away. The man would stamp out a cigarette on an invisible bureau over which the mirror hung. An ordinary kitchen chair was the only prop. There was no scenery. The room was black as a cave except for spots illuminating the actors.
Gradually, the couple became aware there was something very fishy about the hotel room. The bellhop, the only other character, seemed to know all about their crime and to pity them for it. Their money disappeared. They couldn't get food or, a more desperate need, cigarettes. And they couldn't get out of the room. Finally--if my interpretation of the convolutions of Cooper's brain is correct, and I wouldn't swear to it--they realized they were doomed to spend eternity in that hotel room with a neon light flashing off and on, off and on, outside the window and a jukebox playing the same dreary tune downstairs. It's a torment I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
That is typical of the stories Cooper tells and also of his methods. He used no scenery in four of his six plays and only rudimentary scenery in the other two. The purpose was not to save money. The television screen is so small, he says, that the viewer can't absorb the scenery and also see what the people are doing. He uses small casts because he thinks too many characters clutter up the action. As in radio, he was spare with dialogue. Cooper feels there is too much chatter in television. Yet the first script totaled 74 pages, two-thirds the length of a two-and-a-half-hour play. Most of it was stage directions.
Cooper is trying to establish in television the intimacy that was radio's peculiar distinction among dramatic forms. He admits it's difficult, but he says that the imitation of movie technique is the wrong way to go about it.
"The movies can go into great detail," he points out. "In television, we can't. We haven't the time, the clarity, the size, or the audience stimulation." (Audience stimulation: people in an audience stimulate one another. Two people in a living room don't very much.)
On the other hand, television has an urgency and a freshness that can't be duplicated by the movies. Cooper used to write his little vignettes and throw them in front of the camera--three one-hour reading periods, six hours of rehearsals--before he had time to grow cold on them. He still insists his series was not experimental and was wildly indignant when ABC press releases listed them as such.
"I had some theories about television and I proved them--to my satisfaction at least." The main rule, says Cooper, "Don't try to do what you can't do. You can't do 'Gone With the Wind' on television. Why does anyone want to do it anyway?"
His brief experience with television left him unbowed--he'll undoubtedly be back--but he admits it [wearied?] him a little.
"I never heard 'You can't do that' so many times in my life," he says.
Posted Dec 17, 2005 - 10:27 PM:
Sounds great!
Senior Member
Usergroup: Member
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 260
Posted Mar 21, 2007 - 7:11 PM:
[Excerpt from "Television: A New Idiom" by Flora Rheta Schreiber, Hollywood Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Winter, 1949), pp. 182-192.]
FLORA RHETA SCHREIBER directed a summer workshop in radio and television, entitled Television: A New Idiom.
Miss Schreiber's critical articles on radio and television have appeared in a number of journals, including the Hollywood Quarterly.
... Wyllis Cooper has developed a number of interesting techniques for utilizing the television medium in terms of its special potentialities. Cooper's direction of his admirable series Volume One might be called an experiment in intimacy. Recognizing that the screen can function as a mirror, Cooper made his characters use the mirror directly as a property. A girl looks in the mirror and puts lipstick on. A man stands before the mirror, adjusting his tie. You might be watching people in the apartment across the street. Or the effectcan be less casual, more violent, when a man throws a gun at the mirror and the viewer recoils in physical fright -- for the glass has apparently been smashed and the pieces appear to be heading for the viewer's face. This is intimacy becoming actual identification. Cooper is fond of keeping his camera nailed to the ground and immobile, bringing his characters into the scene, coming toward the camera, right up, in effect, to the eye of the viewer. Again identification is intensified. Some video directions taken directly from a Cooper script may be illuminating in terms of his technique:
Floyd grimaces into the mirror, and Georgie saunters up behind him, takes the cigarette from her lips and offers it to him. He sees it in the mirror, looks down at it, then turns and slaps it out of her hand in a rage. Georgie, in turn, smacks him hard across the face with her open hand. He reaches out, grabs her by the arm, and pulls her to him roughly. With his left hand he reaches up and removes her glasses, which he places on the dresser. Georgie cringes, and he knocks her to the floor, out of the scene.
Note the effect of staging this scene of violence as reflected in a mirror used simultaneously as a property and as the viewer's sense of reflected reality. The directions continue:
As he stands over her, looking down and breathing hard, the light from the opening door falls across the B.G. He notices it after a second, and automatically reaches for her glasses; as she gets to her feet, he hands them to her. She puts the glasses on, wipes away a trickle of blood from her face, and looks toward the door. The light source shows the shadow of the bellhop across the floor, and he comes in, smiling.
Notice here how the entrance of the bellhop, a sinister character in the script, is built first through the reflection of light and then, more directly, through the approaching shadow. Since the audience has already been oriented in terms of the mirror, light and shadow also continue to appear as reflected realities. The sinister bellhop walks over to the mirror, looks into it, straightens his jacket, and says, "You're being watched, you know." And the viewer does know. Hasn't the viewer also been watching? "You're being watched," is a line motivated in the plot and underscored in motivation by the identification of the audience. Or the viewer might take it in the opposite way. "You're being watched," spoken into the mirror, may also convert the viewer into the "you" being watched. As the play closes, the bellhop waves "good-bye" to Floyd and Georgie. The direction reads:
As he comes up full, he reaches out, closes a door right in our faces: a door we haven't seen before. As it closes, the music and the siren and all is shut out. He locks the door, looks into the camera, and smiles slightly. "You see?" he asks. He throws the key away, and as he moves out of the scene we hear Georgie and Floyd hammering on the door. The theme music comes up and drowns out the sound.
To have a character close a door on a play is a more intimate and personal effect than fading out could ever be. It is part of a subjective approach. ...
Senior Member
Usergroup: Member
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 260
Posted Dec 06, 2008 - 9:12 PM:
Vol 43 / AUGUST, 1944 / No. 2
Summary. The 2 following papers and subsequent discussion took place at a meeting of the Atlantic Coast Section of the Society in New York on March 22, 1944. The subject was limited to the use of film in television programs broadcast for reception in homes, as an alternative to the production of programs of this type directly from live talent. Discussion was directed along 3 lines, i. e., the effect on technical phases of picture quality such as definition and focus, possibilities in artistic effects, and economic aspects. It was emphasized that the views expressed were personal opinions and did not necessarily represent the policies of any company or organization. Discussion section follows the second paper page 85.
[by] WYLLIS COOPER
National Broadcasting Company, New York.
I first want to qualify myself. I do not want to appear as a television expert. I have had a good deal of experience in radio, some experience in television, and considerable experience in motion pictures. I am going to talk to you for a few moments about the possible or probable use of motion picture film in television broadcasting. I want to emphasize again that what I am going to talk about are my own ideas and may not be shared by the people I work for.
There is not any argument at all on the merits of motion picture film in television. The live type of television broadcasting may have its place and will have its place, and certainly there will be an enormous place for the use of film. The _Wall Street Journal_ recently said, quoting some unknown Hollywood producer, that "Television is nothing more than a talking picture and talking pictures are our business." I have a slight quarrel with that statement. Certainly motion pictures are Hollywood's business, but the other half of the statement, that television is nothing more than a talking picture, is not adequate. Television is considerably more than a talking picture for a number of reasons, and we will try to go into those as we go along.
In the development of any art medium, we must take into consideration the things that have gone before. Every development in any of the art mediums has been influenced by the work of the people who went before. Michael Angelo [sic] painted pictures. They were still pictures. They were fine in color and so forth. Somebody else discovered photography--Niepce, Daguerre and Fox-Talbot, and the rest of them--but each of the mediums as it was developed, had a considerable influence upon the development of the medium that followed. That is what is going to happen to television. Motion pictures came ahead of television. Motion pictures will definitely have some influence, great or small, upon the development of television, and television will undoubtedly have a great effect on whatever follows it.
In my opinion, the important point in the consideration of motion pictures in television is this: Television, to be acceptable apart from its novelty feature, must conform to certain standards of quality, the establishment of which the television industry had nothing at all to do with. The people who began radio had a great deal to do with the establishment of conventions and of standards. Although the radio industry will probably do the major portion of television broadcasting, they must conform to standards that have previously been set.
Let us consider the standards of present-day theater films. The use of dissolves, fades, close-ups, and other cinematic devices is universally understood. The technical quality of film is taken for granted by the audience. No matter how poor the story quality, or how bad the acting in a Hollywood film, the technical quality of the film is almost always above reproach. If there are deviations from the standard high quality of Hollywood films, lighting, photography, and so forth, they stick out pretty badly, and they are very obvious to everyone who sees them. It is equally obvious, then, if television is going to compete in the home with the motion picture--and it is quite likely that to a limited degree it will--it is necessary to accept the standards of present-day film production and to measure up to them.
As another example of the conventions, those of editing entertainment motion pictures are thoroughly understood by the audience probably because they are based on very sound psychological concepts. Any deviation, any use of makeshifts in editing, or in other phases of cinematics, becomes immediately apparent, and the audience does not like it. For example, I mentioned the use of lighting. When you come in for a close-up from a medium shot, the lighting is always changed, of course, so that the 2 scenes will match. It is sometimes impractical to do that in television which is transmitted from a live pickup, because it is not always possible to use the same camera for a close-up and a wider angle shot. Usually there is not time to change the lighting, and an immediate change in the character of the scene being photographed results. It takes attention away from the story and does something to the psychological reactions of the persons viewing it.
Pudovkin, who is generally considered one of the best authorities on cinematics, says "the essence of the film is editing. Editing in time and space is vital to the production of a good entertainment picture, or, for that matter, of almost any other kind of picture." The use of film obviously gives you the opportunity to use all the technique of editing in time and space that you have in film for theater projection. Inserts, the use of stock shots of all types, matching close-ups, the general cinematic flow of the picture, are all functions of the film, and I use the term "film" in its generic sense and not an actual strip of celluloid with a silver emulsion. It is not always possible to make the best use of the various cinematic devices when one must depend upon instantaneous decisions in a studio to overcome the limitations of space, sets, characters, and so forth.
There are many faults in present-day television. Many of them, of course, are due to equipment limitations and the war situation, but it goes without saying that these things will be licked within a few years following the end of the war. There are many other faults due to production. We hope that they, too, will be remedied. A film can be used for most television programs in the future. Understand, I say it _can_ be used. Whether it _will_ be used or not, I do not know. I do not think anybody knows at present.
There are certain objections to the use of film. These can be broken down into 2 main objections: first, the cost of film production. A great many people think that to use film for television implies the use of film in the Hollywood manner, which certainly costs a lot of money. The equipment necessary for producing film for television is another element that must be taken into consideration.
The second principal objection is the question of time--the time required for processing the film, and the lack of what some television people call immediacy, which is the quality of knowing that what you see is happening at the time you see it.
In present-day television there is a great deal of talk about this immediacy. I, for one, feel that that concept is considerably overrated. Some people in television have gone so far as to use the word instantaneity. That is a philological handspring the like of which I have never seen or heard before. The fact that the singer is opening his mouth at the precise moment you see him on your home television set, is something I am afraid will not keep you awake nights. However, if you want to have him open his mouth and sing, and know that he is doing so at the exact moment you see him grimace as he reaches for a high one, it is all right with me. The flexibility that can be had by prescoring, and then having the singer mouth his lines with a pleasant smile, I think more than compensates for the stop-watch attitude you may have if you know he is doing it now.
I want to talk for a moment about how to use film for television. As I said before, it is perfectly obvious that we cannot use the Hollywood style, because the cost would be completely out of line. It would be impossible to spend the amount of money for television broadcasts--which are fairly shortlived, like radio broadcasts--as is spent in Hollywood. There must be a considerable change and some more economical way in approaching the subject of using film.
We have to observe the analogy of television with radio. Television is coming into the home just as radio does. The programs will have to be of approximately the same length as radio programs, although nobody knows for certain what they will be. And in each case, whether we are using television for education, for entertainment or for news, we have these arbitrary standards already in existence. We cannot in any way foist inferior standards on a public that is conditioned by standards which have been a part of its life for many years.
In radio, we do not find it necessary to set up a physical theater with a stage and sets and curtains and so forth in order to do a play. By a number of clever devices and by the use of conventions, we avoid expense and time. By now, in radio's second or third decade, people have become pretty well conditioned to the conventions of radio, and they understand it as well as they do the conventions of the theatrical motion picture. We can do the same thing in television by the use of motion pictures. I mean, we can use shortcuts, and we can use a number of devices, but these must always be devices with which the audience is familiar and which they understand.
Of course, we will have to borrow from Hollywood what we need. A great many things will have to be simplified, and owing to the technical limitations of the medium, we will have to do a number of things that are not necessary in theater films. The point I am trying to make, somewhat laboriously, is that the perfection of a theatrical film is not a vital part of a film made for television. Just as we have shortcuts in radio when we do a play, there will also be the same shortcuts in a television film when we are making that film specifically for television. We will be able to use the over-all general technique of the cinema, but we will synthesize a new technique with the production of television films, and it will be definitely television technique.
In the actual production of films for television, I want to point out what I think is a simple way. Starting with the script, it will have to be more carefully written than the average entertainment film script. We will borrow, as I said, from Hollywood, but we will have to keep in mind the fact that we are not making a picture which will be shown on an enormous screen to a large number of people at once. We will have to tell the story rather simply. For one reason, the television film will very likely be much shorter than even the average motion picture short. On the breakdown for production, it probably will be necessary to arrange the breakdown so that, as far as possible, the film can be shot in sequence. We cannot always do that, of course, but with some care and some insistance [sic] upon this as a vital part of television production, we can arrive at a situation in which much of each film will be shot in sequence.
The actual production of the film presents some other difficulties. We will have to do a lot of cutting in the camera. We will have to keep down the number of takes as far as possible, because we will not have time to make numerous takes and, again, we are not seeking the perfection that we would have to have for large screen projection.
The rushes should be made available as you continue shooting. You can make a rough cut as you go along. That may sound hard to do in view of present-day production methods in Hollywood and elsewhere, but I have a suggestion about that. If these pictures are made on 16-mm reversal film, it is quite possible to have on the set, with the camera crew and the director--the director, incidentally, should be a combination cutter and director--a portable processing unit that can keep right along with the camera crew. As soon as the scene is shot, the magazine is handed to the man at the processing unit, and in a comparatively short length of time you have a positive print ready for projection.
At the present time I am under the impression that it takes about 15 min from the time you thread a developing machine until the film comes out at the other end, polished and ready to project. That time can be cut down appreciably, possibly not under existing conditions, but there are ways of speeding up the development of the reversal process. In that way, you have a rough cut of the film going right along with you.
So far as the sound is concerned, you make that with a double system sound, process it at the same time, but the sound track is never printed on the picture print. It is cut along with the picture, rough cut as you are shooting, and by the end of your shooting schedule, you have a rough cut. With one or 2 hr more for the final cut, both of the sound track and the picture, you are ready for the actual broadcast. It is perfectly simple to set up the projection arrangements so that you project from separate sound and picture films. It is going to be possible; it has been done and is perfectly simple to do.
Special effects, if you want them, can be added. You can do prescoring to add sound effects or music at the same time you are shooting the main part of the picture. It is a definitely specialized technique with which no one has had much experience, of course, but it is perfectly simple to use and can be used.
There is a great need, of course, for experimenting with this technique. Nobody is going to be able to produce that kind of film day after tomorrow. The equipment for the most part is available, or could be "hay wired" together so that people could experiment with it as soon as they want to. The same technique can be applied to almost any kind of broadcasting. I am talking particularly about dramatic broadcasts, but musical programs can be done the same way. You prescore exactly the same as for Hollywood pictures, and then you avoid the appearance of tonsils and false teeth, and the pained expression when the singer tries to hit a high note.
The stock shots, almost anything you want, can be intercut as long as your sound track runs straight through the way you want it to. You then have a film that looks as professional as a Hollywood entertainment film, and is certainly up to the previously established standards.
You can see that the cost of making a picture for television, if we use the method I have just proposed, need not be measured in Hollywood figures. The equipment, of course, is expensive, but most television broadcasters have lights and cameras and other equipment already, and the total over-all cost to establish a modest film production setup for television of this type--well, some equipment people might like to figure that one out.
There is one other advantage of film for the picture that goes on the tube and that is, when it is photographed you have a record which you can keep and refer to, and cry over your failures.
In network broadcasting, of course, the problem of supplying television broadcasts to distant stations is not of such importance, but certainly independent television broadcasters will make a great deal of use of film for this purpose. Any station with any transmitting equipment at all can use film, whether they can use the other type of pickup or not.
I have tried to give you a rough outline of how film can be used in television. Experience and experiment will give the final answer, and the final answer will be the kind of picture you get on your home television receiver.
[by] WORTHINGTON C. MINER
Columbia Broadcasting System, New York.
I have been assured by your Chairman that this is strictly an off-the-record gathering in which honesty is to be the keynote. That seems to put it up to me to clarify one point right away. Your advance publicity indicated that I was to discuss--and presumably with some authority--the problem of "Film in Television, as Viewed by a Radio Broadcaster."
Just so that you may know how much credence to give to whatever I say from here on, I want to state my qualifications as an authority on this subject. My background is the theater. I have never been a radio broadcaster; I have had only the most cursory contact with pictures; and, like everyone else I have ever met, I know nothing whatever about television. So now I shall go right ahead and make an authoritative analysis of the entire problem for you.
It has always seemed to me that in a discussion of this sort it is just as well for everyone to know as clearly as possible what we are all talking about. I therefore want to read a definition I wrote in preparing a report for television over 4 years ago:
"Television is a new and inclusive art. It embraces many attributes of stage, screen, radio, and news reporting; yet it is none of these. It is not merely a derivative art, but an individual one, owing no more than a respectful gratitude to its ancestry. It possesses too many vital and unique characteristics of its own for it to adopt a servile allegiance to any paternal standard. Rather, it should allocate to itself the dignity of an independent standard, established in terms of its own peculiar, generic pattern.
"It is the business of television to report the transient experience vividly and immediately, constantly alert to those unpredictable fragments of action and reaction that give life to the elusive moment. Television is the immediate truth presented in a pattern of deliberate selection."
In other words, television is potentially the greatest reporting medium in existence. This is its supremely individual characteristic. It should be clear, however, that naming the characteristic of a medium is not defining _what_ it shall do, but _how_ it shall do it. Temporarily, television must exploit its most provocative characteristic. Both pictures and radio went through the same phase.
So much for the definition of television. The next point which needs clarification is whether television can or should be limited to the production of entertainment. To the extent that pictures are produced for an audience to be assessed an admission fee, they must think in terms of show business, and that means entertainment. To the extent that radio, and likewise television, is produced for free distribution to the public, it must think in terms of public service. And within the scope of that concept entertainment takes a comparatively secondary place.
It may even be justifiable to question whether "entertainment" is not a biased limitation upon any discussion of television's potential. Consequently I am going to shift focus and analyze this problem as an answer to 2 basic questions:
First, should the backbone of a future television schedule for the home be produced on motion picture film?
And second, if it should, can it be done?
I must confess that the answer to the first of these 2 questions is in the nature of a warning, rather than of a dictum. Just consider for a moment the basic problem of the psychological effect that a motion picture via television may have on the audience. Will it feel it is seeing something "canned," rather than the original? I do not profess to know the public's response, but I can guess. And my guess is that temporarily, while the momentum of conditioning to motion pictures persists, the public will accept films of good quality without any great resentment. I will hazard a second guess, however, that there will be a growing uneasiness as the technical performance of live television pickup improves and live programs appear on any schedule bracketing film. I believe it will be a little like the difference between seeing a football game and seeing a newsreel clip version of that game one week later.
But the basic difficulty that faces the picture companies is the enormous breadth of scope in entertainment forms which they will suddenly be asked to cover. If it were possible to say that an entire television schedule of 10 hr a day could be made up of A productions from the top motion picture lots in Hollywood, it is possible that films might do a more excellent and polished job of production than television could ever do. But it is sheer folly to imagine that either 10 hr a day, or 5 hr a day, or even 2 hr a day can be solely devoted to this type of entertainment. Television, simply because it must maintain a standard of public service, has an obligation to produce in widely varied categories to a hungry public. It must produce fully as widely as radio.
Let us take a specific problem, the "Quiz." When Columbia was first considering the transmission of a regular television schedule, it debated seriously the advisability of attempting a quiz on television. A single fact, occurring at almost precisely the same moment, very nearly defeated the effort. (Remember that, because I am coming back to it.) Eventually a method of considerable flexibility was developed. It turned out to be a pretty good program, but something very nearly stopped us from going ahead at all. That something was the dismal and altogether dreary effort made by motion pictures to recreate the mood and quality of _Information Please_. I have not the foggiest notion whether or not a deal of intelligence and imagination might evolve a satisfactory form of quiz on film, but I do know that it was most horribly mangled in that initial effort. All the years of experience behind motion pictures were not worth 5 cents to the producers of that particular film. It was, in fact, a new form, and in meeting it they floundered like porpoises. It is unnecessary to analyze all the reasons for this. The fact remains that this is a glaring example of motion pictures falling down once they stepped outside the strict confines of show business, of entertainment for theater release.
I do not know what a motion picture would do with _Wings Over Jordan_. I do not know what they would do with _An Invitation to Learning_. I do not know what they would do with _The People's Platform_. I only know one thing: They would have to throw away the book and start from scratch, and there is not one atom of proof that when the horses broke from the post, live pickup might not be half way round the track. But this type of argument can go on endlessly without being conclusive, for the simple reason that the best anyone can offer is an inspired guess, and a guess is a guess, no matter what adjective you put in front of it.
So let us assume for a moment that pictures should by the best standards make a full 10 to 20 hr of television every day in the week. That brings us right down to cases with the simple question, "Can it be done?" Can one hour of television, whether it be entertainment or news, whether it be documentary or informal, whether it be religious or social, can one hour of television be put on film cheaply enough to compete with the type of production which can be given with live pickup cameras?
The first obligation is simply to take the established costs for the average A or B picture in Hollywood. Let us say that a good working price for an A production is $600,000, for a B production, $300,000.
The A productions run approximately an hour and a half. That is at a rate of $100,000 a quarter hour. Very obviously, so long as television is to be transmitted to the home free of charge, there is no advertising rate in the world that can stand such an assessment.
Now, let us assume that you are going out and make an hour's entertainment for something within reason for television distribution. What is reason? I have heard that _Voice in the Wind_ cost $40,000 to shoot and cost nearly that much again to add a new sound track. Forty thousand dollars is almost unreasonably low for a motion picture production, but it still is out of line with any reasonable hourly rate for television. I have heard costs quoted on training films made by independent documentary producers of somewhere around $10,000 for 20 min. Nobody makes a great deal out of that, except in bulk. Yet $10,000 for 20 min is still $30,000 an hour, and that is still out of line with anything that television could afford. What, therefore, pictures must face is the fact that, because of a cold, hard economic equation, they will either have to lower the standard of film which they distribute to television, or make films for television at a staggering loss. Neither would appear particularly attractive.
Let us look at it from another angle. A figure which I had given me the other day was that during the year 1943 Hollywood produced 452 feature length pictures. Being overgenerous and assuming that these pictures ran an average of an hour and a half apiece, the total would be 678 hr. Presume that one network were to maintain a television schedule of 10 hr a day for one year--I use 10 hr with no hidden implication, but merely because it is easy mathematics--it would be putting out 3,650 hr of television, and if all of that were to be on film, Hollywood would have to multiply its plant 6 times before it could even take care of one television network.
Now I have heard this problem bandied about and heard hundreds of different methods of cutting this pie so that it looks tastier for all concerned. The arguments are too long-winded to go into. So I am going to try, if possible, to tie this down to something so basic that this economic equation will suddenly become a vivid reality for you. I am going to talk about nothing but the cost of film itself.
It takes 5400 ft of 35-mm film to make up one hour at present projection speeds. Assume that a studio were to organize itself to shoot television entertainment at a ratio of 2 to one. This would mean that there would be 10,800 ft of negative used. At a cost of 6 cents per ft, that is $648. Suppose that sample prints were made up at a ratio of 1 1/4 to one, and printed at 3 cents; the cost would be $202. The final print, 5400 ft, at 1.4 cents per ft, would be $75, a total of $925. For the air time to show this film on television, it would be necessary to employ 8 men at, let us say generously, $2 per hr; a total of $941 per hr. Now just remember this excludes any production cost--talent, lights, scenery, promotion, distribution, anything else; it is nothing but the cost of the film itself.
Making the same eliminations for television, you would have to use, for the same hour on the air, possibly 20 men at the same $2 per hr, or a total of $40. That is a difference of approximately $900 per hr. Now, quite disregarding any other factor involved in the production, this would mean on a yearly basis at 10 hr per day you would be spending $3,285,000 merely for the luxury of using film. If you use 16-mm reversal, you can cut that cost by about 3, and say that it will cost you $1,000,000. It is these equations, and there are hundreds of them, which make many of us like myself seriously doubt that it is in any way realistic to consider film as the basic form for the backbone of a television schedule.
I have taken up to this point an attitude that films cannot be used as the backbone of a television schedule. Now just in closing, I would like to mention some of the places where I think film can and will in all probability be used. For a number of years after the war, television stations are likely to grow up in scattered parts of the country, remote from the centers of talent, and temporarily linked to no major network stations. I think it is conceivable, therefore, that films may be used in this fashion: A show will be produced on television. There will be a receiver equipped with a 16-mm camera designed to make a visual and aural record of that program. As the program goes on the air, the camera will grind, and that film will be printed and distributed to these outlying stations at a rate which will make it feasible for them to contemplate a full television service without the staggering cost of producing the total number of hours within the confines of their own studios.
I think there will be another important use for film, perhaps the most important and the most permanent. Both the broadcaster and the theater operator will eventually be receiving spot news--a fire in Joplin, or a riot in Pittsburgh, or a parade in Butte, Montana. Many of these things will be unpredictable in time; many more will not be of sufficient importance to warrant allocation of full time for their showing. It would be ridiculous, for instance, to expect a New York exhibitor of a Betty Grable picture to stop the projectors 20 min before the end and announce, "We now bring you a baby contest from Galveston." It would not even be feasible to do it if the television cameras happened to have caught the Hindenburg fire. What can happen is that a film recording of the remote and immediate event can be picked up, rapidly developed, and held for release either a minute, or an hour, or 10 hr later.
I also believe that film may be used to enrich and give scope and change of locale internally to many television productions. Nobody has yet measured how much pictorial effect can be gained from the limitations of a television studio. It is possible that television will develop a technique of many fewer setups and greater concentration than are normally practiced at the present time in pictures. Inevitably, however, there will be certain programs which will demand a sense of flexibility in time and space. When that is needed, I can see no reason why films should not be used for the purpose as parts of an otherwise live program.
And finally, there will be a certain portion of every schedule almost certainly devoted to the release of film per se. I do not know the percentage, but I believe that it will be extremely selective; it will not be the backbone of a television schedule.
In closing, I think there is one question which may have been growing in your minds as I have spoken. Granted that the arguments as I have presented them are valid, why should any motion picture person or company be interested in television? As an answer, I would like to recall the brief statement I made at the opening: "Television is a new and inclusive art. It embraces many attributes of stage, screen, radio, and news reporting."
There is, in addition, one simple fact which must not be forgotten. Television is a motion picture. It is adaptable not alone to home release, but can be used for theater release. There is no precedent to make me believe that the growth of television will supplant any previous medium such as pictures, radio, or newspapers. But I do know that television is all of these, and will intimately affect the conduct and the future in each of these fields. Every owner of a radio station, every owner of a picture theater, every owner of a
daily paper, every publisher of a weekly pictorial is going to feel the effect of television. It cannot be ignored, and it cannot be held back. It is coming. And consequently it would appear to me that you motion picture people, looking at television, would be more realistic were you to ignore the problem of how to produce the best film version of a television program, and to ponder more and deeply on what a television program itself may be. Your future may depend on it.
Senior Member
Usergroup: Member
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 260
Posted Dec 06, 2008 - 9:13 PM:
Effect on Picture Quality
MR. PALMER: I think it is quite obvious to anyone who has ever spent any length of time in a motion picture studio that the picture, as you see it on the stage of the studio, is as far removed from what you see on the screen in the theater as it possibly can be. It seems to me that the only thing that the television broadcaster can put on the vido [sic] screen is a picture of what is happening in the studio and the way it looks.
There are many things which happen to that picture in the processing which add immensely to its quality and to its perfection of detail, which you never saw at all in the studio. In the first place, the lighting in a studio has to be adapted to the limitations of the medium itself, the photographic emulsion, or the television camera, and the lighting in a studio is extremely "contrasty," in many cases, and very different from the way the film records it. What you see in the studio would not look at all good if you were to reproduce that same thing on the screen. In the processing of the film, however, many changes occur which add to its beauty and, you might say, to its audience acceptance.
MR. MINER: I think there is not very much question about the validity of that statement, if people are judging television by its present performance. Certainly all of us have been suffering from a reasonably inferior performance up to now. We have reason to be extremely optimistic about what it will be in the future. But I think there will be perhaps some misapprehension about the quantity of things which television can presumably do, in order to achieve many of the effects which are now achieved on film in the laboratory and in developing processes.
In the first place, it is possible to exercise electronic control that can change the quality of high light and shadow. It is possible with proper lighting--and I have checked this and tested it--it is possible even under present conditions to get a picture on television which can compare extremely well with the average type of light quality that you get on the average 16-mm film at the present time. I am not saying that I have seen anything on television up to the best of 35-mm, but there is an infinite opportunity to go much further than has been demonstrated at the moment, simply because there have been to date no absolutely efficient lights designed or built for television purposes, and the result is that a great many studios have had to operate with faulty equipment. However, having made one experiment under fairly limited conditions but with rather good equipment, I can assure you that you would be quite surprised at the number of gradations in the gray scale, and the quality of depth that appeared on the end of that television screen.
It can be done, and furthermore, it can be electronically controlled by the control room engineer, who will become as adept in his profession as the average laboratory engineer is in the development of film.
MR. COOPER: My experience has been that the quality of a picture on the television screen from even 16-mm is probably a little better than the average television shot. I say "average television shot" and I am also quite conscious, as Mr. Miner is, of the fact that not all the television shots you see are the best possible shots that can be made.
MR. HYNDMAN: I think this problem resolves itself into one fundamental principle in current circumstances. Judgment can be based only by the currently available material in motion pictures and in the television field, whether it be equipment, processes, or film.
Unless the television system is greatly improved, to the best of my knowledge the problem is one of latitude and definition of the television system which is not now capable of giving high-quality tone reproduction or photographic quality. In motion picture production it is possible to have a latitude of 1 to 100 or, in exceptional cases, of 1 to 200 when photographing outdoor shots. This latitude can be recorded on the film because the film is capable of accepting it in terms of tone value and it is also possible to secure a high definition. The print from this negative does not have a latitude of the above-mentioned magnitude, but it is not necessary that it should because the screen upon which it is projected is not capable of accepting such a great latitude. A very high-quality motion picture screen when properly illuminated will give latitudes of from 1 to 30 to perhaps as high as 1 to 35. Most of us have become accustomed to this range of latitude and find it fully acceptable in a motion picture theater.
From all the information that I have been able to gather, the television screen (the kinescope or receiving tube) is supposed to have a latitude of 1 to 20 at its very best, and yet, most engineers who have made an attempt to measure the latitude doubt that it is over 1 to 15.
In these circumstances, it is impossible, therefore, to obtain a tone reproduction on current television equipment that approaches what may be obtained from 35-mm motion picture film during projection, or even 16-mm motion picture film during projection.
If we consider amateur motion picture film (the reversal type of 16-mm motion picture film), then the latitude is less than that of the films comprising the classic negative-positive process. It should be appreciated that 16-mm motion picture films obtained by reduction from 35-mm motion picture film have a latitude that is equivalent to the original 35-mm films so there should be practically no difference in comparing them. There may be a slight loss in definition in the 16-mm reduction print, but at least from the standpoint of the picture, this is not noticeable to the average viewer. Furthermore, the latitude of the 16-mm screen and projection system can be conditioned to equal that of the 35-mm system provided sufficient illumination is available. An additional point is that the depth of focus obtainable on either 35-mm or 16-mm motion picture film is far beyond that obtainable with the current television system, especially when the images of all three are compared at equivalent magnification.
The combination electrical and electronic optical system in television is not capable of giving the depth of focus comparable to that obtainable in motion pictures. This is due to the fact that the high sensitivity of the motion picture negative film permits photography with the lens working at low apertures, whereas the low sensitivity of the mosaic of the iconoscope will not permit working the lens at a low aperture to provide equivalent depth of focus.
It is my belief that these factors definitely indicate that the motion picture equipment and the motion picture film do give an image of better definition and higher photographic qualities than is obtainable on the television system. The general public will eventually expect a photographic quality and definition in television comparable to that which is now available in motion pictures.
MR. MINER: I think that there is a slight misconception. There are 2 factors involved in television. One is contrast range, and the other is a sensitivity within various gradations of the gray scale. It is certainly correct that the average performance in television at the moment has a contrast range of approximately 15 to 1. There have been laboratory experiments even before the war began which raised that to 30 to 1. There is every reason to believe--and I cannot even quote you an exact figure--that that will be considerably higher. I will not say how much higher, but it will be raised considerably.
You have mentioned again the question of the depth of focus. That is without question a temporary problem in television. It is a factor involved in the size of the mosaic and the distance of the mosaic from the lens. As the smaller tubes are developed and a smaller mosaic is used which can be placed closer to the lens, there is no reason why the same depth of field cannot be achieved in television that can be achieved in any motion picture camera. The laws of optics apply identically, and it is only a question of the development of equipment which will supply approximately a duplicate of the size of, say, a 35-mm frame and place it as the mosaic within the camera tube itself.
Naturally, it is true that we are talking here in terms of the future, but I am not discussing anything which is not a very eminently foreseeable future.
MR. HYNDMAN: To avoid any misunderstanding, it should be emphasized that the fundamental problem is that a much greater sensitivity of the mosaic is desirable. This becomes very obvious if we will consider the mosaic as replacing the negative motion picture film in a camera. When the mosaic has a sensitivity that is comparable to current normal speed motion picture negative film, then it will be possible to operate the television camera lens at a much lower aperture opening which will increase the depth of focus and also allow the television cameraman leeway in the adjustment of focus for definition.
Unfortunately in some cases, it is general practice in the motion picture industry to purposely expose motion picture negative film of high sensitivity at a wide aperture opening so as to have hi focus only the object of interest but, if it were desirable, the whole scene could be shot in needle-sharp focus by simply increasing the illumination of the scene and exposing at a much lower aperture, say, f5.6, or even f16. None of us doubt that with research and development progressing at its normal rate, the definition, depth of focus, and latitude of the television system will eventually be greatly improved over the present equipment and, when it is, it will open for itself numerous new fields to conquer.
MR. MINER: Yes. The problem there of sensitivity is again in the future, but there is considerable reason to believe that there will be a tube in the market for television, at not too distant a date, which will equal or even surpass the sensitivity of any motion picture film on the market. I will not say there will not be motion picture film to compete with it eventually, but it is not outside of the knowledge of engineers at the moment.
MR. OFFENHAUSER: I would like to supplement Mr. Hyndman's statement and say that all 16-mm film need not be considered amateur. I admit my prejudice.
MR. WAXMAN: From the viewpoint of a man who has a television set at home and sees these programs, I have always noticed that when we sit down to a play, the lighting, the definition, and everything else seem to be far superior than when they show films.
The question also comes up about using 16-mm film. We all know that 16-mm sound is limited to about 6000 cycles, and here we are trying to get high fidelity by adding FM to the sound which is supposed to go up to about 15,000 cycles. If we use 16-mm film with that 6000-cycle sound, we are not going to get very high fidelity.
MR. OFFENHAUSER: What you get on it depends on how well you work it in.
MR. WAXMAN: The best engineers in the motion picture industry say that it is 7000. They have admitted they cannot go much over 7000.
MR. OFFENHAUSER: I can sell him all the film he wants with 15,000 cycles recorded on it at 1 2/3 cents a ft, provided he gives us a triple A priority or a directive.
Possibilities in Artistic Effects
MR. PALMER: It is very interesting to me to hear the blissful confidence that has been expressed here tonight, that you can produce in a television studio anything which will compare at all with a motion picture in entertainment value. I assume that people are going to still want to hear Fibber McGee and Molly and see them at the same time. Anybody who can produce in a television studio the sequence of events that happens in a Fibber McGee and Molly half-hour program has to have more movable equipment than I ever saw put together in one place.
MR. MINER: I just happened to listen to Fibber McGee and Molly last night, and they never got out of the living room. I think we can get all around the living room.
I do not know; I think it is perfectly all right that _Casablanca_ was a success, but so was _Oklahoma_, and there is nothing to say necessarily that television is going to have to use a vast amount of scope and freedom in time and space in order to create good entertainment. There is no rule to say that because you keep within rigid formalities necessarily you cannot create good entertainment.
There is also nothing to say that you cannot use entirely informalized scenery which may be sheerly indicative of location and create audience respect for that type of thing. It may make you put up a sign that says, "We are in the Sahara," and make them believe it. Just because pictures make them believe that they have to establish a set all over Burbank does not mean we have to do the same thing.
MR. PALMER: Well, I cannot agree with that. In the very early days of motion pictures they used to paint the window curtains on the wall, and they got away with it then, but you will never get away with that sort of thing now, when people are used to seeing real window curtains.
MR. COOPER: I agree with Mr. Miner that it is quite possible that a new technique may be developed in television whereby we may be able to indicate locations rather than actually show them. As a matter of fact, that technique has been used in motion pictures before, can be used again, and will be used again.
I do not believe that you can do Fibber McGee and Molly in their present type of show merely by putting any kind of camera on them and having them walk around, going through their stuff, alternating between medium shots and close-ups. It is quite likely that a very different photographic technique will have to be evolved for entertainment programs. For example, one of the things that everyone must be thinking about is the daytime serial. That introduces a considerable problem, because every daytime serial has a definite setting. It is quite possible that in the production of that type of television broadcast there will be a considerable use of rear-projection process shots, with a great deal of the action in close-ups. It is also possible that a great deal of the action to be taken will take place with off-stage voices and possibly stock shots of some kind to indicate the action.
There is a good deal to be thought about in the development of a technique for television, either live or by motion pictures. We cannot arbitrarily photograph people going through a series of gag routines and expect to get a highly entertaining program. It is quite certain that for a television version of Bob Hope, or McGee, or what-have-you, we will have to evolve a completely new technique of our own which will partake partly of radio and partly of motion pictures.
Economic Factors
MR. SCHLANGER: With regard to the economics of the production of a picture, to make it economically possible to show a picture on television, I recall a question that I put to an exhibitor of motion pictures, a very successful single-run house, where the use of good short subjects would be a very welcome addition to the single feature. I said to him, "Why don't they make more good single features--that is, short subjects--that are condensed down to 8 to 10 min or 12 min, and which are produced very economically because of the clever ideas in them the shortcuts that might be used by the art of motion picture production?"
The answer was that if they got these good ideas, they would stretch them into a 5-reel feature, they need them so badly.
Getting back to television, if you could produce a clever short by virtue of the art of the motion picture that has been developed and clever directing, you would not need stars, expensive stars, from Hollywood. Here is a chance to develop stars. So in the cost of your live talent, you could use all the shortcuts known to the motion picture art, and you could produce shorts for television which I believe would be economically in the right category.
MR. PALMER: I think there is one thing that television might learn from the motion picture industry, and that is that they could use a lot of repeat action. When Walt Disney makes a duck waddle across the screen, he only has to make one waddle, and he can use that all the way across the screen.
MR. FRANK: In Mr. Miner's talk, discussing the economic factors of television, he stated a lot of figures and quickly dismissed them by simply saying that it was too expensive. As I see it, in television there are 3 different types of programs that might be considered: One might be a sponsored program for pure entertainment purposes. One might be a sustaining program, and one might be an advertising program. Those of us who were privileged to hear the speech that Mr. Joyce of RCA made last week on the use of television as a selling tool were impressed about the possibilities of using it for advertising purposes.
Were you, Mr. Miner, dismissing these figures as being too expensive on the basis of any one of these 3 uses of television, or were you doing it simply on the basis of sustaining programs for entertaining purposes?
MR. MINER: No, I dismissed them on the basis of any type of television, because when you have taken the cost of any film that I have ever heard of, and you add line charges and other expenses involved in distribution to a network, the rental of the film is but a drop in the bucket compared to what some of the other costs are going to be. Consequently, it is not the total cost; I know no rate charges that will stand the cost of a good Hollywood A production, which is $100,000 a quarter hour. I do not think there is any advertiser who can possibly foot that bill--it does not make much difference who he is.
MR. PALMER: When Chesterfield cigarettes puts on a program in a Broadway theater, they fill it with people. Perhaps a production on film, after it is shown in television, could be distributed and exhibited in theaters throughout this country or the world, thus making it economically possible to spend larger amounts on the original production.
MR. KEITH: I think perhaps another thing which might be added there is that the cost of the film is going to be divided up among a number of projections, assuming that you did not have to have instantaneous projection. Would that not be the case?
MR. MINER: That certainly is the case, unless you are dealing with a network show which is presumably covering its major audience in one showing. Possibly you could get away with two. Nobody has really studied or experimented with that problem. There are those in England who made some checks which showed that audiences would not mind a repeat showing within a fairly reasonable length of time. But I think that when you have had 2 showings within a month, you have probably exhausted the network audience for any practical purposes commensurate with the cost which is involved.
MR. COOPER: As far as this question of cost is concerned, I think we should pay particular attention to this: Television motion pictures do not need to be of the Hollywood variety. They do not have to be produced at Hollywood costs. They do not even have to be produced at the costs of ordinary commercial motion pictures that is, advertising pictures.
One of the things that makes Hollywood films cost an awful lot of money is lack of adequate preparation. With a tight organization of television film production, and with enough attention paid at the beginning to the preparation for making the film, a lot of lost motion is going to be eliminated.
Also, there are not going to be any of the tremendous write-offs that sometimes occur in Hollywood productions, because, as some of us may know, somewhere in the budget of $300,000 or $400,000 for an A picture is occasionally a $20,000, or $30,000, or $50,000, or $100,000 charge that belongs to the working title of the picture which was purchased a long time ago and is written off in the total cost of the production.
I think that by careful attention to all the details of preliminary work in producing films for television, the over-all budget can be cut way down. It is also possible that in our conception of what advertisers will pay for television broadcasts, we may be a little wrong in comparisons. It is quite possible that when we get around to commercial television broadcasting we may find that the average cost of television broadcasting will be much more than the cost of the regular radio broadcast. However, by careful attention to details and holding things down to the minimum, I do not think it will be too far out of line to make them possible commercially.
MR. SCHLANGER: One idea that may be of help is the narration idea, the splicing in of narration to cut down the amount of pictorial stuff. During the narration period a stock geometric pattern of harmless and pleasing type could be used, and the cut-in of the narration could reduce the production costs considerably.
Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.


text:
Shipping and Production
hey everyone!
We've been working hard clearing out sections of the house for storage and shipping, purchased some commercial storage racks and bins for sorting and figuring out the best way to package the shipments.
There was a delay in transit of the first batch and we had to further split up the entire production into three batches. But the good news is the first two batches arrived at the same time this afternoon! These first two batches account for about half of the pledges and the bubble mailers we're using to package them in are scheduled to get to us by the end of the day. We aren't positive which type will be going out in which order but will let you know with some mini-updates as we start packing.
I have finished sorting through and organizing the master shipping file of all 5,305 addresses and pledge selections, which is probably the most complicated part of the shipping process. This involved changing each country to the corresponding 2-digit USPS country code, verifying postal codes, splitting up address into multiple lines that were too long (for ex. apt and suite numbers) and finally uploading it all into our shipping software. Which means we can start printing!
We're going to begin printing shipping labels this week and when your label is printed you will receive an automated e-mail with tracking information. As we simply don't have the processing power or enough hours in the day to get them all out at once (and coupled with school and work) we are going to do our best to ship all of the pledges in the next two and a half weeks, if you don't receive a tracking e-mail please try wait at least two weeks before sending a message to us asking about your pledge; We've received a huge influx of messages lately that Paul has been handling and basically the more time we spend answering messages the less time we have to pack and ship.
Other than that everything is looking great, and thank you again for the continued support and patience. We are very happy with the quality of the final product and can't wait for everyone to receive their new wallets!
-Paul and Daniel
Dynamic Adventures Inc. on
Got mine and it is amazing, great work!
Tim P, #39Superbackeron
Was there an email about the "timeline for the TITANIUM" yet? Just curious since I happen to be out of country and away from home and of stable Internet America
Joshua Keene on
This is my two weeks notice.
vlad kulikov on
No tracking email.
Allan Sparke on
Hi Guys, I haven't received a tracking mail yet can you advise if there is a delay?
Gaston Ragnar Rippinger on
I just got mine in the mail today (Germany) and am absolutely delighted!
Never saw a tracking email, but that might very well be because I use a different email account for online stuff and I only rarely look at the things I receive there (made the package even more of a great surprise because I did not expect this)
Thanks and keep it up.
Dave Wilkes on
Still haven't recieved a tracking email yet...in PA. Goin on two weeks since last update.
Michael O'Brien on
Still waiting in Australia - filled out the survey over a month ago too :/
Yiannys Degermentzidis on
Still haven't received confirmation email tracking id or anything. I am in the US and see that many people have already gotten it in Europe. Just wanted to make sure everything was ok and wanted to see exactly when I would be receiving the product.
Kjel Beks on
I received mine today!
dispatched from USA on 19th, so great delivery time. looks cool!
going to try it out from now on....
I am a bit worried cutting the elastics while putting in my cards over time....
But time will tell!
Looks great quality! no problems putting in money or cards. i actually like the money clip to be tight.
Vahid Pourahmary on
Not happy with the product, both the card holder and the money clip are too tight. I also realized I have to take all my cards out, to get one of them, which is very impractical.
On the plus side, you can tell is good quality.
Thorsten Offermann on
Also still Waiting of an shippment Email or Tracking ID. Hope ist will come soon.
TO From Germany, Cologne
P.s hat jemand aus Deutschland seines schon oder ne Email versandbestätigung ??
Hugh Quigley on
I just received my in Ireland. It was dispatched from USA on 19th so that's great going. Very impressed so far . For all euro users out there I folded them 3 times so they are flush with the rest of the ridge. Just have to go shopping now to text ;)
Thanks guys this is my second kick starter project but the first one I received
Russell Brown on
My Ridge came in about a week ago, I love it. I don't really use the money clip because I find that the money was getting in the way when I was trying to push the cards out. I dont know if this is because I am Left handed or what but I dont really care cash on me anyways so it is not a big deal. I just really like the low profile of this wallet yet still easy to get to what you need. Thanks !! I am happy this was my 1st kickstarter project I backed
Chris Taylor on
Has anyone from the UK received any shipping notification or delivery at all?
Dan Southwick on
I filled out my survey and gave my address months ago. Still no tracking number or shipping notification. What gives?
Briggs Willoughby on
Just got mine. Pretty much as advertised and very nice. I use the money clip to hold my keycard from work on the outside as the metal blocks it inside. It works well for that.
The designers and ME's where I work have commented and complemented the design. Well done.
A few tidbits/ suggestions: The packaging was pretty much destroyed in shipping. No big deal, as the product is fine, but something to think about.
The outer edges are a little sharp to hold, maybe you could throw a little more chamfer on to smooth them out.
The plastic seems thick, I think you could still have a very high degree of rigidity if you cut the thickness down. Obviously you are limited by the mechanical constraints of the rivet fasteners, but if you could source ones that require less z height you could improve the design.
Very happy with the product!
Alex RubensteinSuperbackeron
Received mine a couple of days ago. As many have noted about the money clip, it is very stiff but holds a good wad of bills in once you force them in from the folded side. The elastic itself is fantastic, and I have no trouble fitting in a good eight cards or so in there, and easy to remove. Similarly, the insetted thumb pusher works quite simply to get my cards out.
I do worry that the black side may get a bit worn from scratching from my keys if they are in the same pocket. It's a nice change from the wallet and I've gotten some nice comments! Thanks!
Milo Varnadoe on
Just received my Ridge. Impressed with the construction and design. I too have tested money clip and if I have more than 4 bills, I will use the clip. Less than that, I will fold twice and just add it against the grain of the cards, in the middle of the cards. Yes, it will poke out of the side, but it's not going anywhere. Definitely needs to be some sort of tension adjustment on the clip. A few bills kept getting caught on the side rivets as well. My only regret is getting one without the logo so that I can help advertise. I will definitely be showing it off every chance I get. Nice job! Congratulations! Thanks guys!
Michael O'Brien on
Patiently waiting for mine... still... >_<
Warren Cureton on
Ok, it has been a few days since i got my ridge. Here is my review
1. meets my need of being low profile in front pocket as designed!!!
2. build is spot on and I am getting very good at getting cards out per instructions that came with ridge.
3 holds cards very well
4. the money clip is a fail to the degree i tore a dollar trying to get it in. the clip is too stiff as well as it being a little sharp on the bent part to cut a line in the dollar that i was trying to get in. I have put a 3 -20 dollar bill stack in easier, but it should not be this hard to do. I will work on it to see if it gives over time, but a redesign is needed to be functional out of the box.
Overall I am happy with the Ridge and will use it and display it with pride. Just work on the money clip and you golden!!!!
Steven Harary on
Just got my ridge. It's great for cards. Not south for cash. I can't seem to lift the money clip to get my cash in. Needs to be easier and more malleable
John Nolcox 4th on
Got my package today, very please with it. Great Job guys.
Corbin Atkinson on
Received my wallet and am very happy. I do have a few problems with it. First of all.. the money clip seems really tight until you actually put cash under it. I don't carry a lot of cash so it's not a major concern for me, but I took a twenty and stuck it in after folding it over twice (4 sheets thick) and it moved around quite easily. I'm not overly confident that my money isn't going to fall out one of the many times I pull the wallet out of my pocket. I imagine that a wad of folded over cash will be fine and I've thought about putting one of my store cards on the outside to keep cash tight when need be. My only other issue (just took it out of the box 30 minutes ago) is that it had a small blemish/scratch on the black side of it. Again, I'll live and I'm sure it'll get many more, but I'm kind of annoyed that a brand new item had a scratch on it. The glossy side makes a good mirror thought it will be a fingerprint magnet and it'll take me some practice to "master" the removal and addition of cards. I'm very happy with it and it is certainly worth wait (for those still waiting on theres).
Ron Dirksen on
Received the packet on Saturday - it looks and works as advertised. Many thanks and all the best.
Joseph Hagerty on
Got mine today! Love it so far.
The clip seems pretty strong; I tested it with two bills, and it had no trouble keeping the bills secure after many reps of retrieving it from my pocket. Just don't be a savage about it.
Joseph Effendy on
What email will the tracking information be sent FROM?
My email filters are high and I don't want to miss this email. I want to make sure your email gets to my inbox.
This user's account has been deleted.
peter brainard on
It's a learning experience. This delay won't cause anyone to die. Being a project manager, I know first hand that estimations can vary and inexperienced managers make mistakes. All you can do at this point is mitigate (which you're doing), fix the issue and, most importantly, take your lessons learned and apply them to the next project. Seriously, put it in a spreadsheet: What happened, why it happened, how you dealt with it and what should happen in your planning the next time around. That way, you can apply those lessons to future scenarios.
I'd say, what you did right, is to communicate thoroughly. You may be late, things may change, but as long as you remove the mystery and explain your situation, most people tend to understand. In fact, you may get people who say, "Hey, I know a guy...". Regardless, you'll never, ever, ever please anyone, even if it's a cure for cancer, someone will say, "Yeah, but does it come in strawberry flavor?"
Good work.
Vikki S. on
Just wanted to thank you for being so up front and HONEST about the delays and not hiding them. I personally support Kickstarter projects like yours because I ACCEPT that you will have a learning curve--- ESPECIALLY with a campaign as successful as yours was. I'm quite sure you weren't expecting this scale of production for a FIRST run. I'm quite sure you weren't thinking of 5000+ backers on a concept like this. I'm quite sure your intentions of a month looked great and promising as you totally did your homework on the project, but with the scope of this EVERY DELAY is understandable.
In fact, I bought this wallet as a gift for my husband FOR FATHER'S DAY - knowing full well the delays were going to happen. They do to MANY MANY Kickstarter projects for a wide variety or reasons.
So, add me to the pile of people who understand the delays, very much look forward to your product and pursuit of excellence amidst the learning curve that needs to happen.
You guys had the courage to get it together, put it out on Kickstarter, and haul heiney to make it happen - and stay honest about the process. Ignore the naysayers. I'm sure they'll appreciate your time management to not respond to them.
Paul Yarmer on
I understand from a business standpoint, you don't want to spend money on enlisting help, especially since you already have said money from all of us, but all these delays are a bit off-putting. In a retail situation, customers would be jumping ship and finding someplace else to go with stock readily available. I don't like to see fundraisers on KS (seem to) take advantage of how this system works.
I was extremely excited about this product when I first backed it, but that's now evolved to anxiety and wonderment when I'll finally see this product in my possession.
Here's hoping this is the last delay we'll see!
Devin Ward on
Can't wait for this, was staring at my gigantic wallet filled with cards today on my desk and starting hoping for an update and here one is, pumped for the shipping email!
Gaston Ragnar Rippinger on
Thanks for the update!
Loving the look in the pictures :)
Chris McMillanSuperbackeron
Great to hear that we're getting close. Totally understandable given the volume of orders. You shouldn't need to hire a staff to send our tracking info. :)
SarcasmCheck on
Thanks for the update. I think most of us understand that such a huge volume will take some time to get out.
Christopher Houghton on
Just to reiterate....looking forward to the product and keep up the hard work. Thanks!
Christopher Houghton on
Perhaps with all the dough you guys raised for this, you could hire some help? Seems the time you need for school and work was not considered when starting this endeavor. Is Paul in school too?
Anyway, perhaps you can sense my frustration with the delays...but it is only because I have been excited for this product the day I backed it (for 85 bones) and that excitement gets jaded with every update containing delays.
Maybe US based manufacturing could be considered moving forward?


text:
Design Description:
This Shirts Printed on high quality material. 100% designed and printed in USA and Not available in Stores! Just Tell your friend and your family . Dont wait! ORDER yours TODAY if you are really love it. Its a limited version, only for YOU
If you do not utterly love this Shirt, you'll SEARCH your favorite one by means of the usage of search bar on the header.


text:
Play The Devil
The psychological thriller "Play the Devil" is set in Trinidad, a place where, with its patriarchal society, homosexuality is still closeted and is very much stigmatized. Therefore, this story about James, an older and very successful businessman (Gareth Jenkins) who befriends Gregory (Petrice Jones), an 18-year-old, dirt-poor student, and eventually seduces him, plays out as more of a melodrama than it would in other, more tolerant, cultures.
Gregory, an extremely handsome young man, accepts the sudden friendship, giving the impression that he has no inkling of James's intentions. But when their relationship turns physical one night, is is clear that the young man is not as innocent as he appears. The problem, however, is that the next morning he bitterly regrets having had sex, whereas James is totally hooked.
When a sullen Gregory goes out of his way to avoid any further contact with James, the older man turns up at the very modest shack that Gregory shares with his grandmother (Penelope Spencer). James ingratiates himself with Gregory's grandmother on the pretext of a link between his daughter and Gregory. The young man's shame, as he wrestles with his internalized homophobia, turns to real anger when James keeps showing up unannounced, spreading his largesse in hopes of winning the boy's affection.
Young British actor Jones, who is the only experienced member of a cast otherwise made up of local inhabitants, is clearly the best thing about this movie. With his heavily-accented patois (thank God for subtitles) he tries to reach out to both his best friend Dev (Akil Nickolas) and his church-going grandmother. Both of them see that he is distressed, but he cannot even hint at why. His struggle, however, is not just about his sexuality, but the expectations placed on him by everyone, including James, on forging a future that is better than the limited one of his family, who barely eke out a living.
"Play The Devil," set at the time of the local Carnival (hence the title), is the third movie from writer/director Maria Govan. The film has the advantage of being shot in the luscious setting of Trinidad's remote countryside.


text:
Bureau of Motor Vehicles services to verify your identity are unavailable. Please try again later.
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) launched the Security Application For Enterprise (SAFE) Web portal in May, 2003. SAFE is a Web Portal and a "single sign on" software security solution for ODE customers.
This is a restricted use computer system. Unauthorized access and/or use is prohibited by law. All users accessing this system are subject to having all of their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. This system may be monitored for a variety of reasons such as maintenance, troubleshooting and investigating suspected or known unauthorized activity. Users should not have an expectation of privacy while using this system.
Anyone using this system expressly consents to having their activities monitored and is advised that if a review reveals possible evidence of abuse or criminal activity, system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to law enforcement and/or appropriate department officials.


text:
Last September I argued against the potential of the Kindle Fire acting as a low end disruption in the tablet market.
Now that the first version of the product has reached is end of life, it's time to review the discussion.
The first problem is finding out how well the product did. Amazon just released a statement that the Fire accounted for 22% of tablet sales in the US in the nine months it was available. The challenge becomes knowing how many total tablets were sold in the US during this time frame.
Fortunately we know the vast bulk of that total based on the Samsung v. Apple trial. Both Apple and Samsung submitted as evidence sales of the iPad and the Tab product lines in the US. The iPad added up to 16.14 million units (Q4'11 through Q2'12) and the Tab was 540k units. That makes the iPad and the Tab add up to about 16.7 million units. Assuming an additional 1 million units for the other (non-Kindle) total yields an estimate of 22.7 million tablet devices sold in the nine months ending June.
Applying the 22% claim to that total gives a Kindle sales total of 4.987 million. That's awfully close to a round number of 5 million.
Since Amazon admitted that they ended production prior to launching a replacement (and presumably did so quite early in order to drain inventory,) then we can safely assume that the original production order was 5 million units.
Five million Kindle Fire units becomes the first reliable estimate of Kindle sales (based on Apple, Samsung and Amazon supplied information rather than guesses from analysts.)