Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format

Fred wrote:

>Do you consider any non-anamorphic
>and any non-multi-camera (Cinerama)
>film to not be widescreen? Or to
>rephrase, MUST a film be anamorphic or
>multi-camera to be considered
>widescreen to you?

No, it can also use wide negative (65mm)
but it ought to create some sort of
peripheral vision or "immersive" effect,
which was the goal of Cinerama
and which CinemaScope attempted to
approximate.

>Specifically, is two-perf pulldown
>widescreen to you? If not, why not?

You mean Techniscope?
In the case of Techniscope, the increase
in grain tended to work against the
immersive effect of the wider frame.

But it qualifies, as bad as it was.

>>No, today's widescreen is Panavision
>>and its knock-offs, including inferior
>>Super 35,

>All of those are still called "widescreen"
>by the public and those in the industry
>(which includes me). See, widescreen is
>a general or generic term. No one ever
>said it was highly technical.

I am not being "highly" technical.
I simply think the generic term is useless.

>>>  Does Chrysler not know the defiition
>>>of "car?"

>>False analogy. Widescreen is an
>>accesory not the vehicle.

>OK, how about Chrysler deciding what
>the definition of "rear view mirror" is?

Well, it would have to have a wide enough
coverage to be useful. :)

But basically you're dealing in a product
that is fraught with subjectivism, unlike
cars, and the public and historians
and critics have a right to contribute
to its definition.

>>>In your opinion, did Chaplin make any
>>>color films?

>>No. but he hand-colored COUNTESS
>>using his 8 children as free labor.

>Not true. He housed and clothed them.
>That costs money.

>My point though was that you can get
>technical about color too.

Yes, well, you can argue about whether
2 color Technicolor films are really
in color or are just "colored."

But I don't see what your beef is about
technical issues in an art form dependent
on technology...











---------------------------------------------------------------------
Never mind trusting liberals with national security. Never
mind trusting them with raising kids. These people
shouldn't even be allowed to own pets.

___Ann Coulter

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:49:09 -0400, G-HELPS.TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>>Specifically, is two-perf pulldown
>>widescreen to you? If not, why not?
>
>You mean Techniscope?
>In the case of Techniscope, the increase
>in grain tended to work against the
>immersive effect of the wider frame.
>
>But it qualifies, as bad as it was.

Why does it qualify if only two perfs are exposed but not if 4 perfs
are exposed and then two are cropped? Makes no sense to me George,
it's the same thing.

>>>No, today's widescreen is Panavision
>>>and its knock-offs, including inferior
>>>Super 35,
>
>>All of those are still called "widescreen"
>>by the public and those in the industry
>>(which includes me). See, widescreen is
>>a general or generic term. No one ever
>>said it was highly technical.
>
>I am not being "highly" technical.
>I simply think the generic term is useless.

"Useless" is not the same as wrong, yet you said it was.