Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format

DT wrote:

>The wikipedia definition of 1.85:1 said
>nothing at all about television, but did
>SPECIFICALLY refer to it as a
>"widescreen standard for theatrical film."

Then the definition is wrong.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:56:46 -0400, G-HELPS DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>DT wrote:
>
>>The wikipedia definition of 1.85:1 said
>>nothing at all about television, but did
>>SPECIFICALLY refer to it as a
>>"widescreen standard for theatrical film."
>
>Then the definition is wrong.

Why is it wrong? Is not the shape of the screen wide?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

Fred wrote:

>but more importantly, it's the correct
>answer to the SPECIFIC question,
>namely if any Chaplin films were
>widescreen.

The correct answer? None.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

fwtep DeleteThis @hotmailx.com (Fred)
wrote:

>>>The wikipedia definition of 1.85:1 said
>>>nothing at all about television, but did
>>>SPECIFICALLY refer to it as a
>>>"widescreen standard for theatrical film."

>>Then the definition is wrong.

>Why is it wrong? Is not the shape of the
>screen wide?

No, the width is the same as in the
original squarish ratio, but the top is
cropped.

The whole point of 1.85 was to
hamonize standard films with scope
films on the movie screen so the
exhibitor didn't have to operate both
a vertical and a horizontal mask.

The projectors were sometimes masked
and eventually masking was done in
the camera,,,"hard matted as in COUNTESS.

This was done inconstently sometimes. I have seen some movies
without a 1.85 mask that alternate
between full frame and matted frame
and sometimes (in the case of TORN
CURTAIN to pick one dreadful example)
the studio lights were visible at the
top of the unmasked, unmatted frame.)

This came to be known as "wide
screen" is the figurative sense for
awhile but eventually the designation
became meaningless.

Since some people want to continue to call 1.85 wide screen, I
acknowledge to their need to do so, but don't think it's
a useful definition.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

Fred wrote:

>.Even if every single film made in the
>history of film was the same aspect ratio
>(say, 1.85:1) it would still be considered
>widescreen, though there might not be a
>point in using that term.

For you wide screen is a synonym for
rectangular. for me it's literally more
picture information available on the
horizontal plane. The latter is, I
think, a more meaningful definition
and COUNTESS doesn't qualify.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

The term "widescreen" has meaning today largely because of DVDs. When
renting them, you often have to look to see if you're getitng a
"Full-Frame" or "Widescreen" version. I know this brings in a whole
additional batch of issues, especially when the useless term "Full
Frame" refers to films that are usually cropped on the edges, but since
we do still watch films that use older aspect ratios, and most of our
TVs use that ratio (or something pretty close), I think it is helpful
to know that the DVD you are watching will present all the information
that was intended to be seen in its original theatrical presentation,
regardless of whether it was shot with an anamorphic lens or matted.

Sure, nobody goes to a movie theatre anymore and remarks about the 1.85
or 2.35 aspect ratios they're watching, and no patrons use the term
"widescreen" at a movie theatre, but it is useful when you are dealing
with 4:3 TV sets or monitors.


George Shelps wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
> >.Even if every single film made in the
> >history of film was the same aspect ratio
> >(say, 1.85:1) it would still be considered
> >widescreen, though there might not be a
> >point in using that term.
>
> For you wide screen is a synonym for
> rectangular. for me it's literally more
> picture information available on the
> horizontal plane. The latter is, I
> think, a more meaningful definition
> and COUNTESS doesn't qualify.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
> >.Even if every single film made in the
> >history of film was the same aspect ratio
> >(say, 1.85:1) it would still be considered
> >widescreen, though there might not be a
> >point in using that term.
>
> For you wide screen is a synonym for
> rectangular. for me it's literally more
> picture information available on the
> horizontal plane. The latter is, I
> think, a more meaningful definition
> and COUNTESS doesn't qualify.

So, by your definition anything shot with a shorter than normal focal
length lens is widescreen regardless of presentation format, because
there's "more picture information available on the horizontal plane."
Or conversely, if you're talking about film real estate, then nothing,
even stuff shot anamorphic, as long as it's shot on 35, qualifies as
widescreen.

Why is it that of the several independent descriptions I've read of the
1.85:1 aspect ratio, every one of them includes the word "widescreen"
and not one of them agrees with your very unique, subjective (and
relative) 'definition'?

Here's yet another, from dvdverdict.com/reviews, in the context that
the original question was asked that contradicts George's 'concept':
"The case insert for Charlie: "The Life and Art of Charles Chaplin
lists the aspect ratio as a "matted" widescreen format. This is not
entirely true. While the interview segments are presented in 1.85:1
non-anamorphic, the remainder of the film is in full frame. This is
appropriate for the clips of Chaplin's work, which was composed for
Academy ratio (roughly the size of your standard television set).
Cropping this footage would be a cardinal sin, and I am glad that
Warner Bros. chose not to."
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:
> Davey T wrote:
>
> >So, by your definition anything shot with
> >a shorter than normal focal length lens is
> >widescreen regardless of presentation
> >format, because there's "more picture
> >information available on the horizontal
> >plane."
>
> No

Care to try to explain why not?

>
>
> > Or conversely, if you're talking about
> >film real estate, then nothing, even stuff
> >35, qualifies as widescreen.
> >Why is it that of the several independent
> >descriptions I've read of the 1.85:1
> >aspect ratio, every one of them includes
> >the word "widescreen" and not one of
> >them agrees with your very unique,
> >subjective (and relative) 'definition'?
>
> The two sources that have been quoted
> are not authoritative.

There have been 3, but if it's true that they aren't authoritative, why
have you failed to supply an authoritative source that supports your
contention? Why can't you quote even one source?

>
>
> >Here's yet another, from
> >dvdverdict.com/reviews, in the context
> >that the original question was asked that
> >contradicts George's 'concept': "The case
> >insert for Charlie: "The Life and Art of
> >Charles Chaplin lists the aspect ratio as
> >a "matted" widescreen format
>
> I.e. cropping the full frame to achieve a
> rectangular shape in the camera. "Wide
> screen" remains a misleading misnomer
> in this case.

Then why is it that everyone except you uses the term widescreen to
describe the 1.85 format?

>
> >. This is not
> >entirely true. While the interview
> >segments are presented in 1.85:1
> >non-anamorphic, the remainder of the
> >ilm is in full frame. This is appropriate for
> >the clips of Chaplin's work, which was
> >composed for Academy ratio (roughly the
> >size of your standard television set).
> >Cropping this footage would be a
> >cardinal sin, and I am glad that Warner
> >Bros. chose not to."
>
> Right...and COUNTESS is cropped
> via hard matte in the camera to achieve
> the then-standard theatrical format
> for 35mm.

And is therefore refered to by everyone but you as being widescreen. Is
everyone else in the world out of step except you?

>
> However, I doubt that the aged Chaplin
> even knew the difference.

I can tell you from direct knowlege that Chaplin was very involved in
and aware of the framing of his images for at least 36 years of his
career. You can "doubt" all you want, but you'll have to do better than
that to convince anybody that you have credibility sufficient to
overcome the precedent of a lifetime career.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:

> >Here's yet another, from
> >dvdverdict.com/reviews, in the context
> >that the original question was asked that
> >contradicts George's 'concept': "The case
> >insert for Charlie: "The Life and Art of
> >Charles Chaplin lists the aspect ratio as
> >a "matted" widescreen format
>
> I.e. cropping the full frame to achieve a
> rectangular shape in the camera. "Wide
> screen" remains a misleading misnomer
> in this case.
>

I agree with you in this case, because it is only the interviews that
are matted to look letterboxed. It is a faux widescreen look. The
rest of the clips use a full squar-ish frame and they are interspersed,
so you have to watch it on a 4x3 screen with the black bars on the top
and bottom during the interviews.

And I understand that Chaplin essentially did the same thing with
Countess, but I am under the impression that the film was projected to
fill up a rectangular screen, not onto a square screen with a black top
and bottom. The shots were composed for a wider aspect ratio, even
though he was technically exposing less film than before.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

Davey T wrote:

>So, by your definition anything shot with
>a shorter than normal focal length lens is
>widescreen regardless of presentation
>format, because there's "more picture
>information available on the horizontal
>plane."

No


> Or conversely, if you're talking about
>film real estate, then nothing, even stuff
>35, qualifies as widescreen.
>Why is it that of the several independent
>descriptions I've read of the 1.85:1
>aspect ratio, every one of them includes
>the word "widescreen" and not one of
>them agrees with your very unique,
>subjective (and relative) 'definition'?

The two sources that have been quoted
are not authoritative.


>Here's yet another, from
>dvdverdict.com/reviews, in the context
>that the original question was asked that
>contradicts George's 'concept': "The case
>insert for Charlie: "The Life and Art of
>Charles Chaplin lists the aspect ratio as
>a "matted" widescreen format

I.e. cropping the full frame to achieve a
rectangular shape in the camera. "Wide
screen" remains a misleading misnomer
in this case.

>. This is not
>entirely true. While the interview
>segments are presented in 1.85:1
>non-anamorphic, the remainder of the
>ilm is in full frame. This is appropriate for
>the clips of Chaplin's work, which was
>composed for Academy ratio (roughly the
>size of your standard television set).
>Cropping this footage would be a
>cardinal sin, and I am glad that Warner
>Bros. chose not to."

Right...and COUNTESS is cropped
via hard matte in the camera to achieve
the then-standard theatrical format
for 35mm.

However, I doubt that the aged Chaplin
even knew the difference.











---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:30:03 -0400, G-HELPS.DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>Fred wrote:
>
>>but more importantly, it's the correct
>>answer to the SPECIFIC question,
>>namely if any Chaplin films were
>>widescreen.
>
>The correct answer? None.

Why? Is the screen square for Countess? (That's a yes or no
question, by the way.)
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:30 -0400, G-HELPS.RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>
>fwtep@hotmailx.com (Fred)
>wrote:
>
>>>>The wikipedia definition of 1.85:1 said
>>>>nothing at all about television, but did
>>>>SPECIFICALLY refer to it as a
>>>>"widescreen standard for theatrical film."
>
>>>Then the definition is wrong.
>
>>Why is it wrong? Is not the shape of the
>>screen wide?
>
>No, the width is the same as in the
>original squarish ratio, but the top is
>cropped.

I understand that. And a square with part of the top and bottom cut
off is? ... A rectangle. And a rectangle screen is? ...Wide.

Thus the answer to "were any of Chaplin's films widescreen, the answer
is "Yes, Countess."

By your reasoning, that he frame of film is pretty much square,
Cinemascope is not widescreen either. But notice one very important
thing: The term is wideSCREEEN not wideFRAME.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

David Totheroh wrote:

>>Right...and COUNTESS is cropped
>>via hard matte in the camera to achieve
>>the then-standard theatrical format
>>for 35mm.

>And is therefore refered to by everyone
>but you as being widescreen. Is
>everyone else in the world out of step
>except you?

Maybe :)











---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format