Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:14:26 -0400, G-HELPS.TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>David Totheroh wrote:
>
>>>It is wide screen only with reference
>>>to dead aspect ratios and TV,
>
>>And since the original question was
>>asking about Chaplin films, then the>
>>baseline reference for comparison IS
>>precisely the aspect ratios of the earliest
>>83 of his 84 films.
>
>But it's a still misleading to apply
>that term to a movie made in the mid-60s.

Not at all. It was asked in contrast to movies that were NOT shot in
the 60's. As such, it was a perfectly accurate and valid reply.

>COUNTESS is not a wide screen movie
>in any meaningful sense of that term.

Says you. You don't think it's meaningful that compared to every
other Chaplin film in existence, this is the only one that's intended
to be shown on a screen that is a wide rectangle???

>A wide screen movie is one shot in one of
>the number of processes highlighted
>on the site Widescreen Museum...Super
>Panavision, CinemaScope, Technirama,
>Todd-AO, Cinerama etc.

That is not correct. A wide screen movie is one where it is intended
to be shown on a screen that is much wider than it is tall. I *DO*
understand what you're saying, but you're still wrong, both with
regard to the question asked, and in that you're being way too strict
with the term-- strict in a way that no one else is.


>The correct answer would have been
>to say that COUNTESS was shot in
>the conventional 1.85 35mm format
>of the day.

No, the correct answer is that Countess is a widescreen movie. It
doesn't matter if it was the normal format of the day, that's
completely 100% absolutely irrelevant; and it would be irrelevant even
if the question wasn't asking about it in regard to movies that were
made long before the 60's.

Is it the widest ever? No.

Does it use a different format than other, wider, movies? Yes.

But is it still widescreen? Yes.

Should it be shown square? No.

Was it photographed to be shown square? No.

Is it widescreen compared to Chaplin's other movies? Yes.

Is it as wide as "This Is Cinerama?" No.

But is that what the person asked? No.

Did the original poster care which particular widescreen format it (or
any of Chaplin's films) was? No.

I don't now how you can argue with any of that. I really don't. And
that's WITH understanding your point. As you said, you concede that
the public's definition of the word widescreen is "any movie that is
shown in a noticably rectangular form." The original poster is "the
public," he's not an industry professional.

Let me ask you this: Let's say you walk into a movie theater and see
a movie up on a big rectangular screen (say, 2.35:1). But it's a
movie you've never heard of, so you don't know how it was shot (Scope,
matted full-frame, etc.). What would you call that movie? Would you
say it's widescreen, or would you say you can't answer until you talk
to the DP?

And what would happen 300 years from now when people see (what we're
all calling) widescreen films but the information about how they were
made was lost, and all that exists is a rectangular movie available
online?

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

George Shelps wrote:
> rfcsac627n.TakeThisOut@aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> wrote:
>
> >> No, it's not. Many European films
> >>were still being photographed full-frame
> >>during the mid-sixties. This would
> >>include all of Ingmar Bergman's films at
> >>least through
> >>HOUR OF THE WOLF (1968).
>
> COUNTESS was a Universal film, hence
> American. How do you know that these
> Euro films were shown full-frame?

Just one example, from Criterion's site:
Masculin féminin (1966) is presented in its original aspect ratio
of 1.33:1. On widescreen televisions, black bars will appear on the
left and the right of the image to maintain the proper screen format.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

David Totheroh wrote:

>you ignore the original question and
>answer a conveniently replaced question
>of your own.

"Convenienty replaced?" Danke, Herr
Totheroh.

I was interested in further defining
the term "wide screen" with respect
to COUNTESS without being netcopped
by Der Phooey.












---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 

rfcsac627n.TakeThisOut@aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
wrote:

>>    No, it's not. Many European films
>>were still being photographed full-frame
>>during the mid-sixties. This would
>>include all of Ingmar Bergman's films at
>>least through
>>HOUR OF THE WOLF (1968).

COUNTESS was a Universal film, hence
American. How do you know that these
Euro films were shown full-frame? Many
movies didn't have hard matte 1.85 but
were shown that WAY.

>COUNTESS is not a wide screen movie
>in any meaningful sense of that term. A
>wide screen movie is one shot in one of
>the number of processes highlighted
>on the site Widescreen Museum...Super
>Panavision, CinemaScope, Technirama,
>Todd-AO, Cinerama etc.

>    You are misreading the information at
>the Widescreen Museum site. Check
>here:

>           http://www.widescreenmuseum.
>om/widescreen/aspectratio.htm

No, I am not misreading it. the site shows 3 cropped versions of
Academy ratio and
calls them widescreen. I don't disagree
with that, but since the US abandoned Academy in the mid-50s, it is a
fairly useless term and the site is really concerned with the wide film,
wide frame, and anamorphic processes, ie. real wide screen.

>>The correct answer would have been
>>to say that COUNTESS was shot in
>>the conventional 1.85 35mm format
>>of the day.

>    Which--by any definition of
>terms--qualifies as widescreen.

Not in any meaningful way.


>    This is perhaps the silliest discussion
>we've ever had here. And that's saying a
>lot.

Then you should have stayed out of it!











---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 

fwtep.RemoveThis@hotmailx.com (Fred)
wrote:

>>But it's a still misleading to apply
>>that term to a movie made in the mid-60s.

>Not at all. It was asked in contrast to
>movies that were NOT shot in the 60's.
>As such, it was a perfectly accurate and
>valid reply.

I agree partially, but I still object to
applying the term to conventional 35mm


>>COUNTESS is not a wide screen movie
>>in any meaningful sense of that term.

>Says you.

Sez me!

> You don't think it's meaningful that
>compared to every other Chaplin film in
>existence, this is the only one that's
>intended to be shown on a screen that is
>a wide rectangle???

No. And Chaplin gave no evidence of
using the wider composition.



>A wide screen movie is one shot in one
>of the number of processes highlighted
>on the site Widescreen Museum...Super
>Panavision, CinemaScope, Technirama,
>Todd-AO, Cinerama etc.

>That is not correct.

It is focus of the site.


> A wide screen movie is one where it is
>intended to be shown on a screen that is
>much wider than it is tall.

Not true. The taking system is also
a factor.

> I *DO*
>understand what you're saying, but
>you're still wrong, both with regard to the
>question asked, and in that you're being
>way too strict with the term-- strict in a
>way that no one else is.

I don't care how the question was asked.

I wasn't commenting on it, but on the
responses...what is this group, Ask Jeeves?


>>The correct answer would have been
>>to say that COUNTESS was shot in
>>the conventional 1.85 35mm format
>>of the day.

>No, the correct answer is that Countess
>is a widescreen movie. It doesn't matter
>if it was the normal format of the day,
>that's completely 100% absolutely
>irrelevant;

No, it's relevant. If COUNTESS is
widescreen, what was Panavision?
Todd-AO?


> and it would be irrelevant even if the
>question wasn't asking about it in regard
>to movies that were made long before
>the 60's.

>Is it the widest ever? No.

>Does it use a different format than other,
>wider, movies? Yes.

>But is it still widescreen? Yes.

In a trivial sense only.

>Should it be shown square? No.

>Was it photographed to be shown
>square? No.

As you know, there was never a truly
square image.


>Is it widescreen compared to Chaplin's
>other movies? Yes.

I have conceded that one.


>Is it as wide as "This Is Cinerama?" No.

>But is that what the person asked? No.

I don't care what the person asked, I
wrote about what interests me and
hopefully other people, too.


>Did the original poster care which
>particular widescreen format it (or any of
>Chaplin's films) was? No.

I care. "Sez me."

>I don't now how you can argue with any
>of that. I really don't. And that's WITH
>understanding your point. As you said,
>you concede that the public's definition
>of the word widescreen is "any movie
>that is shown in a noticably rectangular
>form."

No, tthat's ~ your~ definition.

> The original poster is "the public," he's
>not an industry professional.

Well, I happen to be an "industry professional" and that's how I
respond.


>Let me ask you this: Let's say you walk
>into a movie theater and see a movie up
>on a big rectangular screen (say, 2.35:1).
>But it's a movie you've never heard of, so
>you don't know how it was shot (Scope,
>matted full-frame, etc.). What would you
>call that movie? Would you say it's
>widescreen,

Probably, but there have been bastardized
mimics of widescreen...SuperScope was
one, which was once applied to FANTASIA and distorted it optically
to achieve 2.35

> or would you say you can't answer until
>you talk to the DP?

I can usually figure it out by visual
experience.

>And what would happen 300 years from
>now when people see (what we're all
>calling) widescreen films but the
>information about how they were made
>was lost, and all that exists is a
>rectangular movie available online?

They would check Marty Hart's site. :)












---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>>COUNTESS was a Universal film,
>>hence American. How do you know that
>>these Euro films were shown
>>full-frame?

>    Just one example, from Criterion's
>site: Masculin féminin (1966) is
>presented in its original aspect ratio
>of 1.33:1. On widescreen televisions,
>black bars will appear on the left and the
>right of the image to maintain the proper
>screen format.

Interesting...well, COUNTESS was made
by Universal and was subject to American
projection standards.

That said, video versions of films often
go overboard in the cause of preserving
the "original aspect ratio.' For example,
MGM's BEN HUR was shot in Camera
65 (later to be known as Ultra Panavision) which was a super-wide 65mm
process.
The on-film aspect ratio was 2.76 to 1,
making it the widest of wide screens.

Yet everything i've seen written about
BEN HUR indicates that it was never
actually shown in theatres in that
ratio, but something closer to 2.50
to 1.

The original ratio was far too
wide for practical exhbition, but purists have often demanded
an extreme letterbox on video for
BEN HUR to reflect 2.76---even
though it was never shown that way.

(Carnahan, why are you contribuing
to this "silliest discussion?")











---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 

Mr. Moose wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:17:00 -0400, "Neil W"
> <neilw.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMPLEASEnetlib.com> wrote:
>
> >Is there any place to purchase Chaplin DVDs in Letterbox or Widescreen
> >format so you see the whole picture? The few Chaplin DVDs I have purchased
> >or received as gifts are standard "Pan & Scan" format and so have the sides
> >cut off. Thanks.
> >
> Perhaps the correct response here is, "Which films?"
>
> If you are talking about the early Keystone films, then good luck.
> Those look cut off on many editions because they have been through
> several format changes and are very poorly converted to video on most
> releases, with a few exceptions.
>
> Many of the Essanay and Mutual films have some formatting issues where
> there are lines on the left side of the screen. There was a picture
> there on the original prints, but that part was left off when sound
> was added to some.
>
> Almost any release on Image or MK2 discs is going to have just about
> the full picture. No problems there.
>
> "Countess From Hong Kong" is widescreen on it's dvd.

Now you've done it! ;-) If it weren't for the fact that you're
probably not in the top ten of George's 'evil liberals' list, it'd be
deja vu all over again.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
>
> >Mr Moose wrote:
>
> >>"Countess From Hong Kong" is
> >>widescreen on it's dvd.
>
> >Now you've done it! ;-) If it weren't for
> >the fact that you're probably not in the
> >top ten of George's 'evil liberals' list, it'd
> >be deja vu all over again.
>
> Yeah, right, widescreen is code for "liberal."
>
> The correct term is used by Marty Hart
> on the Widescreen Museum website,
> and that term is "cropped widescreen."
>
> COUNTESS is, as I have been saying,
> not in a real widescreen process, but
> in a format merely cropped to look like that.... hence Hart's term.

So the difference is in the fact of cropping? OK, let's look at that.
We all acknowledge 1.85 crops an image with a hard matte in the camera
(or with a soft matte in presentation). What you don't acknowledge is
that anamorphic crops an image by using an aspherical lens. One masks
light, the other bends light, both images are cropped.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

David Totheroh wrote:

>Mr Moose wrote:

>>"Countess From Hong Kong" is
>>widescreen on it's dvd.

>Now you've done it! ;-) If it weren't for
>the fact that you're probably not in the
>top ten of George's 'evil liberals' list, it'd
>be deja vu all over again.

Yeah, right, widescreen is code for "liberal."

The correct term is used by Marty Hart
on the Widescreen Museum website,
and that term is "cropped widescreen."

COUNTESS is, as I have been saying,
not in a real widescreen process, but
in a format merely cropped to look like that.... hence Hart's term.











---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:09:57 -0400, G-HELPS.RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>David Totheroh wrote:
>
>>Mr Moose wrote:
>
>>>"Countess From Hong Kong" is
>>>widescreen on it's dvd.
>
>>Now you've done it! ;-) If it weren't for
>>the fact that you're probably not in the
>>top ten of George's 'evil liberals' list, it'd
>>be deja vu all over again.
>
>Yeah, right, widescreen is code for "liberal."
>
>The correct term is used by Marty Hart
>on the Widescreen Museum website,
>and that term is "cropped widescreen."
>
>COUNTESS is, as I have been saying,
>not in a real widescreen process, but
>in a format merely cropped to look like that.... hence Hart's term.

George, no one asked what the process was. The end result is what
matters. And guess what shape the screen is in?

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

David Totheroh wrote:

>What you don't acknowledge is that
>anamorphic crops an image by using an
>aspherical lens.

An anamorphic lens or prism system
compresses a field of vision that exceeds
the capability of a spherical lens and
then it is uncompressed in the projection
process to produce (currently) a 2.35-1
image.

The correct term for COUNTESS is
"cropped widescreen" indicating that
it is a rectangular shape created by
cropping a larger frame. By contrast,
anamorphic uses the entire frame.











---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:17:00 -0400, "Neil W"
<neilw DeleteThis @NOSPAMPLEASEnetlib.com> wrote:

>Is there any place to purchase Chaplin DVDs in Letterbox or Widescreen
>format so you see the whole picture? The few Chaplin DVDs I have purchased
>or received as gifts are standard "Pan & Scan" format and so have the sides
>cut off. Thanks.
>
Perhaps the correct response here is, "Which films?"

If you are talking about the early Keystone films, then good luck.
Those look cut off on many editions because they have been through
several format changes and are very poorly converted to video on most
releases, with a few exceptions.

Many of the Essanay and Mutual films have some formatting issues where
there are lines on the left side of the screen. There was a picture
there on the original prints, but that part was left off when sound
was added to some.

Almost any release on Image or MK2 discs is going to have just about
the full picture. No problems there.

"Countess From Hong Kong" is widescreen on it's dvd.

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

fwtep.TakeThisOut@hotmailx.com (Fred)
wrote:

>>The correct term is used by Marty Hart
>>on the Widescreen Museum website,
>>and that term is "cropped widescreen."
>>COUNTESS is, as I have been saying,
>>not in a real widescreen process, but
>>in a format merely cropped to look like
>>that.... hence Hart's term.

>George, no one asked what the process
>was. The end result is what matters. And
>guess what shape the screen is in?

Well, I volunteered the answer based
on Carnahan using the term "wide
screen process." (see below)

COUNTESS was indeed in a rectangular
format, via a cropped wide screen, but not utilizing any "wide-screen
process."

>>With the exception of A COUNTESS
>>FROM HONG KONG (1967), none of
>>Chaplin's films were photographed in
>>any wide-screen process.











---------------------------------------------------------------------
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