Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:33:02 -0400, G-HELPS.RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>Fred wrote:
>
>>>The width would have had the same
>>>content if it had been filmed in 1.37.
>
>>That is not true George.
>>Cinematographers frame differently for
>>ALL widescreen than they would for 4x3.
>
>It is true. DP framing is an esthetic
>consideration, not a physical one.

It's never a physical one though, whether scope or matted. Film
resolution is the same no matter what kind of lense is in front. So
what we have is a hard limit on the resolution of the film, and an
artistic choice on what gets put onto the film.

Again, there is zero difference in terms of information on the film.

Countess is a widescreen film. It's not anamorphic widescreen, but it
is, nevertheless, widescreen.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

David Totheroh wrote

>>No, just that it might be a gentlemanly
>>thing to stop debating when both sides
>>have firm convictions based on very
>>different premises.

>OK here's your chance to prove it. It is
>obvious that we "have firm convictions
>based on very different premises," mine
>based on universally accepted definitions
>of the basic terms used, yours on god
>knows what perverse contortion of those
>definitions. Can you let this pass, or do
>you need to have the last word in order
>to 'prove' your 'rightness' and, by your
>own words, your ungentlemanliness? ;-)

Of course, your post is deliberately
insulting..












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

Fred wrote:

>Countess is a widescreen film. It's not
>anamorphic widescreen, but it is,
>nevertheless, widescreen.

COUNTESS is cropped to the standard
(and current) flat US aspect ratio of 1.85 and is only widescreen in the
most sloppy
definitional sense.











---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 27 Sep 2006 23:45:00 -0400, G-HELPS.TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>Fred wrote:
>
>>Countess is a widescreen film. It's not
>>anamorphic widescreen, but it is,
>>nevertheless, widescreen.
>
>COUNTESS is cropped to the standard
>(and current) flat US aspect ratio of 1.85 and is only widescreen in the
>most sloppy
>definitional sense.

Right. It's widescreen in the common vernacular. As I mentioned
before, the sun doesn't rise and set, but we still say "sunrise" and
"sunset." I don't think you'd find anyone who, when asked if all of
Chaplin films were 4x3 would NOT say there was one widescreen one. And
I certainly don't think you'd find anyone who'd put the Countess DVD
on and say it's not widescreen.

To the public, whether something is called widescreen or not is
determined by the shape of the screen, not the shooting process. I'm
sorry if you disagree with the public, but they're decided what the
word means and all of your foot stomping won't change that.

Furthermore, I think the studios know the definition of the term
widescreen, and there are plenty of matted movies on DVD that are
called widescreen on the box.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

fwtep RemoveThis @hotmailx.com (Fred) wrote:


>>COUNTESS is cropped to the standard
>>(and current) flat US aspect ratio of
>>1.85 and is only widescreen in the most
>>sloppy definitional sense.

>Right. It's widescreen in the common
>vernacular. As I mentioned before, the
>sun doesn't rise and set, but we still say
>"sunrise" and "sunset."

Oh, come on. That's a false analogy.
The appearance and disappearance of
the sun has physical consequences which
those terms express.

But 1.85 is not perceptibly wide,.
"Widescreen" applied to standard 35mm means almost literally nothing.

> I don't think you'd find anyone who,
>when asked if all of Chaplin films were
>4x3 would NOT say there was one
>widescreen one. And I certainly don't
>think you'd find anyone who'd put the
>Countess DVD on and say it's not
>widescreen.

The earlier Chaplins were filmed in
the conventional 35mm ratio of their
day and COUNTESS was in the 60s
equivalent.


>To the public, whether something is
>called widescreen or not is determined
>by the shape of the screen, not the
>shooting process.

I question that. The whole promotional
basis of Cinerama, Todd-A0, CinemaScope etc was based on the
public being able to make the distinction
between conventional 35mm and the
"immersive" new processes.

> I'm sorry if you disagree with the public,
>but they're decided what the word means
>and all of your foot stomping won't
>change that.

"Disagreeing" with the public is often
the beginning of true wisdom.

>Furthermore, I think the studios know the
>definition of the term widescreen, and
>there are plenty of matted movies on
>DVD that are called widescreen on the
>box.

The studios adopted it merely as a marketing slogan.











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

George Shelps wrote:
> fwtep.TakeThisOut@hotmailx.com (Fred) wrote:
>
>
> >>COUNTESS is cropped to the standard
> >>(and current) flat US aspect ratio of
> >>1.85 and is only widescreen in the most
> >>sloppy definitional sense.
>
> >Right. It's widescreen in the common
> >vernacular. As I mentioned before, the
> >sun doesn't rise and set, but we still say
> >"sunrise" and "sunset."
>
> Oh, come on. That's a false analogy.
> The appearance and disappearance of
> the sun has physical consequences which
> those terms express.
>
> But 1.85 is not perceptibly wide,.
> "Widescreen" applied to standard 35mm means almost literally nothing.
>
> > I don't think you'd find anyone who,
> >when asked if all of Chaplin films were
> >4x3 would NOT say there was one
> >widescreen one. And I certainly don't
> >think you'd find anyone who'd put the
> >Countess DVD on and say it's not
> >widescreen.
>
> The earlier Chaplins were filmed in
> the conventional 35mm ratio of their
> day and COUNTESS was in the 60s
> equivalent.
>
>
> >To the public, whether something is
> >called widescreen or not is determined
> >by the shape of the screen, not the
> >shooting process.
>
> I question that. The whole promotional
> basis of Cinerama, Todd-A0, CinemaScope etc was based on the
> public being able to make the distinction
> between conventional 35mm and the
> "immersive" new processes.
>
> > I'm sorry if you disagree with the public,
> >but they're decided what the word means
> >and all of your foot stomping won't
> >change that.
>
> "Disagreeing" with the public is often
> the beginning of true wisdom.

You mistakenly assume that concepts and terminology operate similarly.
There's a significant difference. Without agreeing on common
terminology, it would be impossible to describe differences in concepts
which might lead to new understanding, which in turn and indeed CAN be
"the beginning of true wisdom." But stubbornly refusing to accept
common terminology leads only to meaningless babble and denies the
possibility of any real communication. But maybe that's your true
intent?

>
> >Furthermore, I think the studios know the
> >definition of the term widescreen, and
> >there are plenty of matted movies on
> >DVD that are called widescreen on the
> >box.
>
> The studios adopted it merely as a marketing slogan.

They use the generic term "widescreen" because it is meaningfully
descriptive to the audience (minus obstinate purposeless contrarians).
Panavision, Cinerama, Cinemascope, Superscope etc. are the marketing
slogans used as a means of attempting differentiation.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:09:51 -0400, G-HELPS.DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>>Right. It's widescreen in the common
>>vernacular. As I mentioned before, the
>>sun doesn't rise and set, but we still say
>>"sunrise" and "sunset."
>
>Oh, come on. That's a false analogy.
>The appearance and disappearance of
>the sun has physical consequences which
>those terms express.

And the term "widescreen" expresses something too. A screen that it
noticably more rectangular than 4x3.

>
>But 1.85 is not perceptibly wide,.
>"Widescreen" applied to standard 35mm means almost literally nothing.

It means something when compared to a square screen, like, say every
one of Chaplin's other films.


>>To the public, whether something is
>>called widescreen or not is determined
>>by the shape of the screen, not the
>>shooting process.
>
>I question that. The whole promotional
>basis of Cinerama, Todd-A0, CinemaScope etc was based on the
>public being able to make the distinction
>between conventional 35mm and the
>"immersive" new processes.

Guess what? I'm talking about TODAY not 50 years ago. For TODAY's
public all current films are widescreen, but all films before the 50's
were square. (The public doesn't know about anomolies like The Big
Trail or Napoleon.)


>> I'm sorry if you disagree with the public,
>>but they're decided what the word means
>>and all of your foot stomping won't
>>change that.
>
>"Disagreeing" with the public is often
>the beginning of true wisdom.

"Often?" I'd agree if you said "occasionally" or "once in a great
while."


>
>>Furthermore, I think the studios know the
>>definition of the term widescreen, and
>>there are plenty of matted movies on
>>DVD that are called widescreen on the
>>box.
>
>The studios adopted it merely as a marketing slogan.

Sorry, but the business IS the studios. If they call it widescreen,
it IS widescreen. They invented the term. Are there any other
businesses where the business doesn't define their own terms? Does
Chrysler not know the defiition of "car?"


In your opinion, did Chaplin make any color films?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:
> fwtep DeleteThis @hotmailx.com (Fred) wrote:
>
>
> >>COUNTESS is cropped to the standard
> >>(and current) flat US aspect ratio of
> >>1.85 and is only widescreen in the most
> >>sloppy definitional sense.
>
> >Right. It's widescreen in the common
> >vernacular. As I mentioned before, the
> >sun doesn't rise and set, but we still say
> >"sunrise" and "sunset."
>
> Oh, come on. That's a false analogy.
> The appearance and disappearance of
> the sun has physical consequences which
> those terms express.
>
> But 1.85 is not perceptibly wide,.
> "Widescreen" applied to standard 35mm means almost literally nothing.
>
> > I don't think you'd find anyone who,
> >when asked if all of Chaplin films were
> >4x3 would NOT say there was one
> >widescreen one. And I certainly don't
> >think you'd find anyone who'd put the
> >Countess DVD on and say it's not
> >widescreen.
>
> The earlier Chaplins were filmed in
> the conventional 35mm ratio of their
> day and COUNTESS was in the 60s
> equivalent.
>
>
> >To the public, whether something is
> >called widescreen or not is determined
> >by the shape of the screen, not the
> >shooting process.
>
> I question that. The whole promotional
> basis of Cinerama, Todd-A0, CinemaScope etc was based on the
> public being able to make the distinction
> between conventional 35mm and the
> "immersive" new processes.
>
> > I'm sorry if you disagree with the public,
> >but they're decided what the word means
> >and all of your foot stomping won't
> >change that.
>
> "Disagreeing" with the public is often
> the beginning of true wisdom.

You mistakenly assume that concepts and terminology operate similarly.
There's a significant difference. Without agreeing on common
terminology, it would be impossible to describe differences in concepts
which might lead to new understanding, which in turn and indeed CAN be
"the beginning of true wisdom." But stubbornly refusing to accept
common terminology leads only to meaningless babble and denies the
possibility of any real communication. But maybe that's your true
intent?

>
> >Furthermore, I think the studios know the
> >definition of the term widescreen, and
> >there are plenty of matted movies on
> >DVD that are called widescreen on the
> >box.
>
> The studios adopted it merely as a marketing slogan.

They use the generic term "widescreen" because it is meaningfully
descriptive to the audience (minus obstinate purposeless contrarians).
Panavision, Cinerama, Cinemascope, Superscope etc. are the marketing
slogans used as a means of attempting differentiation.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

David Totheroh wrote;

>But stubbornly refusing to accept
>common terminology leads only to
>meaningless babble and denies the
>possibility of any real communication.
>But maybe that's your true intent?

"Common terminology" is often wrong,
the product of ignorance or msinformation
or, in your case, stupidity.


>>The studios adopted it merely as a
>>marketing slogan.

>They use the generic term "widescreen"
>because it is meaningfully descriptive to
>the audience (minus obstinate
>purposeless contrarians). Panavision,
>Cinerama, Cinemascope, Superscope
>etc. are the marketing slogans used as a
>means of attempting differentiation.

The generic term was adopted to
describe 1.85 as a means of confusing
the public into believing they were
seeing some variant of one of the
special processes listed above.

50 years later, you're still confused.











---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 DeleteThis @hotmailx.com (Fred)
wrote:

>>>And the term "widescreen" expresses
>>>something too. A screen that it noticably
>>>more rectangular than 4x3.

>>But 1.85 is not perceptibly wide,.
>>"Widescreen" applied to standard
>>35mm means almost literally nothing.

>It means something when compared to a
>square screen, like, say every one of
>Chaplin's other films.

It had no appreciarble esthetic or
psychological impact. 1,85 is barely
perceptible as "wide."

It means something with respect Chaplin's
other films in that COUNTESS was filmed
in a different and newer conventional 35mm format.

>>>To the public, whether something is
>>>called widescreen or not is determined
>>>?by the shape of the screen, not the
>>>shooting process.

>>I question that. The whole promotional
>>basis of Cinerama, Todd-A0,
>>CinemaScope etc was based on the
>>public being able to make the
>>distinction between conventional 35mm
>>and the
>"immersive" new processes.

>Guess what? I'm talking about TODAY
>not 50 years ago. For TODAY's public all
>current films are widescreen, but all
>films before the 50's were square. (The
>public doesn't know about anomolies like
>The Big Trail or Napoleon.)

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


>>>  I'm sorry if you disagree with
>>>the..public, but they're decided what
>>>the word means
>>>and all of your foot stomping won't
>>>change that.

>>"Disagreeing" with the public is often
>>the beginning of true wisdom.

>"Often?" I'd agree if you said
>"occasionally" or "once in a great
>while."

You have more faith in the public's
good sense than I do.

>>>Furthermore, I think the studios know the
>>>definition of the term widescreen, and
>>>there are plenty of matted movies on
>>>DVD that are called widescreen on the
>>>box.

>>The studios adopted it merely as a
>>marketing slogan.

>Sorry, but the business IS the studios. If
>they call it widescreen, it IS widescreen.
>They invented the term. Are there any
>other businesses where the business
>doesn't define their own terms?

Oh, come on. Markleting and invention
are not the same thing. Henri Chretien,
not Darryl Zanuck, invented CinemaScope
(Chretien called it "anamorphoscope")

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

False analogy. Widescreen is an accesory not the vehicle.

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

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











---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:28:00 -0400, G-HELPS.TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>
>fwtep@hotmailx.com (Fred)
>wrote:
>
>>>>And the term "widescreen" expresses
>>>>something too. A screen that it noticably
>>>>more rectangular than 4x3.
>
>>>But 1.85 is not perceptibly wide,.
>>>"Widescreen" applied to standard
>>>35mm means almost literally nothing.
>
>>It means something when compared to a
>>square screen, like, say every one of
>>Chaplin's other films.
>
>It had no appreciarble esthetic or
>psychological impact. 1,85 is barely
>perceptible as "wide."

You left out "in my opinion." Because I don't think you'd find many
(or any) people who agree with you. Now, I'm sure you're thinking,
"compared to Cinemascope, 1:85 is hardly rectangular." Fine, but by
that same reasoning, 1.85 is quite noticably rectangular (or
"widescreen" as the public calls it) compared to 1.33.

See, you're comparing two formats, 1.85 and 2.35 and saying 1.85 isn't
wide, whereas I'm comparing 1.85 to 1.33 and saying it IS wide. In
fact, guess what? The difference between 1.85 and 1.33 is GREATER
than the difference between 1.85 and 2.35. Sorry but that's the math.

>
>It means something with respect Chaplin's
>other films in that COUNTESS was filmed
>in a different and newer conventional 35mm format.

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


>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.

>> 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?

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

George Shelps wrote:
> fwtep RemoveThis @hotmailx.com (Fred)
> wrote:
>
> >>>And the term "widescreen" expresses
> >>>something too. A screen that it noticably
> >>>more rectangular than 4x3.
>
> >>But 1.85 is not perceptibly wide,.
> >>"Widescreen" applied to standard
> >>35mm means almost literally nothing.
>
> >It means something when compared to a
> >square screen, like, say every one of
> >Chaplin's other films.
>
> It had no appreciarble esthetic or
> psychological impact. 1,85 is barely
> perceptible as "wide."

I'm comfortable that, for most people, an expansion of 35% in width
(given constant height), or a reduction of 25+% in height (given
constant width) is more than "barely perceptible."

>
> It means something with respect Chaplin's
> other films in that COUNTESS was filmed
> in a different and newer conventional 35mm format.
>
> >>>To the public, whether something is
> >>>called widescreen or not is determined
> >>>?by the shape of the screen, not the
> >>>shooting process.
>
> >>I question that. The whole promotional
> >>basis of Cinerama, Todd-A0,
> >>CinemaScope etc was based on the
> >>public being able to make the
> >>distinction between conventional 35mm
> >>and the
> >"immersive" new processes.
>
> >Guess what? I'm talking about TODAY
> >not 50 years ago. For TODAY's public all
> >current films are widescreen, but all
> >films before the 50's were square. (The
> >public doesn't know about anomolies like
> >The Big Trail or Napoleon.)
>
> No, today's widescreen is Panavision and its knock-offs, including
> inferior Super 35,
>
>
> >>> I'm sorry if you disagree with
> >>>the..public, but they're decided what
> >>>the word means
> >>>and all of your foot stomping won't
> >>>change that.
>
> >>"Disagreeing" with the public is often
> >>the beginning of true wisdom.
>
> >"Often?" I'd agree if you said
> >"occasionally" or "once in a great
> >while."
>
> You have more faith in the public's
> good sense than I do.
>
> >>>Furthermore, I think the studios know the
> >>>definition of the term widescreen, and
> >>>there are plenty of matted movies on
> >>>DVD that are called widescreen on the
> >>>box.
>
> >>The studios adopted it merely as a
> >>marketing slogan.
>
> >Sorry, but the business IS the studios. If
> >they call it widescreen, it IS widescreen.
> >They invented the term. Are there any
> >other businesses where the business
> >doesn't define their own terms?
>
> Oh, come on. Markleting and invention
> are not the same thing. Henri Chretien,
> not Darryl Zanuck, invented CinemaScope
> (Chretien called it "anamorphoscope")
>
> > Does Chrysler not know the defiition of
> >"car?"
>
> False analogy. Widescreen is an accesory not the vehicle.
>
> >In your opinion, did Chaplin make any
> >color films?
>
> No. but he hand-colored COUNTESS
> using his 8 children as free labor.

There were 10 when Countess was released.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:
> 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.

The gauge of the film is irrelevant to the aspect ratio of filming or
presentation. That's defined only by how the image is cropped, hard or
soft or in the lens with anamorphics (how it's done doesn't matter
either). I've seen experimental 70mm shot at 60 fps projected in 1.85:1
(but it could have been shown in 1.37 had they chosen to do so). By
your new definition, since it's wide neg (relative to 35) that makes it
widescreen, even though the aspect ratio was identical to "cropped
widescreen" which you say isn't widescreen, and it could've just as
easily been Academy framing and you'd have to say it was widescreen
according to your new definition. See how illogical your subjective
definitions become?

>
> >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.

"Wide" is certainly a relative term, that's why the context of the
original question is important. But aspect ratios are NOT subjective,
and which ones have been defined by the industry as being "widescreen"
is likewise not a matter of interpretation.

>
> >>>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.

And I think he even fed most of them, too.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format