Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>>>>I never said it wasn't standard for the
>>>>time. But it >was< wide screen.

>>>That term was obsolete for standard
>>>35mm 2 decades after the 1.37 ratio
>>>was dropped.

>>Your description was misleading.

>   It's not misleading in the context of
>what we've been discussing, which is
>what Chaplin films were photographed in
>wide screen.

The term is meaningless
the way you use it. The screen is
not wider, merely more rectangular.

The old ratio was just as wide but the new format was perceived to be
wider because
of the cropping of the picture height.

This fake "wide screen" arose in the
50s when CinemaScope picture height
was standardized for all theatres.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
>
> >>The term is meaningless
> >>the way you use it. The screen is
> >>not wider, merely more rectangular.
>
> > You project that rectangular image
> >LARGER and have instant wide screen.
> >That's the way it works. That's the way
> >it's worked for over 50 years.
>
> The rectangle wasn't always projected
> larger.That depended on the theatre and
> the screen size.

Can you convince anyone here that more than 3% of theaters in the 60s
were more constrained by width than height? If so, you might have a
point. Otherwise, any theater projecting a 1.85 image to match the
height of a 1.37 WOULD have presented a larger, wider screen image.
(Your political antagonism is showing, George.)

>
> But you're misleading the readers of
> this newsgroup because COUNTESS was not a wide screen movie. It was in
> the conventional 1.85 35mm format.

Readers of this newsgroup, whose frame of reference is Chaplin, would
be comparing to either 1.33 or 1.37. 1.85 is clearly wider than either.
At least it's clear that the original poster was asking the question
only in reference to Chaplin films. And even someone with a more
contemporary viewpoint would very probably be inclined to see 1.85,
which is wider than 16:9 (at 1.78), as a widescreen format. Only
someone fixated on McCarthyism (Eugene started campaigning about the
time Countess was released) would cling to such a rigid definition as
you are trying to impose on this discussion.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>>The term is meaningless
>>the way you use it. The screen is
>>not wider, merely more rectangular.

>    You project that rectangular image
>LARGER and have instant wide screen.
>That's the way it works. That's the way
>it's worked for over 50 years.

The rectangle wasn't always projected
larger.That depended on the theatre and
the screen size.

But you're misleading the readers of
this newsgroup because COUNTESS was not a wide screen movie. It was in
the conventional 1.85 35mm format.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:42:18 -0400, G-HELPS.RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>But you're misleading the readers of
>this newsgroup because COUNTESS was not a wide screen movie. It was in
>the conventional 1.85 35mm format.

That's wide. Is there some other definition of wide? It's 1.85 times
as wide as it is high. It's width is greater than its height. No one
said it was anamorphic wide screen, just that the screen was wide as
opposed to the shape of every one of his other films. Nothing
misleading, and nothing incorrect. Was 100% of the information given?
No, not really, but enough info was given to answer the question to
the satisfaction of the person who asked it. He didn't ask for a
dissertation an history of the wide screen.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

dtotheroh DeleteThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
wrote:

>Can you convince anyone here that more
>than 3% of theaters in the 60s wer
>more
>constrained by width than height? If so,
>you might have a point. Otherwise, any
>theater projecting a 1.85 image to match

>the height of a 1.37 WOULD have
>presented a larger, wider screen image.
>(Your political antagonism is showing,
>George.)

Your insanity is showing, Davey.

>>But you're misleading the readers of
>>this newsgroup because COUNTESS
>>was not a wide screen movie. It was in
>>the conventional 1.85 35mm format.

>Readers of this newsgroup, whose frame
>of reference is Chaplin, would be
>comparing to either 1.33 or 1.37. 1.85 is
>clearly wider than either.

No, it is not. It is a cropped version
of the fuller frame.


> At least it's clear that the original poster
>was asking the question only in
>reference to Chaplin films. And even
>someone with a more contemporary

>viewpoint would very probably be
>inclined to see 1.85, which is wider than
>16:9 (at 1.78), as a widescreen format.


> Only someone fixated on McCarthyism
>(Eugene started campaigning about the
>time Countess was released) would cling
>to such a rigid definition as you are
>trying to impose on this discussion.

You're insane to drag politics into this.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

Fred wrote:

>He didn't ask for a dissertation an history
>of the wide screen.

Oh, are you the newsgroup netcop around here?

Carnahan made a comment which was
only partly correct and I gave a fuller
explanation.

COUNTESS was filmed
the same way every movie was filmed
during the period in which it was made
and it was in no sense "wide screen"
except in comparison to films made 20
years or more previously.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
> >He didn't ask for a dissertation an history
> >of the wide screen.
>
> Oh, are you the newsgroup netcop around here?

No, just a voice of sanity.
>
> Carnahan made a comment which was
> only partly correct and I gave a fuller
> explanation.
>
> COUNTESS was filmed
> the same way every movie was filmed
> during the period in which it was made
> and it was in no sense "wide screen"
> except in comparison to films made 20
> years or more previously.

Under your definition, since virtually all theatrical films since the
mid-sixties have been photographed in color, they are in no sense
"color films."
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>Under your definition, since virtually all
>theatrical films since the mid-sixties
>have been photographed in color, they
>are in no sense "color films."

Sorry, no, false analogy. Your use of
the term "wide screen" is obsolote and
has no relevance for the year in which
COUNTESS was made. It had some
relevance in the mid-50s when cropping
the full frame came into vogue.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

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

>George Shelps wrote:

>>Fred wrote:

>>>He didn't ask for a dissertation an
>>>history of the wide screen.

>>Oh, are you the newsgroup netcop
>>around here?

>    No, just a voice of sanity.

As Der Phooey once said:

"You vill stick mit der number of vords
vich I diktat!"
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
>
> >Under your definition, since virtually all
> >theatrical films since the mid-sixties
> >have been photographed in color, they
> >are in no sense "color films."
>
> Sorry, no, false analogy. Your use of
> the term "wide screen" is obsolote and
> has no relevance for the year in which
> COUNTESS was made. It had some
> relevance in the mid-50s when cropping
> the full frame came into vogue.

I looked up COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG at Deep Discount DVD's site and
it's listed as "1.85 widescreen."
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:35:31 -0400, G-HELPS DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>Fred wrote:
>
>>He didn't ask for a dissertation an history
>>of the wide screen.
>
>Oh, are you the newsgroup netcop around here?

I didn't say you're not *allowed* to give a history of wide screen,
merely that the person didn't ask for one and was therefore given a
quick answer.

>Carnahan made a comment which was
>only partly correct and I gave a fuller
>explanation.

I don't know exactly who said what and when, all I know is that the
original poster was told that Countess was Chaplin's only widescreen
film, and that is correct.

>COUNTESS was filmed
>the same way every movie was filmed
>during the period in which it was made
>and it was in no sense "wide screen"
>except in comparison to films made 20
>years or more previously.

The screen was wide, a rectangle, not square. I'm sorry if you feel
the need to get more technical, but the correct answer to "Did Chaplin
release any widescreen films?" is "Yes, he released one widescreen
feature, The Countess From Hong Kong." The technicalities of how it
was made are irrelevant. What matters it what you saw up on the
screen and what shape that screen was.

If the person had asked whether Chaplin ever made any anamorphic
widescreen films, that would have been another matter. But the fact
is, he didn't.

Let me ask you this: Is Countess the same aspect ratio as all of his
earlier films?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

Richard Carnahan wrote:
> George Shelps wrote:
> > Richard Carnahan wrote:
> >
> > >Under your definition, since virtually all
> > >theatrical films since the mid-sixties
> > >have been photographed in color, they
> > >are in no sense "color films."
> >
> > Sorry, no, false analogy. Your use of
> > the term "wide screen" is obsolote and
> > has no relevance for the year in which
> > COUNTESS was made. It had some
> > relevance in the mid-50s when cropping
> > the full frame came into vogue.
>
> I looked up COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG at Deep Discount DVD's site and
> it's listed as "1.85 widescreen."

Well, they clearly can't be relied upon for valid information. They
obviously didn't check with George first.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:
> rfcsac627n DeleteThis @aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> wrote:
>
> > I looked up COUNTESS FROM
> >HONG KONG at Deep Discount DVD's
> >site and it's listed as "1.85 widescreen."
>
> The term is being misused.

Yes, but by whom? This is from the "Glossary and Acronyms:Numbers" page
at TimeForDVD.com: "1.85:1 aspect ratio: refers to a movie screen or
widescreen movie picture that is 1.85 times wider than it is high." Is
EVERYONE except you misusing the term? Can you show me some kind of
official definition (other than from Shelpsego.com) that specifically
excludes 1.85:1 from fitting into the widescreen category.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format