Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format

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

George Shelps wrote:
> Davey T wrote:
>
>
> >Although I have no doubt you will also
> >refuse to accept wikipedia as an
> >authoritative source, I offer this
> >information from their aspect ratio
> >definitions page for those with an open
> >mind: "1.85:1: 35 mm US and UK
> >widescreen standard for theatrical film.
> >Uses approximately 3 perforations
> >("perfs") of image space per 4 perf
> >frame; films can be shot in 3-perf to save
> >cost of film stock. Also known as "flat"."
>
> The standard film ratio is 1.85 for
> conventional theatrical releases Period.
>
> It is "wide screen" only with respect
> to television. Perhaps that is the source
> of the confusion.

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." Perhaps that unambiguous, declarative statement
is the source of YOUR confusion. (What the heck, it makes as much sense
as anything you've said so far in this thread.)
 >> 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?

>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.

This is a discussion group. remember?
And I didn't give him a "dissertation."

>>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.

That is not correct. It is his only film
he made after the format change in the
US in the 50s.


>>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.

On the contrary! The question was
exactly a technical one.



> 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
>ilms, 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?

No, it is in the same ratio as every other
US feature film not shot in anamorphic or
70mm format from approximately
1955-to the present.

At one early point in time, the term "wide
screen" used to characterize 1.85 was meaningful, but not by
the time COUNTESS was made.

I certainly didn't intend my minor
correction of Carnahan's post to set
off a brushfire, but there are many
strange agendas among the posters
on this group.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:31:58 -0400, G-HELPS.TakeThisOut@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.
>
>This is a discussion group. remember?
>And I didn't give him a "dissertation."

Is it a discussion group? Says who? It's called alt.movies.chaplin,
not alt.movies.chaplin.discussion. And it's a "newsgroup on Usenet."
See that? It's not called a "discussiongroup on Discussnet." I hope
that's not being too technical.


>>>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.
>
>That is not correct. It is his only film
>he made after the format change in the
>US in the 50s.

What does that have to do with it??? Seriously, can you please
explain that to me?


>>>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.
>
>On the contrary! The question was
>exactly a technical one.

There are levels of technical. The question was answered with
"Countess was widescreen." And it was. Sorry if you'd rather be
wrong.

>> 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
>>ilms, 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?
>
>No, it is in the same ratio as every other
>US feature film not shot in anamorphic or
>70mm format from approximately
>1955-to the present.

Right. It's a widescreen film. Is it circular? No. Is it square?
No. Is it rectangular? Why yes, as a matter of fact it is.


>At one early point in time, the term "wide
>screen" used to characterize 1.85 was meaningful, but not by
>the time COUNTESS was made.
>
>I certainly didn't intend my minor
>correction of Carnahan's post to set
>off a brushfire, but there are many
>strange agendas among the posters
>on this group.

Of course you meant it to set off a brushfire.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

Davey T wrote:

>>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.

Yes, Deep Discount ranks right up
there as an authoritative source and
I humbly apologize for contesting
it. I eagerly await the Deep Discount
Encyclopedia of Film.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

dtotheroh.RemoveThis@aol.com (David Totheroh)
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.

Every single feature film released
in the US is widescreen by that definition!

1.85 is the standard 35mm format; it is
widescreen only in comparison to 50 year old film ratios and TV.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:31:10 -0400, G-HELPS.DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>
>dtotheroh@aol.com (David Totheroh)
>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.
>
>Every single feature film released
>in the US is widescreen by that definition!

You are correct.

>
>1.85 is the standard 35mm format; it is
>widescreen only in comparison to 50 year old film ratios and TV.

You are correct again. That's twice! Congratulations!!!

A "widescreen film" is one where the picture is horizontally
rectangular as opposed to sqare. It doesn't matter how many films are
made or whether it's the norm or not.

[ ] Square (or as close to it as the text will let me get).

[ ] Widescreen.

[ ] Widescreen as well.


Question for you: By your definition, is Cinerama widescreen?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

DT wrote:

>>>No, it is in the same ratio as every other
>>>US feature film not shot in anamorphic
>>>or 70mm format from approximately
>>>1955-to the present.

>>So your statement "It is his [Chaplin's]
>>only film he made after the format
>>change in the US in the 50s" is
>>inaccurate and incorrect? When was A
>>King in New York made?

Read! KING was not a "US feature," it
was British and I don't believe it got any
US playdates at all.

>>I certainly didn't intend my minor
>>correction of Carnahan's post to set>>
>>off a brushfire, but there are many
>>strange agendas among the posters
>>on this group.

>At least you got one thing right. If it was
>such a "minor correction" to you, why did
>you press it through ten subsequent
>responses?

Because it is true.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

George Shelps wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
> >>This is a discussion group. remember?
> >>And I didn't give him a "dissertation."
>
> >Is it a discussion group? Says who? It's
> >called alt.movies.chaplin, not
> >alt.movies.chaplin.discussion. And it's a
> >"newsgroup on Usenet." See that? It's
> >not called a "discussiongroup on
> >Discussnet." I hope that's not being too
> >technical.
>
> Oh, give it up, Freddie.
>
> >>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.
>
> >>That is not correct. It is his only film he
> >>made after the format change in the
> >>US in the 50s.
>
> >What does that have to do with it???
> >Seriously, can you please
> >explain that to me?
>
> If every conventional film is shot in
> 1.85. then the term "wide screen"
> ceases to have any meaning if used
> to desceibe a 1.85 film.
>
> It meant something only when there
> was a previous format that was
> still in use..in the 50s.
>
>
> >>I certainly didn't intend my minor
> >>correction of Carnahan's post to set
> >>off a brushfire, but there are many
> >>strange agendas among the posters
> >>on this group.
>
> >Of course you meant it to set off a
> >brushfire.
>
> Nope, I honestly am surprised at
> the boneheaded responses it is
> generating...including one by Mr
> Totheroh accusing me of covert
> McCarthyism...LOL

Since you can't even accept an independent unambiguous definition (and
have also failed to supply, as previously requested, any authoritative
definition that agrees with your contention that 1.85 is not
widescreen), then it is not at all surprising that you'd fail to
comprehend the humor in a mention of McCarthyism that refers to Eugene.

Life gets pretty humorless and difficult when you can't ever allow
yourself to admit to having been wrong, eh George (either one of you,
just in case he's reading, too).
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

Davey T wrote:


>Although I have no doubt you will also
>refuse to accept wikipedia as an
>authoritative source, I offer this
>information from their aspect ratio
>definitions page for those with an open
>mind: "1.85:1: 35 mm US and UK
>widescreen standard for theatrical film.
>Uses approximately 3 perforations
>("perfs") of image space per 4 perf
>frame; films can be shot in 3-perf to save
>cost of film stock. Also known as "flat"."

The standard film ratio is 1.85 for
conventional theatrical releases Period.

It is "wide screen" only with respect
to television. Perhaps that is the source
of the confusion.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:33:29 -0400, G-HELPS.DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>
>Davey T wrote:
>
>
>>Although I have no doubt you will also
>>refuse to accept wikipedia as an
>>authoritative source, I offer this
>>information from their aspect ratio
>>definitions page for those with an open
>>mind: "1.85:1: 35 mm US and UK
>>widescreen standard for theatrical film.
>>Uses approximately 3 perforations
>>("perfs") of image space per 4 perf
>>frame; films can be shot in 3-perf to save
>>cost of film stock. Also known as "flat"."
>
>The standard film ratio is 1.85 for
>conventional theatrical releases Period.
>
>It is "wide screen" only with respect
>to television. Perhaps that is the source
>of the confusion.

It's not confusion. It's widescreen. The screen is wide, not square.
This is the correct answer in general, but more importantly, it's the
correct answer to the SPECIFIC question, namely if any Chaplin films
were widescreen.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

Fred wrote:

>A "widescreen film" is one where the
>picture is horizontally rectangular as
>opposed to sqare. It doesn't matter how
>many films are made or whether it's the
>norm or not.

Then what is the point of comparison?

TV? Or a film format that hasn't been
used in 50 years? What?

And even the old 1.33 ratio wasn't totally
square.

Now, here's the scoop, Freddie. When CinemaScope became the standard,
the picture height for non-scope
films was lowered to create a compatible
screen size---which would look dramatically larger when the motorized
masks pulled back for true wide
screen, ie scope.

This was the theatrical norm until
the era of the shoebox multiplex
when some theatres raised or lowered
a mask to "letterbox" the screen
for scope because of the narrowness
of the auditorium,

(Sorry for the "dissertation.")
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:47:23 -0400, G-HELPS RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>Fred wrote:
>
>>A "widescreen film" is one where the
>>picture is horizontally rectangular as
>>opposed to sqare. It doesn't matter how
>>many films are made or whether it's the
>>norm or not.
>
>Then what is the point of comparison?
>
>TV? Or a film format that hasn't been
>used in 50 years? What?

Widescreen simply means that the screen is rectangular. The
comparison is between the shape of the screen and a square. It's
really very simple.


>And even the old 1.33 ratio wasn't totally
>square.

No, but it looked square and is commonly thought to be square. If you
want to get technical and say it's not square so it's widescreen,
fine. But then you're still wrong about not thinking Countess is
widescreen.

>
>Now, here's the scoop, Freddie. When CinemaScope became the standard,
>the picture height for non-scope
>films was lowered to create a compatible
>screen size---which would look dramatically larger when the motorized
>masks pulled back for true wide
>screen, ie scope.
>
>This was the theatrical norm until
>the era of the shoebox multiplex
>when some theatres raised or lowered
>a mask to "letterbox" the screen
>for scope because of the narrowness
>of the auditorium,

So what? The question wasn't asking "how big is the screen" it was
asking what shape it was. And for Countess it was rectangular, or
widescreen.

Here's a question: Can a movie shown on 4:3 NTSC be widescreen? I
say "yes," but with your definition you'd have to say "no," because
the TV didn't get any wider, it's just matting the top and bottom.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format