Chaplin DVDs in letterbox format

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:47:09 -0400, G-HELPS RemoveThis @webtv.net (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.

That's your definition, which is yours alone and is not shared by
anyone else on the planet that I'm aware of.

However, you're still wrong. Here's why: There IS more information
on the horizontal plane than there would be on a square screen. When
you shoot for widescreen on square film you frame your shot
differently than you would if it was going to be projected square. So
you end up with extra headroom and extra footroom, intending it to be
matted with black bars or cut off by the top and bottom of the theater
screen. This is evident in the fact that the ground glass in cameras
is marked to show the projected framing. So you definitely show more
information on the horizontal plane than you would if you were
intending to project square.

Proof of this is readily available in movies where the TV prints leave
out the matting and don't enlarge the intended framing to fill the
screen. You often see lights and microphones in the shot (or the top
of the tent sets in The Searchers, even though that WAS shot with a
wide frame). This proves that the Director of Photography chose to
frame the shot wide, giving more information on the sides.

mlanoue.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com
wrote:

>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.

Which means the amount of coverage
and horizontal picture information was actually less than in the old
ratio.

This is not the case with true wide screen.

I acknowledge that the term "wide screen" has been used uncritically to
refer to 1.85.
but it is a sloppy use of the term and
a dysfunctional definition---which is
why i challenged it.

I think it should be reserved for anamorphic or wide format processes.

I also think it is particularly meaningless
for COUNTESS, because Chaplin
was a technophobe and probably didnt
even know he was shooting in 1.85

Your post is rational and civil and I
appreciate 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