User talk:Thephotoplayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Handschiegel Color Process

I couldn't find any info on a film called The Red Light that you had listed in the Handschiegel article, and the Internet Movie Database lists several different films with the title Seven Keys to Baldpate, none of which seem to have any info of any color of any kind being used. Do you have any links that have exact info on these films and where is your proof that the Handschiegel process was used on these films? (Ibaranoff24 05:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Obviously, the IMDb is not a complete listing, and unless such facts were listed in the National Exhibitor's yearly listing or were added by a private user, they will not appear there. RED LIGHT should be RED LIGHTS (1923). I will correct this. SEVEN KEYS TO BALDPATE should be the 1925 version. The source for both can be found in trade reviews of the time (to which I have yet unearthed what exactly wast colored). When I look into them a little more, I will be sure to post on the page my findings. Thephotoplayer 09:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cue sheets

Hi, I listed Image:Silentmoviecuesheet1.jpg and Image:Silentmoviecuesheet2.jpg on WP:PUI because I'm not entierly sure if they qualify as PD. As I understnad they would have to be published either before 1923, or the author must have been dead for 70 years.--Sherool (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Cue Sheets weren't copyrighted in the first place (it wouldn't make sense, since EVERYONE was going to be using its ideas). The cue sheet layout was patented by M.J. Mintz, but that expired in 1943. Thank you for your concern, however. The Photoplayer 09:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the late reply. Yeah cue sheets as such (the notes and lines and what not) are not copyrightable, however just like a letter of the alphabet is not copyrighted a sequence of letters that make up a poem or a song lyrics can be copyrighted, I would asume the same to apply to a sequence of notes on a cue sheet that make up original music. I mean how would a composer make a living if all cue sheets are automaticaly in the public doman? They would have no controll over theyr creation once it was published if that was the case. If these particular music pieces where out of copyright due to age then sorry for the trouble (as far as I could tell they they where published at a time that would imply that they might still be in copyright though), however note that the PUI process does not result in automatic deletion after 14 days unless it is withdrawn. If a convincing argument for why the images where in fact public domain had been made on the PUI page then the closing admin where supposed to take that into consideration before desciding wether or not to delete the image. So I asume he or she agreed that they where still arguably copyrighted since they where deleted. Sorry if I did not make it clear enough that you needed to post your argument on the images listing on WP:PUI itself though (I don't remember if you did). --Sherool (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I think you're confusing the fact that the cue sheet doesn't contain the entire piece of music, just a few bars for recognition purposes (this falls under fair use of 7 seconds or 8 bars of music). In any case, the two pieces of music that were listed on the cue sheet detail were before 1923 and were public domain anyway. The idea was that you looked though your music collection to see if you had it (based on the title, composer, and those few bars) and if not, then you could order it through the cue sheet company, or simply replace the piece.
Anyway, I guess just putting in a different detail or leaving it be would probably solve this. While scanning doesn't particularly take a long time, finding a good example, scanning it, cleaning it up, posting it and editing the article is all time consuming. Next time, I'll be a little more detailed in what the background is on the image.The Photoplayer 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wasn't sure if you'd gotten the details...

Effort to Revitalize Brooklyn's Loew's Kings Movie Palace.

Hopefully, I will be there. The Photoplayer 19:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Stewardesses

You tagged the link to SabuCat productions as "official" - while I'm sure that's the official site for SabuCat, I don't think SabuCat are officially connected with "The Stewardesses", which is what I meant when I called them a fan site. They're trying to become redistributors, but until they are, I don't think we should call them official. AnonEMouse 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Joseph is now in fact the legal owner of the film, so it has in fact become the "official" website.The Photoplayer 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connection died.

I'll be back to IRC in a few minutes, my connection got screwy. It takes it a few minutes to clear my previous IRC login. I don't usually leave without saying good bye.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 10:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

Your offer is appreciated. Unfortunatly, there are others in the admin group who are blind and deaf or just don't care. When I branched off the synop it was in good faith. After EXTENSIVE discussion I have shown the accusations of original reseach to be untrue. The only reponse to my evidence (souces listed) was for the accusations to be repeated and the article SET for deletion. I do not belive that this can go any further. The liars and bigots win. Thanks for your support.

Ammend: Perhaps not. There are a number of people (yourself included, Domo arigato) who have voted on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) page. So, it's possible that the liars and bigots may be put in their place. -- Jason Palpatine 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC) speak your mind


??????????????? -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

I don't know what I can say. This thing will have to run its course. I've spoken my opinion on the matter, as you'll see I'm one of the first who voted. It's a page with promise behind it, but if it's going to stay misguided, there's nothing I can do about it. The Photoplayer 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking

Hi! Noticed that you had signed up on the proposed WikiProjects list as being interested in this. Just wanted to inform you that I've promoted it to a fully-fledged WikiProject at the moment, so please feel free to come on in, sign up, and help out in whatever way you think productive.

Also, I noticed that you have a particular interest in color processes. I was wondering if you might be interested in helping out on work on a listing of the different processes which would be rendered as a comparative chart. I already did one for film formats and have been slowly working my way around to starting the groundwork for similar ones for color processes and 3D formats/processes. In any case, keep up the good work and look forward to your edits! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 15:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Photoplayer (Jack) - welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, we're happy to have you be part of the project. With your areas of interest, in addition to the list Girolamo suggested, perhaps you could take a look at 35 mm film, Color film (motion picture) and List of motion picture film stocks. All the best, LACameraman 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, both Girolamo and LACameraman. I hope that with this project, we can real do a good job on a sadly neglected part of Wikipedia. The Photoplayer 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plan 9 from Outer Space

There is only one use of the title "Plan 9 from Outer Space." Thus, there is no need for the article to be titled "Plan 9 from Outer Space (film)." (Ibaranoff24 03:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC))

Actually, I believe there is need to specify. Aside from Plan 9 from Outer Space (computer game), there are several songs and at least two indie bands with the same title. At the least, there should be a disambiguation page. The Photoplayer 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Aside from some fan references, the film is the only use of the title, and the thing most people refer to when they reference the title "Plan 9 from Outer Space." (Ibaranoff24 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
Not the point. There is already more than one entry of the same title, and a (film) tag helps differentiate it. It is better to put that on there and help curb confusion rather than neglect it.The Photoplayer 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 35 mm film article

Hey, thanks for your latest edits to the article. I did want to ask, however, if you could provide some references to two of the statements - the first being the continued usage of the BH perfs in original camera negative (to be honest, I thought that the KS ones were stronger, but that it was equipment considerations which kept BH as camera-standard). The other one would be the law about safety film. Clearly it would not have been a law world-wide, so I believe that it needs clarification and reference. We're trying to drive the article to featured status at the moment, and we may be asked to remove unsourced statements that could be dubious. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 12:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cited (and expanded) the section on perforations. I'm going to have to do a little more research until I can find more substantial sources about the legislation of safety film internationally (I know laws were passed in the US, UK and France relatively early). The Photoplayer 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yikes! All very good, but now I'm getting a bit worried that the section is too deep - there is already a link to the main film perforations article at the top of the section. I might trim it down a bit, if you don't mind. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but when talking about CS sprockets, you mean that they are also compatible with KS perfs, not BH perfs which theaters typically wouldn't be running. In any case, many thanks for the swift response! Girolamo Savonarola 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Trim away. I do admit, I can get a little esoteric at times. You might want to add that info to the perf article if any of it isn't there. And yes, thank you for correcting me. I DID mean KS perfs! The Photoplayer 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done on the improved graph! The colors do make it vastly easier to understand. Girolamo Savonarola 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good news - the article is now officially featured! Thanks for your critical help to bringing it to this state. One thing though - I've seen your edits for today, and while I think that they're outstanding, I'm wondering (again) if it's not too in-depth for the article, especially since many of those processes, strictly speaking, aren't necessarily gauge-related in the way that sound formats and aspect ratios would be. Furthermore, in some respects the color section now exceeds the main article, which isn't usually a good sign. Last, since we've gotten the featured status, I think it would be a bad idea to make the page too densely packed with esoteric systems and formats (which I've tried to avoid for the most part in film formats). And I guess the information would also need to be referenced, although I assume that would be little problem for you. This may also be somewhat hypocritical against the fact that I actually still want to do a lot with the page (see User:Girolamo Savonarola/notes). In any case, these are my musings, let me know what you think... Many thanks again! Girolamo Savonarola 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of color film systems

Well done on getting on that one! I had started to survey the topic, but with my current workload both here and in the real world, I doubt I would've gotten around to it before year's end. Lots of formats I've never heard of. There is a lot of work to be done, but nothing seems horrible for a start. (The film formats list was slowly assembled on my user page for about two months before I released it into the wild, which is why it looked so fully formed at the article's start.) My main advice to you for right now is to think less about the content and more about the structure (as it will become more cumbersome to change as the table gets larger). Primarily the following:

  1. Use the wiki table syntax.
  2. Drop the notes. Anything not technical in nature shouldn't be there anyway - it should be on the article pages for each process. If you must keep the note for technical reasons, turn it into a footnote.
  3. Have a link for every process, even if it's red for now.
  4. Think, think, think, and think about the table structure. It should be detailed and characterized enough that no two rows should have identical technical specs. You should be able to clearly differentiate formats on the basis of their technical properties alone. If you can't, you need more columns (properties) defined.
  5. Try to establish a general continuity of style with the film formats list, if possible.
  6. Which colors were used?
  7. Start gathering your references now and adding them to the page before you forget what you used.

Hopefully I can give you some more advice soon, but that should be plenty for now. Best of luck! Girolamo Savonarola 03:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PS - I recently acquired some BKSTS magazines which happen to have some articles featuring obscure color formats. I could scan them in for you, if you are interested.

[edit] WikiProject Filmmaking changes

New discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Filmmaking#Future project development and Ideas for your consideration regarding expansion of the project. As a member, your comments are welcome and wanted! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK - Go off on me

I know what you're going to say and you're right - I shouldn't have just cleared Gorilla at Large and left the comment about you doing it. I was upset. I'm new to Wikipedia - I love films - especially 3D films. Here I thought I'd found this great venue to share my enthusiasm about some of the films so I worked for several days compiling what I felt was a thoughtful and well organized page on Gorilla at Large only to come back later and find it completely edited and changed and no indication in Edit this page or discussion as to why this was done. I was annoyed and felt like there was no consideration for the effort I put into the page so in a weak moment I made a stupid decision to just remove my stuff. In my defense (and this isn't probably much of one) if there had been anything in the discussion section explaining why the changes would have been more appropriate I would gladly have complied. I do, however, think the Trivia about Charlotte Austin and her role in "How to Marry a Millionaire" was interesting and appropriate since she was in Gorilla at Large and there is no Wikipedia page on her to place the info in it. So, anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it; and for what it's worth I'm sorry I did that. Philbertgray 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

I sent you an e-mail over the weekend. Just wanted to make sure you received it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philbertgray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User_talk%7EThephotoplayer_b207.html"