Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

hamradio

Members
  • Posts

    32,620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by hamradio

  1. 4 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    You mean SPARKLER propelled, don'tcha?  ;)

    Sepiatone

    A very noisy sparkler at that.  Strange how the sci fi writers during the 1930's thought the Earth's atmosphere went up and on forever even though photos from stratosphere balloons clearly show it thinning out.

     

    Explorer II high-altitude balloon. Historical image of the Explorer II high-altitude balloon during its flight. Explorer II was a manned balloon launched on 11th November 1935. It reached a record altitude of 22,066 metres and carried a two man crew inside a sealed spherical gondola. 

    C0245809-Explorer_II_high-altitude_ballo

  2. 4 minutes ago, laffite said:

    In the 50s I did not live in Los Angeles but i could pick up Ktla in LA where I watched a cartoon show from 400-530pm weekdays called Cartoon Carousel. Some guy stood up at podium (like Dick Clark did for American Bandstand) and introduce each cartoon. They were all Looney Tunes. Many of them DID NOT have the stars ; Bugs Bunny, Daffy, Porky, Yosemite, etc., etc., etc., they were rather what might be inadequately termed as generic, or whatever. They might be a montage of various gags. For instance, "and now we have what is know a screaming line drive" and someone would hit the ball which would approach the camera eye, the ball with a face on it, getting bigger and bigger and screaming. Just an example. Another favorite theme were cartoons that featured movie stars wonderfully caricatured doing what they were known for, a way of speaking, etc. There were many of these "generics" and I remember them being immensely entertaining. I seem to remember them being in black and white but not sure. Anyone know what I am talking about? I can't find anything on youtube.

     

     

    • Like 2
  3. 2 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    All that jibber-jabber aside, what always grabbed me was that in a movie made in 1936, it's story begins in 1940, and a world war is feared to be coming.  Four years BEFORE WWII started to become a reality.  That they still fought wars with BIPLANES is a not forward looking glitch.  Foretelling the advent of television aside, that they were still flying in propeller planes showed a lack of sci-fi ingenuity too.

    Sepiatone

    Back then many thought the future of air travel would had been air ships.  Flying hotels, hospitals :blink:, etc.

    American-Magazine-web-2000.jpg

     

    tuberculosis-airship-clinic-web.jpg

    One did envision space travel back in the '30's, see how that turned out. :lol:

    e9d906486453c4107595cacf658fbfd1.jpg

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  4. 36 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

    I beliveve television was around in 1936. The real qusstion is, did H. G. Wells have it in his book?

    They were experimenting / developing electronic television here during the 30's but a standard couldn't be set. (history repeated during the 1990's with HD :angry:)  One station operated in New York, broadcasting FDR.

    broadcast-television-tv-sets-receiver-by

     

     Europe was ahead of us, especially the UK and Germany.

    Camera used during the 1936 Berlin Olympics

    1936.jpg

     

     

     

     

    There was a system developed during the 1920's called Baird.  It's more mechanical but it actually worked to a degree.

     

    • Thanks 1
  5. 6 hours ago, sagebrush said:

    It was Looney Tunes all the way for me! I could never get enough of them.The real treat was when my parents would take my sisters and I to a local privately owned movie house that showed classic films on Saturday nights. They would show the Looney Tunes cartoons before the main feature. Really fun! I agree; they are more for adults.

    I also liked The Adventures of Rocky And Bullwinkle a lot and still find it funny.

     

    Wish they did an episode of this...

    https://www.ktva.com/story/38346721/wildlife-officials-sedate-moose-shot-with-target-arrow

    Hey Rocky, watch me pull an arrow out of my ***. :P

    • Haha 1
  6. What really blows me away in the movie is not did it predicted TV but 16 X 9 HD television! :huh: :o

    Could be watching a classic movie on TCM since it's in B&W.  Wonder does the guy complain about aspect ratios.

    d0fe68921a7839718358db0997fc1f96.jpg

     

    Didn't have to wait until 2036!  

    white-wooden-tv-cabinet.jpg?s=pi

  7. On 4/25/2019 at 12:29 AM, Stephen444 said:

    My personal concern with this issue only seems to be noticeable with films shot in 1.85:1 since this ratio is very close to the 16:9 ratio of modern TVs.  More extreme ratios always have the black bands on the top and botom, since you would lose so much of the image by cropping it to fit within the 16:9 tv footprint.  I don’t know whether they monkey around with the proportions of the more extremely wide films or not to give you a larger image while still giving the illusion of being an accurate projection.  I’ve never put a ruler to it.  

    Sitting here tonight looking at “Young Frankenstein” and, of course, being shown in an incorrect ratio to fill the tv screen I have two thoughts:

    Maybe it would be easier to mention 1.85:1 films that are accurately projected.  I’m sure that TCM does show some of these but I think that more films are shown in a distorted 16:9 footprint that should be 1.85:1.

    My other thought is concerning “The Godfather” restoration.  Someone gave me this years ago and I have never been able to bring myself to watch it because of the above issue.  The film was shot in 1.85:1 but the DVD version distorts this to yes, fill the tv screen.  This was apparently done with Coppolas approval.

    Comments from a dicussion about the DVD restoration....

    Part III, the most recent, always looked fine and is better than ever here. It is the most colorful but also suffers from the evident grain. All are presented in their original aspect ratio of 1.85:1.

    [Editor's note: thanks to a reader for pointing out that the aspect ratio on the Blu-ray is actually 1.78:1 not 1.85:1 as specified by Paramount. But before you cry out to the heavens about the audacity of it all (as he did), be assured that there is no pan and scan involved. The restoration team simply opened the matte slightly wider (taller) to 1.78:1 in order to prevent thin black lines from appearing at the top and bottom of the image on a standard 16:9 HDTV screen or projector. The full 1.85:1 theatrical image is present here with slightly more image information at the top and bottom. This is a common technique for Blu-ray mastering and was done with the director's approval].

    When I read this it throws me into a tailspin.  I don’t understand this acceptance, especially with Coppola’s approval.  In this case they apparently added to the image rather than blowing it up to fill  the screen but it still is distortion.  Just because we have the technical ability to do this to films doesn’t mean that it should be done.

     

    What is this thing about the top / bottom black lines on widescreen that bugs people so much.  This has been talked about to death.  TCM has explained this, one is not losing anything vs pan and scan which one will.  Next time a widescreen Panavision is shown at the local cinema...PAY ATTENTION!.  Geeze!

    standards1.png

    James-Bond-Moonraker-Widescreen-vs-Fulls

     

    Slide27.jpg

    pan+and+scan.png

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...