Solve the Chaplin Film Mystery on YouTube

[mugaliens]

All we know for sure is that a very manly woman...

I'm sure her great or great-great grandkids will be thrilled to read of her described as "manly," much less "very manly."

The alleged artifact said to be in her left hand is in as much question as her gender.

(shakes head)

Anyone attending a 1928 premier in Hollywood might be doing the same thing. That is, trying to catch everything being said and probably talking gibberish to themselves out of the excitement of being down in town from the farm.

I agree with you here!

 

[baywax]

I'm sure her great or great-great grandkids will be thrilled to read of her described as "manly," much less "very manly."



(shakes head)

My apologies to the descendants of the subject of this inquiry. My questions are spurred by my experiences in today's western culture, some 90 years after this film was shot. None of my comments are meant as insults, and would only be taken as such by someone less experienced with the transgender/crossdressing community. My conjectures may also be influenced by the fact that my mom was a fabulously popular fag hag.

 

[Danger]

It's clearly not a hearing aid. Here's what they looked like back then:

No, no, you twit! That was the first experimental prototype for radar. Hearing aids always had scalloped edges.

 

[lj19]

I heard that it's possible that this could be the effect of multiple exposures, because they used multiple exposures due to film being cheaper when reused.

 

[Evo]

I heard that it's possible that this could be the effect of multiple exposures, because they used multiple exposures due to film being cheaper when reused.

You can't reuse film.

bolding mine

 

[baywax]

I heard that it's possible that this could be the effect of multiple exposures, because they used multiple exposures due to film being cheaper when reused.

This shows a technique in which film is "reused".

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Ap8-KSC-68PC-329.jpg[/URL]

]Double exposure



Apollo 8 launch. The photo is a double exposure, as the Moon was not visible at the time of launch (NASA).

Analogue
In film and photography, double exposure is a technique in which a piece of film is exposed twice, to two different images. The resulting photographic image shows the second image superimposed over the first. The technique can be used to create ghostly images or to add people and objects to a scene that were not originally there. It is frequently used in photographic hoaxes. It also is sometimes used as an artistic visual effect, especially when filming singers or musicians.
It is considered easiest to have a manual winding camera for double exposures. On automatic winding cameras, as soon as a picture is taken the film is typically wound to the next frame. Some more advanced automatic winding cameras have the option for multiple exposures but it must be set before making each exposure. Manual winding cameras with a multiple exposure feature can be set to double-expose after making the first exposure.
Since shooting multiple exposures will expose the same frame multiple times, negative exposure compensation must first be set to avoid overexposure. For example, to expose the frame twice with correct exposure, a −1 EV compensation have to be done, and −2 EV for exposing four times. This may not be necessary when photographing a lit subject in two (or more) different positions against a perfectly dark background, as the background area will be essentially unexposed.

 

[Evo]

This shows a technique in which film is "reused".

Double exposure is not "reusing" film for the purpose of saving money. You cannot reuse film, as in erase it and use it again.

 

[baywax]

Double exposure is not "reusing" film for the purpose of saving money. You cannot reuse film, as in erase it and use it again.

True enough. No such thing as "Read and Write" analog film.

 

[turbo]

True enough. No such thing as "Read and Write" analog film.

Thank you. How could you possibly strip the fixed emulsion from acetate or celluloid substrate films without damaging them, and then economically deposit new emulsions on the substrate? And leave enough of one usage to register on the second? Fantasy.

 

[baywax]

Thank you. How could you possibly strip the fixed emulsion from acetate or celluloid substrate films without damaging them, and then economically deposit new emulsions on the substrate? And leave enough of one usage to register on the second? Fantasy.

Trending deeper into non-topical areas...

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=a908503c&JournalCode=CC"

 

[Evo]

Trending deeper into non-topical areas...

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=a908503c&JournalCode=CC"

Interesting, but as you said, completely off topic for the thread. I don't want the poster to get confused and think what he was told made any sense in the context of the Chaplin film.