Talk:CinemaScope

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

20th Century Studios High‑importance

	20th Century Studios portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Since the proper, trademarked name is spelled with a capital S in the middle (CinemaScope) shouldn't that be the main page? A redirect could be made from Cinemascope to CinemaScope. --Jeremy Butler 01:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done --KJBracey 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaScope is dead

Let there be no ambiguity about it. There are many films which are erroneously claimed to be CinemaScope, but they are in fact "modern" anamorphic films made with lens elements which adjust the anamorphism to keep it on the focus plane. Which is a Panavision design by Robert Gottschalk. The CinemaScope system was completely abandoned in 1967, and the lenses were retired. Many of them are now in the hands of collectors, but the fact is that you can't really use them anymore at any rate, because the lens mounts are obsolete. So please, no vague terms. The actual camera system known as CinemaScope and using the Bausch and Lomb lenses...no longer exists. Girolamo Savonarola 03:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today CinemaScope refers to the aspect ratio of the release, without regard to the process the film was shot in.

Missing Picture

Does anyone know why this picture is missing? I have had 2 goes at trying to upload it as both Scope_image.jpg and Scope_Image.jpg. Neither work. Also: How do you make the pictures a little bigger? 86.134.123.38 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clue here. I am actually signed in as I B Wright, yet only my IP address appears on the comment. 86.134.123.38 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cracked how to make them bigger. Still can't get the third one to work. I B Wright 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lens Designation

Someone modified the Kowa Lens caption such that there was a claim that the 8Z was the same lens as the 16H. There is information on another discussion group that this is so (and probably the source of the claim). The 8Z had the same rear barrel diameter to the 16H and that was the limit of the similarity. The 8Z would have been totally unsuitable for use on a 16mm film camera (though it would have worked with small aperture telephoto lenses). It does not work well with most 16mm projectors (I've tried). Having seen both lenses for sale in the same shop, I can tell you that they are not the same at all. The 16H has a much larger front optic.

Henri Poutine?

The article on Henri Poutine says he invented the anamorphic widescreen process that led to CinemaScope, yet he's not mentioned in the article. Does anyone know why not? Too small a role, or what?(Don't ask me - I simply happened upon his article.) Lawikitejana 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be sneaky vandalism. Compare with Henri Chretien. In any case, I've AfD'd the article. Girolamo Savonarola 10:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fox-CinemaScope.jpg

Image:Fox-CinemaScope.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Films shot in CinemaScope Category page - problems with linking to it correctly

I have been attempting to correct this category page by adding missing films in the listing. I had no problem with adding one film by linking it via it's primary wikipedia page - but have spent nearly two hours attempting to do the SAME THING with another film that is missing on this category page. I am newer to editing wikipedia pages, and cannot find the elusive "talk" page that is so frequently mentioned as the place to pose such a question - cannot find the "talk" page or listing on either page that I am linking - and since this issue pertains to the category page that is available via a link on this CinemaScope page I believe that posting this question here will be sufficient. I am attempting to add the movie "13 Fighting Men" to the "Films shot in CinemaScope" page. Although there is NOT an actual page for this particular movie, there is a page about the primary star of this film, "Grant Williams" and the article on Mr. Williams lists this movie in the notation covering the history of his body of film-work. Additionally, I did correct the title of the film on Mr. William's page, changing it from "Thirteen Fighting Men" (incorrect) to "13 Fighting Men" (correct). I CANNOT get this silly film listing to link to the Cinemascope category page (which does not have a "talk" discussion page)! I am NOW going on 3.5 hours of work attempting to get this to work and it DOESN'T WORK! COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE GET THIS EDIT CORRECTED! I completely give up on it and honestly, I have no more time to work on it nor fuss around with looking here and there for anything after tonight (ie: responses to this email message, checking out MORE pages of instructions that don't quite fit the situation and using the solutions suggested to no avail, etc). I care about the listing being complete and will eventually look at this list of CinemaScope films again and would really like to see it corrected if somebody knows why this edit doesn't work in this particular instance (when the same edit worked for me the other time). When I reference the page again, if I see that the film was added, I will look at this page to see how it was corrected and why there was such an issue. I do want to learn about this, but have really limited opportunities and patience (although 3.5 hours is a lot of time - so I think that I have reached my limit of patience and am completely burned out and really frustrated!) to dedicate even more energy to this issue. It would be helpful if I could see the correction made so that I could look at the edits page for Grant Williams - actually being able to see a correct edit in action. One thing that is different and the thing that I believe is causing this problem is that, unlike my successful attempts at linking to the category page, this is actually a bulleted list of his films on a page for Grant Williams and in my successes, the addition was made to a citation that was both a hyperlink AND in a paragraph. one example was an actual page specifically dedicated to the film "Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation" and I linked it to a comment that I added re: the film being CinemaScope, creating a CinemaScope link and then adding the link to the "Films shot in CinemaScope" category page. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Lmc33 (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. FYI, new discussions begin at the bottom of Wiki talk pages, rather than at the top.

The difference that you are seeing is that of an actual Wiki entry and a Category page. You can make a dead link (such as the one on Grant Williams' page), but on a Category page, you actually have to have a page that is extant and marked with a category link at the bottom of it. In other words, Categories are for pages that have already been created, not for pages that don't yet exist.

The first step is that you should make a new page for 13 Fighting Men (note how my dead link shows up here and directs to a template page?), and then add to the bottom of it the tag for "Films Shot in CinemaScope." That way, it will show up in not only the category list, but it will also link to the Grant Williams page as well. Hope this is clear. The Photoplayer 03:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was consensus against move — æk ^Talk 16:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaScope → Cinemascope — Per WP:MOSTM. Trademarks that are rendered in uppercase as a matter of corporate policy rather than because of an underlying linguistic reason are to be converted to the same regular sentence case that any other proper noun would appear in. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose: WP:MOSTM permits Camel case titles where this aids clarity, as here. --DAJF (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. "Cinemascope" has become a normal English word, and therefore WP:MOSTM says we should use it in preference to the oddly-capitalized trademarked name. Tevildo (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DAJF, and because scholarly works routinely use "CinemaScope". - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article titles should reflect what is most easily recognizable by readers and what is verifiable as in common use. If WP:MOSTM suggests something other than that, then that guideline is flawed and should be amended. older ≠ wiser 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure about this one. Cinemascope and CinemaScope are equally used. On balance perhaps there is no need to change the present spelling. Note this from the cited policy: "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable: OxyContin or Oxycontin—editor's choice". --Jubilee♫clipman 18:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That MOS guideline is targeted at all caps or lack thereof, not camel-case. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What happened to the "Films shot in CinemaScope" category?

What happened to the "Films shot in CinemaScope" category? Was it eliminated deliberately or by error?Foofbun (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CinemaScope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060410201741/http://jkor.com:80/peter/scopehist.html to http://jkor.com/peter/scopehist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with CinemaScope 55

Despite technical differences between two CinemaScope formats, both belong to the same movie studio, 20th Century Fox. Does CinemaScope 55 meet WP:PRODUCT guideline? Shall we merge Cinemascope 55 into this article? Why or why not? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'm responding through a Legobot notice, and admittedly this is not my area. But, the two systems both were developed and owned by the same movie studio, and Fox was the one to decide against greater use of CinemaScope 55. If it had been a product with a longer life, there may have been more reason to have a separate article, but I think it can reasonably be merged as a separate section into the main CinemaScope article. There does not seem to be sufficient reason to have a separate article.Parkwells (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and

Done Klbrain (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not just a lens series

CinemaScope is the name of the process including the sound tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:21A2:A700:9284:DFF:FEF5:C9F8 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cinescope" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cinescope and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 5#Cinescope until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 13:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]