Talk:Roundhay Garden Scene

message: As this film seems to be in the public domain due to its age, would it be possible to upload a copy to Wikipedia after having converted the file to Ogg Theora format? Andrew (My talk) 00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying the film to Wikipedia 

message: The controversy is not about "Roundhay Garden Scene" and the '88 single-lens but about "Man Walking Around A Corner" supposedly shot with the '87 16-lens camera
"The only 16-lens image apparently taken with this camera was probably made on a single glass plate and not on film, as described in the patent. No films made with this camera have been found.". A film was still in the camera's spooler when it was bring to the Science Museum by Miss Le Prince in 1940. Actually i haven't found any controversy about the '88 camera, and i've browsed all online English & French ressources. however i've noticed a mirror switching that was done on Roundhay Garden Scene, but not mentioned, see Louis Le Prince article. Cliché Online 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: controversy

message: What was the plot?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.154.219 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: Obviously the original film wasn't a mere 2 seconds long. Do any records survive indicating its original length? 68.146.81.123 (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 2.11 seconds... It wasn't a feature film. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know it wasn't a feature. But was the original version 5 seconds? 10 seconds? 2.11 really sounds too short to be useful even as an experiment. Considering its age, it is not inconceivable that only 2.11 seconds of the footage has survived. So do we have a source to specify that it was always been 2.11 seconds? 70.72.223.215 (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  And to revisit the point, at its current length of 2.11 seconds would that make it the shortest film in history to actually be titled and given notoriety? 70.72.215.252 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Original length?

message: I think it could be very well possibly that the Origional Length and the Plotcould co-exist in one belief. It could be in my opinion that their used to be a plot when it was filmed (possibly people greeting each other and talking). It may of existed of as much as 30.0 secends. And could of included a simple plot. However being a realy old film only the first 2.11 secends were recoverd, the other film was "lost". By lost I mean maybe it was kept by te maker, Misplaced, given or sold away, or something else. (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 22 November 2012 by (Dan of knowledge (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot from above/Original length

message: Most internet sources have Sarah Whitely having died ten days after the scene was shot, not the day after, as stated in the article. 109.151.217.188 (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Scene shot 14th October 1888 and Sarah died 24th October 1888. (see Ext links) 02 January 2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.44.231 (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Sarah Whiteley 

message: If the film was shot at 12fps, but is being shown at about 24fps, then could not someone more technically gifted than me create a version where every frame is shown twice? This would show it at the correct speed and make it last longer and hence easier to see. And if there are two surviving versions, then cannot the two versions be merged together unless all the frames are the same? 92.24.187.105 (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you go and make some pastries instead?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.131.113 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct speed? 

message: The section "Remastered footage" mentions the "National Science Museum" (linking to Science Museum). Should this be renamed? The Science Museum in London has been known as "Science Museum" since 1893 (citation from that page), definitely before 1930 which is when they made the copies. Theoboyd (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National Science Museum", section "Remastered footage" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Roundhay Garden Scene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150531031527/http://www.nevhurworth.webspace.virginmedia.com/MIsRhay.htm to http://www.nevhurworth.webspace.virginmedia.com/MIsRhay.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150531031527/http://www.nevhurworth.webspace.virginmedia.com/MIsRhay.htm to http://www.nevhurworth.webspace.virginmedia.com/MIsRhay.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is the duration of the film accurate? At this link https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/01/10/roundhay-garden-scene-is-believed-to-be-the-oldest-known-video-footage/, used as a reference for this article, it says that the copy at The National Science Museum lasts for 1.66 seconds, while the digital remastered version of produced by the National Media Museum lasts for 2.11. However, the former plays at the original frame rate, while the latter is a newer version, that plays at 24.64 frames/s. So, shouldn't the first one's duration be used, as it not a remastered version? I see that in the Spanish version of the article, as well as in the Portuguese one, they say the film lasts for 1.66 seconds, but in the French and the Chinese, it says 2.11. So what is the correct one?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.61.103.134 (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the original duration should be used, not the duration of the remastered version. — LissanX (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct duration? 

message: Harriet Hartley has an article in the Portuguese WP: Harriet Hartley.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Harriet Hartley

message: I read this sentence in the article: "Sarah is seen walking – or dancing – backwards as she turns around, and Joseph's coat tails are seen flying as he also is turning." but according to the previous sentence, both were over 70 at the time. Personally, I think the couple on the right looks more like a 70 year old couple, and it would make more sense for the moving people to be the other people described (the videographer's son + another person), but I do not have a source to confirm this in any way. 173.3.32.90 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is who in the film

message: The phrase “borne out” is perfectly ordinary English, and has been for centuries. (See “bear out” in the Oxford English Dictionary.) I cannot imagine why it should be flagged. John W. Kennedy (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: “Colloquial”