Solve the Chaplin Film Mystery on YouTube

  • Thread starter Thread starter alt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Film Mystery
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a scene from a 1928 Charlie Chaplin film where a woman appears to be talking into a cell phone, sparking curiosity and speculation. Participants analyze her hand position, which resembles holding a device, and suggest various explanations, including the possibility of her using a Siemens hearing aid from 1924. Observations highlight that her mouth seems to be moving, but there is no clear evidence of speech. Some contributors dismiss the cell phone theory as implausible due to the lack of technology at that time, while others humorously entertain the idea of time travel. The conversation emphasizes how mundane actions can be misinterpreted and stretched into fantastical theories, showcasing the blend of curiosity and skepticism in interpreting historical footage.
  • #31
Sorry about the over sized photo... (hearing aid from 1924), I think my brain time-travelled and left me here doing stupid things.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
baywax said:
Sorry about the over sized photo... (hearing aid from 1924), I think my brain time-travelled and left me here doing stupid things.

Photo is very informative. When considered in it's actual scale (palm size object) it sure looks like what this thing really is all about.

Gone viral ? That's quite unbelievable.
 
  • #33
It's clearly not a hearing aid. Here's what they looked like back then:

hearing_aid.jpg
 
  • #34
lisab said:
It's clearly not a hearing aid. Here's what they looked like back then:

hearing_aid.jpg

"Damn it Jim... I'm a doctor not a wing mechanic... sorry about the ears Spock."

(from Star Trek, "Rack of Lamb")
 
  • #35
alt said:
Photo is very informative. When considered in it's actual scale (palm size object) it sure looks like what this thing really is all about.

You're too kind!

All we know for sure is that a very manly woman was filmed walking around at Charlie Chaplin's Hollywood premier of "The Circus" with her hand up to her ear while she moved her mouth slightly and smiled a bit.

The alleged artifact said to be in her left hand is in as much question as her gender. 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.
 
  • #36
baywax said:
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!
 
  • #37
mugaliens said:
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.:smile:
 
  • #38
lisab said:
It's clearly not a hearing aid. Here's what they looked like back then:

hearing_aid.jpg

No, no, you twit! That was the first experimental prototype for radar. Hearing aids always had scalloped edges. :rolleyes:
 
  • #39
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.
 
  • #40
lj19 said:
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
 
  • #41
lj19 said:
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]

wikpedia said:
]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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
baywax said:
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.
 
  • #43
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #44
baywax said:
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.
 
  • #45
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 116 ·
4
Replies
116
Views
21K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K