Talk:Roundhay Garden Scene

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 14, 2008, October 14, 2009, October 14, 2010, October 14, 2021, October 14, 2023, and October 14, 2024.

Film: British / French / Silent / Core

	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 British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.

France High‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire High‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Roundhay Garden Scene is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Leeds

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Leeds, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Leeds 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.LeedsWikipedia:WikiProject LeedsTemplate:WikiProject LeedsLeeds articles

Untitled

It says that the movie only has 4 frames, but when I download it, it even has 18 frames. It still lasts for about 2 seconds. How come?

My thoughts would be that the film was converted to MOV, meaning counting the space in between the frames.

The 1930 NSM copy has 20 frames, therefore at 12fps it would run for 1.66 seconds. The later NMPFT digitalized version runs for 2.11 seconds (52 frames at 24.64fps). 31 May 2007

Copying the film to Wikipedia

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)[reply]

Go ahead. --The Track Master 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have uploaded the film and linked to it from the article, and transferred the link to the original QuickTime movie file from the article to the media description page. If there are any problems, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Andrew (My talk) 22:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French-English film?

Since the self-man crew is French, the cast is half French-half English and the shooting location is in England, this film could be considered a French-English film in the infobox (country)? What do you think? :) Cliché Online 13:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done! Cliché Online 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Director listed as French and Country listed as England. 24 June 2007

strange fps rate

The .mov file version is 24.64fps, the modern fps which seems just too much for a prototype. It should be around 12fps instead, 12 are sufficient for animation and lower rate are not correctly animated. So it should be mentionned in the article that the link is actually a reconstruction of the original motion picture not a digitalisation of the original analog work. Cliché Online 14:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done! this guy was greater than expected, it was actually 20pps!! 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But the Louis Le Prince page mentions that Adolphe states Roundhay Garden Scene was shot @ 12fps and Leeds Bridge Scene @ 20fps, so I have edited Roundhay Garden Scene article to match the Louis Le Prince article. 24 May 07

controversy

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)[reply]

The missing reel

"It features Adolphe Le Prince, Sarah Whitley, Joseph Whitley and Harriet Hartley walking around and laughing."

It hardly seems appropriate to refer to these people as "actors". Also, the heading "The missing reel" is an unencyclopedic embellishment. No missing reel is mentioned. TheMadBaron 20:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is meant by "the missing reel." Is there a reel that's missing? If there is it's not mentioned in the article. If this is a metaphor for all the backstory, then most people aren't going to get it. I sure don't. If there's an acutal missing reel it ought to be discussed in the article. If there isn't then that section should be renamed. Dyfsunctional 13:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section retitled "Aftermath" on 29 May 2007

It/They are missing reels because, as mentioned by the museum, "None of the films or projection apparatus is known to have survived. All we have are copies of paper prints from sections of three films" source Earthsound (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query re a statement in "Remastered footage"

"In 1930 the NMPFT produced..." Should this read "In 1930 the National Science Museum produced..."? The NMPFT (in Bradford) did not open untill 1983!

Notes on the Roundhay Garden Scene location

The location was the garden of Oakwood Grange in Roundhay, Leeds, West Yorkshire, England. Oakwood Grange was the home of Joseph and Sarah Whitley, the in-laws of Louis Le Prince. The house was around 175 feet wide (100 feet excluding out-buildings) and the garden about 800 feet long (500 feet excluding side-garden). The building no longer exists, but a cul-de-sac next to the site was named Oakwood Grange in memory of it.The ancient northern perimeter wall is still standing. The 1871 Roundhay census (schedule # 72) lists the Whitley and Le Prince families living in the Roundhay Cottage. 23 May 2008.

Plot

What was the plot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.154.219 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the above was a serious question (perhaps querying whether this might be a fragment of a longer film) or a joke. In case it was a good faith question, it was just an experiment, basically a home movie. It's a legitimate question to ask if there was more film shot than the 2 seconds that survive, but it wasn't a film with a plotline. I don't believe those began to be made until after 1900. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Whitley Memorial Inscription

"In memory of Sarah Robinson the beloved wife of Joseph Whitley died October 24th 1888 aged 72 years". 23 May 2008.

Original length?

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)[reply]

2.11 seconds... It wasn't a feature film. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Plot from above/Original length

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))[reply]

Death of Sarah Whiteley

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Correct speed?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"National Science Museum", section "Remastered footage"

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct duration?

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)[reply]

I think that the original duration should be used, not the duration of the remastered version. — LissanX (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the file with a different version. This one is much higher resolution and shows each of the 20 frames for 1⁄12 of a second. (It's encoded as 40 frames at 24 frames per second.) The claim about it being 7 frames per second is currently unsubstantiated, but there's a 7 fps version available too (encoded as 80 frames at 28 fps). hinnk (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Hartley

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

Who is who in the film

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)[reply]

“Colloquial”

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)[reply]