Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

RebelOne

(30,947 posts)
3. I do not remember any 3-D movies other then the 1950s.
Sun Dec 14, 2014, 03:29 PM
Dec 2014

As far as I can remember, they were first released in the early '50s.

DebJ

(7,699 posts)
4. My Mom is 86 and she went as a child. by the 50s she was married and
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:08 AM
Dec 2014

I don't think she went to more than three movies the 60 years they've been married.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
5. On very hot days, people would go to the films to cool off
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:01 AM
Dec 2014

The theaters were air conditioned.

That infrared camera made that poor young woman's blouse see-through!

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
6. Agreed
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:23 AM
Dec 2014

The theaters were refuges from the heat, as for the third photo. Just looking at it, my takeaway is that they were mugging for the camera at bit, but you are correct about the affect of the camera/light on her attire.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
8. The photographer is using ultraviolet film, there is no flash.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:28 PM
Dec 2014

See through clothes got hip in the seventies--before that, NO ONE showed any undergarments, it just wasn't done!

That woman would be freaking if she could have seen that pic contemporaneously with the events depicted (for lots of reasons, I would imagine--her "visible brassiere" being just one of 'em!).

jakeXT

(10,575 posts)
9. I didn't know about the trend of using the night vision function to see through clothes
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 04:22 PM
Dec 2014

Still, I think it's just the flash, you can see a shadow behind the couple, so there must be a light source.


Should see-through cameras be illegal?

...
Using products readily available online, we took a 10-year-old Sony TRV-8 mini DV video camera and turned it into an infrared camera capable of seeing through certain fabrics.

Our camera has a night shot function which, when turned on, allows infrared light to be recorded. Next we bought a $20 infrared filter that removes visible light and screwed it on the end the camera lens.

Using the infrared filter, with the night vision turned on, the only thing our old mini DV camera recorded was infrared light. This allowed us to see through some envelopes, colored plastic and various synthetic blend fabrics. But you can't see through everything. It all depends on how the materials are made.
http://www.komonews.com/news/problemsolvers/94802064.html?tab=video&c=y

jakeXT

(10,575 posts)
11. It's to the left of the couple, it should be behind them when it's coming from the screen or in
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 04:49 PM
Dec 2014

front of them when the light from the projector hits them

MADem

(135,425 posts)
12. No, they are looking at the screen....so the light reflected off the screen should be "bathing" them
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 08:51 PM
Dec 2014

as it were.

There is no flash on the camera--that's part of the voyeuristic aspect of this photoessay, that most people didn't realize the photographer was taking pics of them.


• Weegee used infrared negative film to photograph people in the dark at theatres and opera houses in the 1940s.



http://www.agallery.com/pages/photographers/weegee.html


Latest Discussions»The DU Lounge»1940s: The secret behavio...