Talk:Louis Le Prince

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rawlence[edit]

did some work. He clearly states Le Prince´s birth as of 1841, and his second name was Aimé, not Aimée. Therefore I made some minor adjustments to the text. --Filmtechniker, 80.219.85.159 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Patents[edit]

i've quickly searched the official US patent organisation site to find Le Prince's 1888 US patent but was not successful, if anyone is used with patents search sites, it would be a nice addition to this article. Cliché Online 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done! now i miss the 1888 UK patent. Cliché Online 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
alright! Cliché Online 01:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mirrored pictures[edit]

actually i just realized the NMPFT digital movies are the right side, it is actually the NMPFT ressource centre archive pictures of frames who are mirrored! The article, and article pictures will be corrected tomorrow and my video Roundhay Rexdix Ver3 too, a luck i did not realized this picture mistakes too late. Cliché Online 23:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1930 National Science Museum copy of Roundhay Garden Scene incorrectly shows the scene in reverse (with people on the left and house on the right). The later NMPFT digital copy correctly shows the scene with house on the left and people on the right. 30 May 2007

See[edit]

Eadweard_Muybridge.

mutoscope.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great page[edit]

I just wanted to say to the editors how great this page is. Thanks! --Charlene 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of body[edit]

G'day, the reference to the last paragraph of the lead section (about the photograph of a drowned man that is supposed to be Le Prince) seems to be missing. --Ouro (blah blah) 19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on the Leeds Bridge movie[edit]

The movie was shot from an upper window of a building at Bridge End, on the south east corner of Leeds Bridge. There is a commemorative blue plaque on the building. The premises were occupied by Hick Brothers, ironmongers. Le Prince bought items from the shop to construct his equipment in his 160 Woodhouse Lane workshop, approximately a mile north of the bridge. The scene shows traffic on Leeds Bridge with Lower Briggate visible on the far right and the entrance to Swinegate on the far left. To see photo's of the Leeds Bridge area go to the "Leodis" site http://www.leodis.net and enter a key term such as Leeds Bridge or Bridge End or Hick Brothers or Louis Le Prince, etc. (enter term Auto Express to see photo's of his workshop building at 160 Woodhouse Lane). 11 July 2007

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolphe or Alphonse?[edit]

I find Le Prince's story fascinating, but this article confuses me slightly, so I added two clarifyme tags. It first has "Le Prince's elder son Adolphe, who had assisted his father in many of his experiments", but later "According to Alphonse Le Prince who assisted his father at Leeds". Did Louis have two sons and did they both assist their father? Is there a source for who actually appears in the Roundhay Garden Scene film and who actually was called as a witness for the American Mutoscope Company in their litigation with Edison? -84user (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen Adolphe in every article or paper I've read about him and/or the litigation his family was involved with. I've replaced Alphonse w/ Adolphe and placed appropriate citations where necessary. Earthsound (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

first person to record motion images on film?[edit]

OK guys, I just wanted to give anybody who has put the lead section together a chance to fix it, before I go ahead and tag it or fix it by myself. first of all the claim "motion images on film" is simply factually incorrect or at least misleading. Simply because film wasn't invented until 1889. Louis Le Prince shot on photosensitive paper. Or in case this first film is meant to mean "paper-film", it should be sourced to some book then. Currently the statements are simply misleading since the 'paper roll film' was invented by Arthur James Melhuish already in 1854 and Albert Londe designed a single camera to shoot image sequences in 1884, 3-4 years earlier than Le Prince. I looked up 2 published books. [1] and [2]. Please fix the article according to these or any published books and do not source claims on community websites like the main ref directs to some "local_heroes" article we are having here. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be sticking rigidly to the the literal definition of "film" in a desire to minimise of discount Le Prince's acheivement. I would note that many recent "films" are actually shot on digial video, not film, but we still refer to them as "films". Roundhay Garden Scene is still a "film" even though it was shot on paper, not celluloid.
Secondly, Londe's appartaus was based on multiple lenses, and therefore was restricted to a corresponding number of frames. Le Prince's single-lens camera, on the other hand, is what we would recognise as a movie camera.
Thirdly, you are labouring under a misapprehension about what Local Heroes site is. It is not a "community website" as you claim, but rather the website of the British national broadcaster, for a television series that was shown nationally, and as such is a valid source for reference. I am therefore reverting your tagging pending more convincing objections. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sticking rigidly to the literal definition of WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. Please cite and list direct in-text references from reliable, published secondary sources for following phrases in the article:
  • 1.first person to record motion images on film;
  • 2.Roundhay Garden Scene, which is thought to be the world's first successful attempt to record moving images,
  • 3. ...and hence the very first motion picture film.
Misleading statements from BBC or not, like The first motion pictures were taken in Leeds by this ingenious Frenchman seven years before the Lumiere Brothers are not going to cut it. Simply because no conventional film history has ever claimed that Lumiere Brothers took the first "motion pictures". There were many before them including Le Prince. Lumiere Brothers invented Cinema and Cinematograph - means to project moving images on a wall, and that's why the world still thinks the birthdate of Cinema/Film is in 1895. Le Prince work predates Dickinson's moving images shot in 1894. etc. Please have the article cleaned up according to conventional film history. Thanks--Termer (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have a problem there, because the BBC is generally considered to be a "reliable, published secondary source". Since we do not actually rely on the Lumiere mention, your introduction of here is mere obfuscation.
History of film states that Roundhay Garden Scene is, "generally recognized as the earliest surviving motion picture," while the page for the film itself calls it, "the earliest surviving motion picture," and cites the Guinness Book of Records on this claim. It was taken with a single camera with a single lens, and hence is what would be regarded as a motion picture now, regardless of the nature of the actual film used, nothwithstanding the fact that "paper film" (as per Kilburn Scott's 1929 article) has just as valid a claim to be called that now as it was then, and Le Prince was using celluloid by 1889, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but nothing personal, the problem is not mine like you suggested but in fact that the articles on WP are in conflict with conventional film history. According to WP:Verifiability the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses. Non professional popular article on BBC and Guinness Book of Records are fine sources but in case they are in conflict with professional literature, the claims have to be adjusted according to WP:NPOV. A claim can be valid only if it states according to whom? I listed some books here that are very clear about it, please take a look and adjust the claims on WP. And yes regarded as a motion picture, you're right on target with this one, not with "generally recognized as the earliest surviving motion picture" or "the very first motion picture film" etc.--Termer (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be more pertinent for you to clarify exactly what the two books you are relying upon (one of which is over thirty years old and predates Rawlence's ground-breaking book on Le Prince by thirteen!) say about Le Prince? I also find it staggering that you can discount something on the BBC site - widely regarded on Wikipedia as a highly reliable source in most contexts - as "non professional". Nick Cooper (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the books are available for online reading for anybody to see. That was the reason I listed those since they are available digitally in google books. I'm not saying that exactly these books should be used. feel free to cite any books on the subject: history of film . The BBC in the context is an editorial source, I'm not discounting it, it's just an opinion of the journalist that can be used as a source. Just that its an opinion that happens to be not exactly in sync with the main stream film historians and theorists. --Termer (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Regarding Rawlence's Missing Reel ISBN 9780689120688. That's a fine source too. Just that the article should say that a film historian Christopher Rawlence suggest Le Prince to be the true inventor of the motion pictures. Instead of like currently articles on WP film history say that Le Prince is commonly accepted as the inventor of motion pictures. There is much more to that and opinions and theories vary. What you can also say is that Rawlence has suggested Le Prince may have been killed by someone intending to cash in on his invention but there are no evidence that would support that theory. What we can't do per WP:NPOV, declare Le Prince the undisputed inventor of motion pictures on WP.--Termer (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry but due to the recent edits you leave me no other choice than dispute the factual accuracy of the article that is otherwise in a good condition. until anybody can take their time and fix the text according to the facts from film history.--Termer (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all the source given doesn't say anything like thought to be the world's first successful attempt to record moving images, and the earliest surviving motion picture film. So the first thing that could be done about the factual accuracy, the text in the article should be in sync with the source. FYI: there are 2 film historians who consider Louis Le Prince the true inventor of motion pictures. But even they admit that the reason Le Prince is not getting credited widely as the inventor of motion pictures is due to the secrecy he conducted his research, he didn't publish anything he was up to and finally his disappearance was the last hit. That's one part of the story. the second is that generally Mybridge is credited for shooting and projecting the first moving pictures. And Le Prince is credited for shooting possibly the earliest moving pictures with a single lens camera using George Eastman's paper film.--Termer (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Guiness Book of Records as the earliest surviving motion picture.[citation needed]
This needs to be confirmed by a reliable secondary source. Since earliest surviving motion picture can be anything and therefore the fact is not encyclopedic. Earliest surviving motion pictures can include work done by Joseph Plateau, William George Horner, Muybridge etc.--Termer (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First motion picture exhibition[edit]

"These pictures were soon projected on a screen in Leeds, making it the first motion picture exhibition." This claim strikes me as problematic, especially within the contentious and confusing world of early film history. First of all, it needs a citation. Second, "soon" is hopelessly vague when followed by a claim of "first ever." Third, there are probably multiple competing definitions of "exhibition," so this would need to be defined.Hirschjoshua (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le-prince-cameraprojector-type1-mark2-1888.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Le-prince-cameraprojector-type1-mark2-1888.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le-prince-type-16-cine-camera-projector-1886.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Le-prince-type-16-cine-camera-projector-1886.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le-prince-type-1-cine-camera-projector-mk2-1888-interior.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Le-prince-type-1-cine-camera-projector-mk2-1888-interior.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leprince-spools-film1-lenscamera.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Leprince-spools-film1-lenscamera.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015[edit]

Under "Occupation" at the top of the page it lists Porn Star. I can't find anything in the text to back this up. Maria Godebska (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any film adaptions on Le Prince's life?[edit]

Are there any films about the life of Le Prince?-Joseph 13:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Louis Le Prince. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis Le Prince. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis Le Prince. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IPA value?[edit]

Can someone who speaks French add an IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) pronunciation of the name? (Resources linked in the first set of parentheses.) I would do it myself, but I'm not confident that I know how the name is pronounced. -- Categorically Not (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

The section on his death/disappearance makes the claim that it's most likely Louis committed suicide b/c of a photo found of a body pulled from the Seine and that he was facing bankruptcy. According to this site I'm posting here though, that's not correct, and the article should not be written making assumptions like that. It says that the man in the photo is too short to have been Louis, and that his finances were actually good. https://www.acmi.net.au/stories-and-ideas/tragedy-louis-le-prince/ 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right and changed the article accordingly. Because of a dead link I couldn't even find out how a picture of a drowned man resembling Le Prince led to the conclusion that he committed suicide. Was that part of the police report? Neither have I yet found reliable arguments for or against heavy debts (doesn't seem unlikely, but are there any reliable sources?). The claim that the drowned body would have been to short also misses a convincing source (what's the basis for the claim in the ACMI source?). At the moment, I don't see any reason to claim that the suicide theory is the most likely one. It's probably just the most recent one and it seems somewhat less far-fetched than some of the other theories, but I agree it's not much more than an assumption as long as no reliable sources are cited. Joortje1 (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_Le_Prince&oldid=1194924873"