Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bipack

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Mangojuice^talk 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bipack

There are no sources to back up this article. All I could find was a company named BiPack. I vote to delete. OSU80 15:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Whilst I have yet to find any sources that actually describe the process explicitly, research turns up enough ancillary material to convince me that there is a cinematographic effect known as bipacking. However, some references to the process (example) imply that it is an effect performed using an optical printer not an in-camera effect. This research was just cursory. I'm confident that actual books on the art of cinematography will provide better sources. Keep. Uncle G 16:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Page author insists the method is listed under special effects, which it is not (that I could see), and even the article says it has fallen into disuse. However, a number of Google hits (in film forums mostly) ask questions about the process, so it could conceivably be of some use to film students, etc. HumbleGod 17:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lack of sources. At most merge this with special effects if the proper sources are listed. mmeinhart 22:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Before the use of digital effects and optical printing, the use of bipacks was a well-known technique used for a number of purposes. As described in this article, it was used for one form of travelling matte. I believe it was also used in some pioneering color processes. The topic is encyclopedic; the actual content of the current article needs sources, but seems reasonable enough as far as it goes. It certainly wasn't made up or anything like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. Here are some Google Books sources: Hands-on Manual for Cinematographers; By David Samuelson (use for travelling matte); Restoration of Motion Picture Film By Paul Read, Mark-Paul Meyer for a description of the uses of bipacks in early color systems, and mentions "many of these systems used regularly available bipack film stocks made by most large film manufacturers." Cinematography By Peter Ettedgui has a diagram of a bipack. Of the 44 Google Books hits, about half are significant mentions in books about cinematography. Our own article on Technicolor mentions the use of bipacks in Technolor Process 4 from 1934-54. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That was good research. A couple of those (Reed/Meyer and Samuelson) are worth mentioning in the article. Uncle G 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I intend to when I get a Round Tuit. I need to get a somewhat better understanding of the subject before I start writing about it. Not a good understanding, mind you, just a somewhat better understanding than I have now. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per dpbsmith--Nick Y. 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.