Talk:List of motion picture film stocks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the assessment scale. |
[edit] No release print stocks?
What's the rationale for omitting release print stocks like 2383 and 2393? Jhawkinson 08:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- As stated in the short intro, the list was originally formulated for camera film stocks. But the primary rationale for omitting intermediate and print stocks is the lack of historical sources. I have not found any comprehensive source that details print stocks older than 10 years. As demonstrated by the list, camera emulsions can be traced back to the early 1900s. It is of no value to list only a couple Kodak or Fuji modern print stocks without being able to present a comprehensive historical list. LACameraman 08:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- (Sorry, I missed your reply last month) Hmm...there are a lot fewer release print (and intermediate) films, but I think we can find plenty of stocks older than 10 years (diacetate, Eastmancolor triacetate, the introduction of low-fade LPP triacetate (early 1980s?), and then the first ESTAR-base, followed by VISION). And that's just Kodak... jhawkinson 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Jhawkinson - No problem on the delay - it happens. I'm quite guilty of it all the time as real life draws me away from Wikipedia. If you can find a comprehensive reliable resource that gives us emulsion numbers as well as introduction dates and discontinued dates for a significant number of print stocks - then let's put them in there. Otherwise, I'm inclined to omit them altogether. All the best, LACameraman 11:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like Kodak's Chronology of MP Films - 1980 to Today and related pages (from 1889 forward) basically covers it for most stocks Kodak. It omits the discontinuance of '386 and some other things, but that shouldn't be too hard to dig up. I'll start populating from it when I get a chance. Any reason there aren't references/footnotes/sources on this page? Or an {{Unreferenced}} tag? Also, what's with the overlap to List of products manufactured by Kodak — should stocks be removed from there? jhawkinson 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- That. Took. More. Effort. Than. Expected. But I think the print stock section is decent now, and I fleshed out some other details. There are still stocks in Kodak's chronology that are absent here, and I didn't do the intermediate stocks justice. What do you think about the tabular format? I think it is easier to read, but I didn't want to convert everything... jhawkinson 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Funny, I was JUST coming in here to comment on the tables. We really should go one way or the other - all tables or all list format. Otherwise it's confusing and will be open to wiki-editor criticism, for sure. The info on the prefix numbers was great - but in table format I was confused for a moment as to what it was telling me - especially with the intro to the table outside the table... You've done a great job compiling the print info - I take back my earlier comments as it seems detailed enough to belong here. But we should have a consensus on table or not table and format the whole article to that. LACameraman 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I totally agree they should be consistent. What I really meant was I didn't want to go to the effort to convert them all to tabular form if concensus was going to be against it. I'm happy to do the conversion if you think it's the way-to-go. Think of this as a "beta test." I'll try to neaten up the prefix table and put in a heading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhawkinson (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
- Funny, I was JUST coming in here to comment on the tables. We really should go one way or the other - all tables or all list format. Otherwise it's confusing and will be open to wiki-editor criticism, for sure. The info on the prefix numbers was great - but in table format I was confused for a moment as to what it was telling me - especially with the intro to the table outside the table... You've done a great job compiling the print info - I take back my earlier comments as it seems detailed enough to belong here. But we should have a consensus on table or not table and format the whole article to that. LACameraman 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- That. Took. More. Effort. Than. Expected. But I think the print stock section is decent now, and I fleshed out some other details. There are still stocks in Kodak's chronology that are absent here, and I didn't do the intermediate stocks justice. What do you think about the tabular format? I think it is easier to read, but I didn't want to convert everything... jhawkinson 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like Kodak's Chronology of MP Films - 1980 to Today and related pages (from 1889 forward) basically covers it for most stocks Kodak. It omits the discontinuance of '386 and some other things, but that shouldn't be too hard to dig up. I'll start populating from it when I get a chance. Any reason there aren't references/footnotes/sources on this page? Or an {{Unreferenced}} tag? Also, what's with the overlap to List of products manufactured by Kodak — should stocks be removed from there? jhawkinson 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Jhawkinson - No problem on the delay - it happens. I'm quite guilty of it all the time as real life draws me away from Wikipedia. If you can find a comprehensive reliable resource that gives us emulsion numbers as well as introduction dates and discontinued dates for a significant number of print stocks - then let's put them in there. Otherwise, I'm inclined to omit them altogether. All the best, LACameraman 11:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Sorry, I missed your reply last month) Hmm...there are a lot fewer release print (and intermediate) films, but I think we can find plenty of stocks older than 10 years (diacetate, Eastmancolor triacetate, the introduction of low-fade LPP triacetate (early 1980s?), and then the first ESTAR-base, followed by VISION). And that's just Kodak... jhawkinson 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Fuji stock pages
Let's merge these specific pages in, it doesn't really make sense to have a single page for every stock, unless it is somehow exceptional. jhawkinson 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Agree Silly to have those entries. They're not encyclopedic articles, they're abbreviated sales brochures. I'd go farther and say both might qualify for deletion. LACameraman 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Done jhawkinson 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
