Talk:35 mm film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star 35 mm film is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 17, 2007.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. 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.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
To-do list for 35 mm film: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Evolution from nitrate film to acetate/polyester base
  • Evolution of black and white to color
  • Discussion of advancements in grain? (t-grain technology)
  • Timeline with Eastmancolor, Agfacolor, Fujicolor (Technicolor??, perhaps link to?) (incorporated in List of motion picture film stocks
  • Brief note on genesis of 16 mm and 8 mm from 35 mm
  • Different types of modern film - reversal, negative, back and white, infrared.
  • Image needs to be corrected (see Image talk:35mm.jpg)
  • Find the balance between this article and Film, 135 film, Photographic film, History of film, Film stock.
  • Correct color film history section
  • Correct the 35 mm film area chart (at end of article) - camera aperture is .866 not .864 (this chart is made from ASC Manual typo in previous editions. This data was corrected in the 9th Edition). Need to correct the image.
Priority 3  

Contents

[edit] Why a 24mm x 36mm film is called 35mm?

Miguel

[edit] Movie vs still film

What is the relationship between 35mm movie film and 35mm photo film? Are they the same? Well, other than both being about 35mm wide, no. Camera film doesn't generally have a sound track, for example. --LDC

They are pretty much the same. 35mm movie film sometimes uses slightly differently shaped perforations to go through the projector better (I'll go into that after I find where I put my old textbooks), but the main difference is in the numbers and whatnot that are printed along the edges of the film: movie film has keykode, still film has frame numbers. But there's no substantive difference to their function; it is common for cinematographers to test out film stocks by buying motion picture film that has been cut and put into canisters, then shoot some test pictures with a still camera. The size of the frame and the presence or absence of the soundtracks is a matter of what's put onto the film when you use it, not an intrinsic difference. Brion VIBBER, Friday, March 29, 2002

The original Leica (the first 35mm camera) was build to use standard 35mm movie film packaged in a cartrige. The standard cartrige we still use now. Emulsion may differs magnetic track could be added for movie but that's the same film format. Ericd 00:25 Sep 7, 2002 (UCT)

Movie film is exposed in the camera by passing the film behind the lens vertically in relation to the surface the camera is on, whereas still film passes horizontally behind the lens. In other words, the perforations of movie film are on the sides of the exposed frames, but the perfs on still film are on the top and bottom of the frames.Thomprod 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seatle Film Works

The chemical process is different. Seattle Film Works used to sell their own color film, that according to other photo processors it was film stock. They mentioned the shape of the perforations and the color of the film to recognize them.

There used to be several firms that repackaged Motion picture film for still cameras. The Film is easy to recognize because it has rounded (bell and Howell Perfs) and black backing. The Motion picture film will totally mess up a process for regular still film (c-41)
The film was identified by the Kodak 4 digit code number, such as 5293 (which was in use at the time)
They switched to a private label c-41 film, but kept a four digit code to discourage other firms from processing the film.
cmacd 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences in Movie and still film

I don't know exactily today what's in kodak eastman catalog but a few years ago colors films were different but the B & W were excatlly the same. This mainly IMHO due to the use of artificial light.(by the way motion picture use mainly negative film like most amateur photographer and not inversible film like in super 8). About the perforation it seems there is a super 35mm variant with different perforations. But in seems perforation in movie film could differ at differnet stages between the negative and the final copy to avoid geometrical distortions.

I found this about the subject but I did not read in extenso. http://www.kodak.de/US/en/motion/students/handbook/perforations1.jhtml Ericd 09:54 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] Super 35

My understanding of Super 35 is that a larger picture area is used, including the soundtrack area; this corresponds roughly with the picture area available in the silent area. For theatre distribution the top and bottom are cropped and the image is optically squished to standard anamorphic widescreen size, while for video & TV the exact picture size can be tailored scene-by-scene -- unlike conventional pan & scan, wide scenes can be preserved by zooming out and including that top and bottom space that was cropped out of the theater release. As far as I know there's nothing special with perforations, but I could be wrong. --Brion 22:38 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how it's done but super 8, super 16, super 35 are always the same trick : a larger image with the same film width. For super 8 that's done with different perforations for super 16 and super 35 I don't know. Ericd 22:54 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

Same trick: smaller perforations. Look at the end of film formats, I've put in a link to a site with over hundred movie formats - it is an truly excellent site.

I've made a 135 film page too, for photography. There is still a few sentences about photography in 35mm film - IMHO they should be moved to 135. I know the film medium is basically the same, but I would say a split with cross links is the best solution. A reader would normally be intested in either the photo or the movie side - and of course should be told about the connection User:Egil

[edit] Using Anamorphic lenses... with Super 35?

Why hasn't there been use of super 35 mm film with anamorphic lenses; this will take advantage of the left over negative space; and will be very competitive against standard 35mm with anamorphic lenses; the quality will no doubt be better (more negative space). Has this been considered; or, would it work at all? And why haven't anyone thought of combining the two?

See Talk:Super 35 mm film Girolamo Savonarola 09:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of film

This topic is especially pertinent as I'm in progress on an article on the history of color film right now. I have some question about the attribution of "invention" to certain people. The sources that I have credit George Eastman for the creation of the clear nitrocellulose base film (or a nameless worker for Eastman). I understand that Hannibal Goodwin invented it in 1887 (based on one credible source PBS), but if there wasn't an early connection between Goodwin's invention and Eastman's - even though Goodwin won (or it was won in his name posthumously) the law suit for patent infringement - this doesn't say that Eastman didn't invent the same object. Unless Goodwin's nitrocellulose was used by Eastman (stolen, borrowed, given, inspired by - whatever), then it should be noted that it was an Eastman invention (simultaneous with Goodwin) as Eastman is the most notable influence on the motion picture industry. The same goes for Charles-Émile Reynaud, who is said to have invented the concept of perforated film - but if he did so in France and Eastman did the same thing in Rochester (unbeknownst to each other) than Eastman is still the inventor of perforated film for all intents and purposes with respect to the film industry (especially since this source biography states that Reynaud invented perforations the same year as Eastman (1889) (although this biography states 1892 - three years after Eastman/Edison). Unless a connection can be established between Eastman and these individuals - then the attribution for "invention of" should go to Eastman with mere afterthoughts that others invented the same item at nearly the same time. For instance, it is known that the Lumiere brothers saw Edison/Eastman's Kinetoscope and ran off to do their own experimenting and invented the projector - there's a direct connection there. I think we need to find a source that makes a connection between Eastman and Goodwin/Reynaud PRIOR to Eastman's "invention" of these two crucial elements to attribute the inventions to them; preferably a published resource, not a website (as I inherently distrust the Internet). LACameraman 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may interfere: Look at the people as what they were and did. George Eastman was a bank clerk. He knew little about chemistry, physics or machine engineering. The first celluloïd roll films he sold was produced by Englishman George Alfred Blair in Kent, England. The invention of film is Goodwin´s property. Eastman bought so many things together like Edison, his mugger colleague, who also was a true ignorant in respect of physics. Eastman, for instance, bought the roll film and the roll film holder from Turner, an American camera maker, for $ 40´000. Don´t believe too much of what Eastman-Kodak marketing men try to spread. On the contrary, Dickson was a thoroughly trained technician, Edison´s house photographer. He, and no one else, devised a camera (Kinetograph), a printer (sprocket continuous drive), a viewer (Kinetoscope), and much more.
Reynaud was on optician. His Praxinoscope dates from 1878. Father Lumière experienced it then at the world fair in Paris. One connection lies in Dickson. He spoke English and French. He travelled and met with Marey. Another lies with Le Prince. Le Prince spoke French, German, English at the minimum. Read the SMPTE Journal, August 1990, pages 652 through 661, John Belton: The Origins of 35mm Film as a Standard. --Filmtechniker 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this Blair bio would seem to indicate otherwise wrt Blair/Eastman. Eastman had created a roll film holder, paper-based roll film, and a camera well before Blair even was on his feet. Most of the early Dickson tests were with Carbutt or Eastman film. And I don't see that what one does to earn a living is necessarily directly correlative to their capacity to be scientifically innovative. Einstein was a patent clerk, Lavoisier was a tax collector. For that matter, how much does Steve Jobs or Bill Gates actually understand about the underlying code for their systems anymore? It's not really relevant - it is assumed that all corporations (or even labs) contain bosses and employees, idea men and technicians, etc. Sometimes these boundaries are less distinct than others. PhD-level university-funded biologists don't actually do the lab work today either. Synecdoche, if you will.... Girolamo Savonarola 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My dearest friend, how true! You don´t see that what one does is necessarily correlative to your capacity: I write about a George Alfred Blair of England. You appear to try puzzling me with the name of Thomas Henry Blair, an American. That a Philosophiae Doctor not does the laboratory work today is, to my personal belief, a shame. Look at Einstein, wasn´t it his wife, Maleva, who countercomputed everything her husband had sketched ? She was by far the better mathematician than him. No wife, no “Einstein”. And, contrary to Gates´ case, Dickson did his work alone. No lobbies, no secret organisation behind. --Filmtechniker 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Changeing the subject a bit, 35mm film was used by the BBC as well as 16mm film in the 1960's for television programmes. As far as I know for Doctor Who, an episode of The Dominators is held on 35mm film as well as one episode of The War Games. But the BBC has chose to have duplicute copies on 16mm film which sujests in broadcasting terms 35mm film was not used as much or maybe not considered as important as 16mm Film. J2F Duck (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Kodak 35 mm color negative film

This Kodak website says, under the year 1950:

EASTMAN Color Negative film, 5247. 35mm. Daylight, EI 16. First Kodak incorporated-color-coupler camera negative film. Replaced by 5248 in 1952.

Under the year 1952, it says:

EASTMAN Color Negative film, 5248. Tungsten, El 25. Daylight, El 16. Speed increase and image structure improvement. Replaced 5247. -- Awarded OSCAR -- (25th Academy Year) Class I. Scientific or Technical Award. Replaced by 5250 in 1959.

— Walloon 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Walloon - thanks. I made that change in the article. The H-1 may be referring to the refined stock in 1952. LACameraman 23:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academy Award for improved safety film

See Academy Awards given on 23 March 1950. — Walloon 08:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Walloon - the Academy Awards are always given in a year following their awarded year (as the period of elligibility is January to December, so the Awards must be presented in the next calendar year), however it is protocol to refer to the awards as having been given for the year the film/individual was elligible, NOT when they were actually presented. For instance, the Academy Awards that aired this past March (2006) were for achievements in 2005. Philip Seymour Hoffman won the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role in Capote. Although he was presented with the Oscar statue on March 5, 2006 the correct statement is: "Philip Seymour Hoffman was presented with an Academy Award for Best Actor in 2005" NOT 2006. All the best, LACameraman 07:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, that the year the award was given should not be confused with the eligibility year. For example, "In 2006, Philip Seymour Hoffman won the Academy Award for Best Actor of 2005." Note the all important prepositions: "in 2006/of 2005." The technical award given to Eastman Kodak for the improved safety film was given "in 1950". To say this technical award was given "in 1949" is not protocol, it's just incorrect. — Walloon 07:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Walloon - the year of an Academy Award, when correctly cited, is always referred to as the year of award (achievement), not the year of presentation, any other reference is incorrect. The Award is "won," "given," "received," "presented," in the year of achievement NOT in the year it was physically handed out. Here's just a two official examples:
  • Al Mayer Sr. Oscar 2000 Please note how the award is listed - it was actually physically presented to Al Mayer Sr. on March 1, 2001. It is incorrect, however, to say that Al Mayer Sr. won an Academy Award in 2001.
  • From Oscars.org: "In 1979, the Academy honored Young, Paul Kaufman and Frederick Schlyter from Du Art Laboratories with a Technical Achievement Award for the development of a computer-controlled paper tape programming system and its application in the motion picture laboratory." Official Oscar.org website Irwin Young was PRESENTED with the Oscar on April 11, 1980, yet the correct way to state this (unless for some reason you are specifically referring to an incident that happened on the night of the ceremony) is to say that Irwin Young won an Oscar in 1979. Please note the verbiage above is from the official Oscar website. To confirm the date of presentation, you can utilize your own source: [1] LACameraman 20:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little confused...

I'm a little confused here. Now, I'm just getting into film, so I'm obviously a bit of a newbie. :) But I can't help but notice that the film quality for most hourlong dramas (The West Wing, Stargate: SG-1, Ally McBeal, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc.) is markedly different - with richer colors and darker blacks, for one, and what appears to be a higher definition - than the film for say, the average sitcom (like King of Queens, Reba, What I Like About You, Seinfeld, Friends, etc.). And film quality is sitcom level or worse for news programs, especially cheapo local news programs.

So, I gotta ask - does this mean that sitcoms and studio news are filmed in 16mm and hourlang dramas in 35mm, or what?

I ask not just because I'm interested (and because the page is confusing on the matter), but because I'm looking at requirements for a couple of film festivals I may want to eventually enter, and they require "16mm or 35mm" film, and I'm wondering if my to-be-shot-with-a-$700-digital-video-camera film will look crappier on 16mm or not. :P Runa27 08:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing film and video (and videotape). Shows like the network news, your local news, game shows, daytime dramas, talk shows, and sports events are either live video or recorded videotape. All the other shows that you mentioned, both comedies and dramas, are shot on 35 mm film. What you perceive as the difference between the look of filmed shows such as The West Wing, and sitcoms such as King of Queens, both of which are photographed on 35 mm film, is actually in the lighting and camerawork. The West Wing is an example of a "single-camera" show, in which each shot is done as a separate set-up, after the lighting has been desgined for that particular camera angle and movement. King of Queens is an example of a "three-camera" show, which is filmed by three cameras simultaneously before a live audience in entire acts (not single shots). Because of this, the lighting can only be set once, and then not changed throughout the act, which compromises the artistic level of the lighting. The lighting for three-camera shows tends to be "high-key" to eliminate unwanted shadows, and allow the actors to be photographed evenly from whatever angle they move around the set. — Walloon 09:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Widescreen

The widescreen is a little askew in the representation of the reasoning and placement of events that took place between the fall of 1952 when Cinerama premiered and the spring of 1954 when flat widescreen was uniformly accepted by all of the major studios for all of their films. The motivation for CinemaScope, 3-D (which played a large part during this time but isn't even mentioned in this article), Cinerama and flat widescreen was not to compete with each other at all (although CinemaScope and 3-D seemed to duke it out, but that's its own story).

The whole point of these "realism" formats was to draw people away from TELEVISION, not each other. CinemaScope was certainly not designed to be used by Fox only: they realized holding a monopoly on it would not help sell their own films.

Matted widescreen came out a full five months before animorphic did, but they were deveolped simultanously for the same goal. The Photoplayer 13:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Widescreen had been suggested many times before (witness the 1930s developments of large formats), but the studios passed on the idea due to perceived costs. While television certainly motivated, widescreen as a serious method was ignored until the massive success of the Cinerama format, which the studios had passed on. After that, widescreen was viewed as a legit improvement, and at that point exploited for use against television.
While they didn't specifically compete against each other, they were all competing for the audience's attention, and hence market share. Fox specifically wanted to license its lenses out for exorbitant costs, and spent a great deal of time marketing its upcoming Cinemascope films from the moment they went into production. Fox also certainly wasn't going to let someone else debut "their" format. As there was less and less time to find an alternate and viable route for a similar widescreen solution to draw audiences, the matting solution was brought about quickly. That it was a last-minute effort is evidenced by the fact that the first films to use it were shot with the intention of being shown in 1.37, not matted. The success of Shane also helped to convince the non-Fox studios that matting would be accepted by audiences. Additionally, the rival studios certainly did not want to give additional money to Fox; along with their technical work, this was a large reason why Panavision was so readily successful among studios such as MGM - they were a non-studio third-party company. Girolamo Savonarola 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 35mm film vs. HDTV

I saw an interesting article on BBC about cinemas starting to use 1080p HDTV instead of 35mm film: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5262456.stm

Maybe an idea to include a comparison between 35mm film and it's new digital counterpart? -- 194.247.44.135 12:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3-perf vs. scope

The 3-perf section claims, "Most motion pictures today are shot and projected using the 4-perforation format, but cropping the top and bottom of the frames for an aspect ratio of 1.85 or 1.66." which seems to ignore the fact that many 4-perf films are in cinemascope. I don't know what fraction is (I thought it was about half?), but this text should probably be revised. Jhawkinson 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 35 mm film - EXACTLY 16 frames per foot and EXACTLY 90 feet per minute ?

It is commonly accepted within the industry (because, few people have actually done the math to verify this) that 35mm, 4 perf film is 16 frames per foot and runs at 90 feet per minute. The publications cited in this article even say that is the case. However, it isn't EXACTLY true.

Release perf pitch = 0.187 inches and There are 4 perfs per frame.

So, the length of 16 frames = .187 inches/perf x 4 perfs/frame x 16 frames = 11.968 inches

Running speed = (.187 inches/perf x 4 perfs/frame x 24 frames/second x 60 seconds/minute) /12 inches/foot = 89.76 feet/minute

Running time for a 1000 foot reel = (1000 feet/reel) / 89.76 feet/minute = 11.14 minutes = 11 minutes and 8.4 seconds

The difference isn't much and film footage counters are built to actually indicate 16 frames per foot. But, what they are really counting is integer blocks of 16 frames. Which makes the math easier when you are cutting a lot of film.

If you measured your 1000 foot reel of film using a standard film counter, instead of a standard measuring tape, it would only be 997.3 feet long and the play time would be a little less.

Clay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.71.1 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please Be Bold and fix it. It's only in the Technical section that these are mentioned, right? That section could use a bit of reworking anyhow. On the other hand, we shouldn't lose the forest for the trees — 16frames/foot and 90feet/min are useful numbers for people to keep in mind, that they shouldn't be hidden, but instead the actual information should be available if you look hard enough. Remember that pitch will shrink some over time (a lot less with polyester than acetate!), projectors will run fast/slow, etc. 11.968" versus 12.000" is a 0.3% difference...it's unimportant for most people when you get down to the 4th and 5th significant figures. jhawkinson 12:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that this isn't simply a byproduct of not having enough significant digits? Girolamo Savonarola 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first paragraph on the page says "which makes for exactly 16 frames per foot.[3]". It was the use of "exactly" that caught my attention .I agree totally with jhawkinson's comment above. The industry uses 16 frames per foot, because it is really the integer number of frames that is important when you make a film cut, and as long as everyone agrees to call 16 frames 1 foot, everything just works. There really aren't many instances where you need to care about the absolute accuracy. But, I have run across a few.

The difference isn't in the number of significant digits used. Check the appropriate SMPTE spec. for film perf pitch.

Here is a link to a document "Motion Picture Film Basics", on Kodak's web site, that has a wealth of technical information on 35 mm and other film formats: http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/education/Film_Basics.pdf

Clay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.71.1 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (Please sign your posts by typing ~~~~—thanks!)

[edit] optical soundtrack

Suddenly the soundtrack segment of Fantasia makes a lot more sense. Gazpacho 07:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super 35 and DI

The section on the effects of DI is unclear to a lay person. Will Super 35 become obsoltete?

The DI is actually more likely to continue increasing the possibility of Super 35, since it makes an optical conversion in the intermediate stage obsolete. Each have their weaknesses, but DI is generally considered to be the better of the two if done at a high quality resolution such as 4K or higher. That being said, films shooting on anamorphic or Academy 1.85 have the advantage of being able to retain a purely contact printing-based workflow to release print, which tends to both be cheapest and highest-quality. So Academy-width is unlikely to die out. However, DI makes less-conventional formats easier to convert to projection standards. Girolamo Savonarola 11:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] duopoly, should that not be clarified?

Agfa-Grevert, still makes 35mm Print film (and sound recording film) although they gave up on Camera negative, and in fact all film on Acetate base. Only Kodak and Fuji make colour Negative anymore. I think that ORWO at least advertises 35mm B&W negative.cmacd 12:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia itself notes, In reality, this definition is generally used where two firms must only have dominant control over a market. I can't think of any recent films printed to Agfa, and Orwo, Foma, et al are generally not greatly used or easily accessible throughout most of the globe. Few would contest the fact that Kodak and Fuji are the only two companies with substantial market share at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CORRECTION

The article is a credit to Wikipedia, but I've seen a small error - the usable area of super 35 film is correct in millimetres, but totally wrong in square inches - not 9+ sq inches, more like 0.4 of a sq inch, if someone could do the necessary calculations....88.110.33.31 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good spot. I've had a look at the articles history and it's been there a while. I guess everyone is thinking metric these days. Many thanks. Megapixie 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CS perf

Conversation moved to Talk:Film perforations.

[edit] 35 mm vs film in general

A lot of this article applies to all film formats, not specifically 35 mm. Should those sections be cut and/or moved to other appropriate articles? Zocky | picture popups 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Competition from video?

I am a bit surprised to read that 35 mm is very common and the article suggests by omission that it suffers no competition from e.g. Television cameras for movies. Is this true? The article independent_film suggests otherwise. I would appreciate some expansion on (lack of) competition with digital formats. Andries 07:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Studios Shift to Digital Movies, but Not Without Resistance by SCOTT KIRSNER July 24, 2006 New York Times Andries 07:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why 35mm? Why not 1 3/8"?

Great article, and a credit to Wikipedia. But one thing's puzzling me. It seems fairly clear that, being American, Dickson and Eastman would have measured and referred to their film stock as 1 3/8" rather than 35mm. So how and why did the standard become known as 35mm? Does anybody know? It seems to me that this nugget of information would be a relevant addition to the article, if anybody could unearth it... Stewart Robertson 10:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] so-called "Souveneirng"

In these revisions User:JzG added this text:

== Souveniring == The 35mm format is compatible with domestic slide projectors. Frames removed from the film can be shown on projectors, and the absence of one frame, in a film which runs at 24 frames per second, is barely perceptible, though removal of souvenir frames is unlawful.<ref>[http://www.shocktreatmentnetwork.com/merchandise.htm Example] discussion for the movie ''[[Shock Treatment]]''</ref> Sometimes souvenir frames are claimed to be the result of sections cut from the film in order to repair a break; this may not be accurate as tears can and should be repaired and a complete intact frame should in any case not be removed as part of a repair. The practice of souveniring has declined with the increasing prevalence of [[Anamorphic]] formats.

I reverted it with this es: "rv. "Souveneiring" is not a standard term, it *IS* perceptable, should not be promoted, single frames SHOULD be removed when damage affects picture; &mere discussion of this promotes unprofessionalism"

OK, do you dispute that souveniring happens? That it is a problem? That a frame undamaged enough to function as a slide should not be taken out? I typically repaired rips in prints, but actually I rarely if ever had them because I always repared any broken sprocket holes first :-) Guy (Help!) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have several issues; I'll address your questions first and then move on
  1. I dispute that there is any significance incidence of "souveneiring." I'm aware that people sell "cells" on EBay, but I project a large amount of second-run prints and I've essentially never run into a case of this. I think those cells on EBay are generally from trailers.
  2. It would certainly be a problem if it happened. But so would all kinds of vandalism to all kinds of property; for instance we do not have a Vandalism section in Western painting.
  3. Generally speaking, if a frame has visible damage in the picture area, it is best to remove it. Of course, it depends on how much damage there is. I think this is generally speaking the industry concensus, but reasonable projectionists do disagree on this, and the question is very similar to that of whether to remove lab splices. My recollection from the last time it was discussed on Film-Tech was it was about 5:1 in favor of removing them.
  4. The very presence of this section will have a negative impact. People who never thought of doing this may think of it, and it lends credence to a terrible terrible idea that is not actually a problem right now. But putting it in here may cause it to become a problem. To put it in wikipedia-speak, it is not currently a "notable" phenomenon. This is my concern about professionalism.
  5. I have several issues with your wording. I don't think it is reasonable to say it is "compatible." yes, you can stick a 4-perf 35mm frame into an 8-perf slide mount. But it leaves a lot of empty space and it's kind of like saying that it is "compatible" with medium-format. Yes, it is "smaller."
  6. I dispute that the absence of one frame is "barely perceptible." That's a judgment, and not one I think Wikipedia should be making. For one thing, it produces a sound glitch (of varying severity depending on the splice, on the digital sound format, if any) and a picture glitch (splices are visible on-screen, generally the tape boundaries, the focus shift, and perhaps the gate-jump). Furthermore, 42ms is indeed perceptible. Not extremely, but I would say more than "barely" (this does depend on who is watching).
  7. I don't really know what people who ostensibly market these things claim, and I'm don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia (in re "claimed to be the result of sections cut from the film")
  8. The statement about whether an intact frame should be removed as part of a repair has no place here. It's a value judgment, and one that I think is unambiguously incorrect for all cases. You can argue there are plenty of cases where it is correct to leave the frame or to remove it, but I don't think you'll find many who think there is a blanket rule one way or another.
  9. Increased prevalence of anamorphic formats? I don't think we're currently seeing a rise in scope movies.
  10. Declined? I don't think we have any evidence at all on the prevalence of this supposed practice.
  11. I don't think your reference is appropriately canonical.

So, I think the text you have proposed is not very good, and I don't support having any text about this in there at all. But if there has to be something (and I think it is wrong!) it should be correct and verifiable. So, again, I'm going to revert this. jhawkinson (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

When I was a projectionist, most of the big name films we got in US wide and other non-anamorphic formats had souvenir frames missing; anamorphic prints are horizontally compressed if shown without the right lens, so look odd (and showing an academy ratio print through a scope anamorph is also amusing). The print we got of Kelly's Heroes ran nearly seven minutes short, and a lot of that was souveniring. It's much more common once the print goes on distribution to clubs and societies, though. 1/24s of missing film is not generally perceptible, in my experience. I reviewed a number of sites discussing film restoration, it seems to be the case that repair is still preferred over removal of a frame. The longest tear I repaired spanned 12 frames, the film arrived broken (very unusual). Guy (Help!) 09:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you know they were souvenir frames missing, rather than lab splices or severe runs of damaged film? There is sadly lots of opportunity for 1970s-era titles to have been damaged (even seen a takeup fail and see film get wrapped around the lower constant-speed sprocket in the soundhead, filling up the cabinet?). But in any case, Wikipedia is Not For Original Research. As I said, repair versus removal is somewhat of a judgment call in each case, but an absolute statement isn't warranted (I really don't think that you're going to find people advocating leaving white horizonal "lightning bolts" in...). If you could substantiate it from an authoritative source... I know what anamorphic movies are, but I've never heard it claimed they have more missing footage than flat films. But in any case, my overarching point is the one numbered (4) above: this practice is not "notable" or of significant incidence, and noting specific ways that vandalism can happen only encourages that sort of vandalism. jhawkinson (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with most of Jhawkinson's points. The article is about the general development and specifications of the film format, not possible outside applications not pertinent to the format itself. (Ie, there's nothing about the practice which suggests it wouldn't also have occurred in 16mm prints, amongst others.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)