|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
||This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010)|
Sorry to say that except for the standard table there is not much more to add to the theme. It should be merged with other photographic film quality definitions.
Alf photoman 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This article needs help.
This is, quite possibly, the most incomprehensible Wikipedia article I've ever read. The language and scope is so technical as to render it basically useless to the layperson, who should be its target. The only people who can understand it are the same people who don't even need to read it in the first place. The Film Grain section of the Film Speed article is much clearer and about the same length. This article needs to be deleted or to be overhauled. ExpulsionPapers 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't contribute any bit to this article, but I think this article doesn't have much problem in what's already written. The reference in Film Speed is written from a very different perspective and it's not fair to compare them. I see no need to delete this article. It can use some expansion, though. Phototech21 10:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This is minor, but I suspect misuse of the word "objectionably" in the last sentence of the opening paragraph. Perhaps the author meant "objectively," although the word is redundant when paired with "noticeable." Did the author mean that the film grain effect raises objections in some people? In this case, film grain itself may be "objectionable," but, when used as an adverb, the word shouldn't be modifying "noticeable." I am not positive what the author intended, but I'll trust my judgment and try to fix this, so long as no one has any, er, objections.Saycsax (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I thought it over and will leave it alone. The phrase just sounded weird to me at that moment. Should anyone agree, leave a note.Saycsax (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the "elements that make up film are called grains", shouldn't there be the "little spots on the movie screen" sense of film grain in this article? Perhaps some images from various films that have used the quality and aspects of a certain filmstock and corresponding grain? Say a frame from π (film) or something similar, perhaps contrasted with a digital or clean image? Gront (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to merge from RMS granularity
These articles were started in 2006, the RMS granularity before this one. But this one is a bit more general in title and topic, so how about merging to here? Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- The original author of RMS granularity says OK (on his talk page). And after I took out the bit about logarithmic "ratings" that I could find no basis for, there's nothing left to merge, so I'll go ahead and redirect it. If anyone objects, please do so here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)