Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/35 mm film

35 mm film[edit]

This article is the first collaboration of the new WikiProject Filmmaking, and has also recently gone through a peer review. I've mainly spent the last few days adding further references in the areas it seemed to be lacking. I also welcome all critiques, as I don't feel it got a rigorous enough shake in peer review, to be quite honest. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~: I haven't read through the entire article yet, but after a quick skim I noticed a few things, mostly minor:

~~Several short paragraphs. These should be merged or expanded if possible.~~
It would be good if you used the Cite web, Cite book etc templates for your inline citations where possible, but especially for the inlines with no or poor descriptions (ie. endnotes 28, 29, 34, 35, 39 and 42).
~~Can the specifications be moved into some sort of table instead of a straight list? I found it confusing to try and read the list as it is.~~
This is not really a problem, but a few people have been mentioning the use of the svg format instead of png, jpg and especially gif for diagrams. I think this would be especially useful for this diagram, since it should probably be represented accurately no matter how the image is resized.
~~The image at the start of the article is huge, and I'm running at a 1280x1024 screen res. Maybe this could be reduced a little?~~
~~Any chance of an extra image or two? Especially of the film in use or in storage.~~

I hope this helps. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Darkliight, thanks very much for your comments! I'll address them one by one, to make it easier.

I believe the short paragraphs have been remedied. I've also done some major overhauling of the article's structure in any case, especially regarding ordering of sections and hierarchy.
I've corrected those specific citations (though the numbers probably have changed with editing), although I've simply written them out instead of using the template. I just feel they're too cumbersome; however, if this is something that must be implemented as template rather than text, I'll slog through rewriting all the citations.
I'm not certain that the specifications can be turned into a table, merely because the different formats mainly have different concepts they are defining. The 35 mm spherical, for example, contains a slew of TV specs that don't exist for the other format, and vice versa. But if someone has a way of implementing a table effectively, I'm certainly open to try it. If the specifications are confusing, maybe you could clarify which ones and why? That probably will help towards elucidating the matter.
I'll ask the image editors of that particular diagram about making an SVG format; however, as I'm not a graphics guy, I can't guarantee any progress there.
Image resized.
More images added. Let me know if you think more are needed, or if the ones added are inadequate.

I think that's it for now. Thanks very very much! Look forward to hearing more comments. Girolamo Savonarola 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Girolamo Savonarola, thanks for addressing the concerns.

I still think you should use the templates for your cites, but I won't object if you don't. There are still some issues with some of the cites though, in particular #10 (it's description is really lacking :)) and #32 is just a URL.

I believe that was mainly oversight from the restructuring. I've corrected the matter. Thank you also for your lenience on the template matter - if the content is displayed more or less identically with either method, and the template is designed to make things "easier", then I'd prefer to simply do it by hand, as I don't believe that the template is easier (at least for me). That's my simple rationale, but if there is a flaw in it, let me know.

I think one of the big advantages of templates is that if, for whatever reason, the display style is changed, then a single change to the template will bring every article that uses the template into line. Another plus is that is encourages other users, especially newer ones that aren't sure how how to go about adding a reference, to use them instead of just posting an external link or the like. Whenever I add references to an article, I can almost always just copy and paste a previous cite template, change the required parameters and hit submit without worrying about style. A third advantage, is that it makes it easy for bots to check reference URL's, ISBN's etc. These reasons are just off the top of my head so there are surely other reasons. darkliight^[πalk] 04:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the article, inches and mm are used in most cases, but they should follow a similar format. For example, in the intro we have "The photographic film is cut into strips 1 3/8 inches or 35 mm wide", the Super 35 section where we have "an overall negative area of 240 mm² (9.45"²), only a mere 9 mm² (.35"²) less than the 1.85:1 crop", and then later on we just have "Known as "Kodak Standard" (KS), they are 0.078" high by 0.11" wide". I'd prefer measurements to be set out like "The photographic film is cut into strips 35 mm (1 3/8 inches) wide" - I've given precedence to the metric measurement for a few reasons, but mostly because the articles title is a metric measurement. " can be supplemented for inches later on ofcourse.

Ah, welcome to the wonderfully odd world of film standards! :) The format is labelled in metric, however most of its standards were created by Americans in "standard" units, and thus the metric numbers are conversions in those cases and are identified as such. Furthermore, in my research today I've discovered that despite the name, the format is actually precisely 1 3/8 inches wide, due to historical reasons - now clarified in a footnote. However, apparently the most strictly accurate name for the format in millimeters would be 34.8 mm! I have, however, added metric equivalents for the omitted measurements in the perforations section. But bear in mind that they are standardized to inches by Eastman Kodak, not millimeters, hence the inch measurements are given primacy. In the case of accepted names for formats, such as 8 mm and 16 mm, I have left no conversion, as these are the common names for the gauges rather then measurements, per se.

Thanks for putting in a few extra pictures, though I was really hoping for a pic of the film being used in a projector so people unfamiliar with its use could get an idea of how the picture gets from the film to the screen.

I've added a clearer image of the digital formats as well now. However, I'm not certain that a projection picture could easily show this - there are several you might want to take a look at on the movie projector page. My question would be that wouldn't such an image be more germane to that article instead? Let me know your thoughts and I'll see what I can produce... :)

My concern was that complete novices to the topic of film (students doing an assignment for example) would be able to see why we put the images onto film. I know it must seem very obvious to everyone here, and I agree with you that an explanation is for another article, but if a school kid comes home from watching a movie and gets curious and they stumble accross this article, I think it would be interesting to actually see the film in use in a projector and the result on a screen - I think even a diagram would suffice for this if you come accross one. Ofcourse, that was just an idea and I'm not going to demand it, so consider it struck. darkliight^[πalk] 04:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 09:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 22:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Where is everyone else?!?!?! The more opinions the merrier, right? :)

Support. I whole-heartedly support this nomination. It's well referenced, and I don't see any major things, but there are ~~two minor things~~ one minor thing that I thought I'd mention. First of all, if I understand it correctly, in the 1950s movie studios experimented with 3D, Smell-o-Vision, and all sorts of other things, before coming up with widescreen. In addition, there was a lot of competition among the studios to create the dominant widescreen format (i.e. WarnerScope, CineMiracle, etc.) I believe this is important to mention, however briefly, in this article. Number two: Most studio films are shot with a DI these days, you might want to mention that. Great article! Green451 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, and remember that I'm being really nitpicky here, is that it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article the increased competition 35mm is facing from digital formats. Keep up the good work! Green451 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, one of the things I mentioned was already in the article. Sorry about that. Green451 03:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please fix the footnote punctuation. Also, you've got places where there is no space before the next sentence (e.g.; single frame of film at 4 perforations high.[8]Edison claimed exclusive patent rights) Sandy 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Wow, that was fast! Sandy 01:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, well spotted! Done. Girolamo Savonarola 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sense wasting time... ;) Girolamo Savonarola 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article seems to lack detail on its use in still photography - which is where the average reader would be most familiar with it. Why?--Peta 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about 35 mm film as used in motion pictures (which predates 35 mm stills film; see the Early History section). What you're looking for is 135 film, which you'll see is already linked at the top of the article. Girolamo Savonarola 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Peta 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing the title to something like "35 mm cinema film" would clarify that, and make the introductory remark unnecessary. Hundreds of millions of people have used 35 mm film cameras and call the film "35 mm film" whereas they have not used 35 mm cinema cameras and aren't commonly aware of the film that is used for the movies they watch. So, the title seems to attract the wrong reader. I would find it easier to support the article under a more precise title. Fg2 01:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain I necessarily agree with that assertion, especially with 35 mm stills film already having had severe losses to the digital crowd. Furthermore, it is a very common film terminology term just as likely to be widely known by hundreds of millions of moviegoers, and unfortunately doesn't seem to have another commonly used term, as 35 mm stills/135 film does. Is there a problem with having a "see this article for this term" sign at the top? Plenty of other articles do, including film, which no doubt has different meanings to the stills crowd as well as the scientific community. Girolamo Savonarola 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the histories of both 35 mm film and 135 film show that they were split like so from their inception(s). The decision to split them like so is even noted in Talk:35 mm film, where it is noted that most readers will be equally split between which two they'd want to see, so the one with the more precise and equivalent term (135 film) is given a toplink, while the other (for movies) will remain the primary topic of the article. The talk pages of these articles also give no indication of any users wishing to change this at any time in the past 3.5 years since these articles began to co-exist. My predominant feeling is to leave it be, unless there is a sizable objection to the current situation. Girolamo Savonarola 21:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good now. Nice job. Sumoeagle179 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]