Talk:Camera/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Camera. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Queries

Ericd, out of curiosity, why are you splitting this into still camera and movie camera? They're far more alike than they are different; even if specifics are to be treated in separate articles, IMHO the basics ought to go in the main article. So far, the contents of still camera apply 100% to movie cameras. --Brion 22:51 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

Mainly to create some reaction and reflection because the text of the article was only referring to still cameras.

Well then, I hope you won't mind when I move the text back and expand it a bit. --Brion

Of course not ! This has to be expanded and structured.

Well, I put in a start. Feel free to help munge it into shape! --Brion

Have look at Camera types I believe this will have to be back in the main article sometime.

It wouldn't hurt; though there's currently a trend to break long lists out into separate pages. Maybe just put it in still camera? --Brion

Let's get some history in here. When was this thing invented for example? --arex

Excellent idea, I've added a link to the first photograph, which I guess means it was also the first camera. RichardB20.

Good point. I came to this article to get the history. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What are some differences and purposes of the lens of a camera? CortezJess (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How has the camera affected peoples lives

wanting to know how the camera has affected lives from when they were first invented to how they affect people now

Well, in my uneducated opinion of course, now people have ways to document important times in their life, or others'. Photos and videos have a lot of sentimental value to many people, and it's one of the first things I think that people would save from their homes in the case of a fire, if they didn't have other living beings in the home with them. Photos might help people remember faces, and they also preserve what people who have passed away look like. It captures a moment. It shows history and memories and a minor essence of who people are. 65.191.82.234 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the video camera had the greatest impact. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Astronomy cameras

http://www.wateccameras.com are used in Astronomy. 0.0003lux for watching the still sky through a Telescope. 0.003 is about the limit for use in security surveilance applications. Any lux value higher results in Image smearing. How does one add this information to the wiki without it coming accross as advertising - but purely as a technical fact?

I added http://www.pulnix.com and http://www.wateccameras.com to the camera brands section. It is merely a fact that Watec just like Samsung are camera manufacturers. But this was flagged by the moderator as advertising. How would one then state the fact that Watec makes cameras without it coming accross as advertising? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.241.194 (talk • contribs) .

Firstly, this article tends to focus more on cameras for still photography. The cameras you are talking about are some kind of video camera. Secondly, all the other links in that section are internal links to other articles. Wikipedia places some strict rules on external links such as the ones you tried to add. In particular, external links should be informative and provide further information *about* the subject of the article. The two links you provide appear to merely be the sites of camera makers, purely commercial in nature. They may be perfectly fine, upstanding companies, but Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links. Perhaps the only place those links would be acceptable under the rules would be if those manufacturers had their own articles, and that's unlikely given the rules on notability of Wikipedia articles. So it does not look like your two links have a place on Wikipedia, sorry. If people are looking for these types of cameras, I'm sure Google would be a better tool than Wikipedia. --Imroy 11:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

More to it

There's loads of stuff that should be covered in this article. The myths (stealing souls), the impact on the world, the impact on lives, the impact cellphone cameras have had on life etc. Someone should add them :) - don't look at me --Energman 11:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Cameras in Culture" article? —Nahum Reduta 21:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Motion Picture Cameras

Seems the article so far only deals with still cameras. What about those designed for movies? Or what existing article is it listed under (so it can be linked here)? —Nahum Reduta 21:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to camera (conventional)?

I undid this silly move. The article is about cameras. Digital is more conventional these days. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for undoing it. There is absolutely no need to make article titles more complicated than they have to be. It doesn't matter what new technologies come about, there should always be an article simply titled "camera". LonelyMarble (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Removing it was the right decision. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Camera formats

Shouldn't this be changed to film formats, because actual camera formats ate covered in the following section? Also, there is no mention of large format or small format film that are still in production- most notably 4x5 and 8x10", and to a lesser extent 110. You can't include a description of a view camera and never mention the film. This would be especially informative to analogophobes or novices who don't even know sheet film exists. What else do they come here for? 65.78.27.60 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Various anons have been asserting an Arabic origin for the term "camera", variously "Al Qumra" or "Al Qamara" supposedly meaning a darkened chamber. This doesn't make a lot of sense, since in the Latin derivation, camera just means a chamber or room, and word obscura is needed for a darkened one. Without reliable etymology sources, we can't accept these changes, which is why I keep taking them out. Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We still have this problem. To help clear things up, the Etymology Online Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=c&p=3) states this: "1708, "vaulted building," from L. camera "vaulted room" (cf. It. camera, Sp. camara, Fr. chambre), from Gk. kamara "vaulted chamber," from PIE base *kam- "to arch." The word also was used early 18c. as a short form of Mod.L. camera obscura "dark chamber" (a black box with a lens that could project images of external objects), contrasted with camera lucida (Latin for "light chamber"), which uses prisms to produce an image on paper beneath the instrument, which can be traced. It became the word for "picture-taking device" when modern photography began, c.1840 (extended to television filming devices 1928). Camera-shy is attested from 1890. O.C.S. komora, Lith. kamara, O.Ir. camra all are borrowings from Latin". Etymology online states that its basic sources are Weekley's "An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English," Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language," "Oxford English Dictionary" (second edition), "Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology," Holthauzen's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache," and Kipfer and Chapman's "Dictionary of American Slang." This site seems to be a reliable source of the etymology and should probably be referenced. BC _{talk to me} 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Edison

Just curious, if Edison is in fact the "first person to invent the camera", shouldn't the rest of the article support that? Should it be qualified with "often credited as..." or else better supported? Thanks. Raimundospark (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

He isn't – he's too young to be the inventor and there's nothing in this article or Thomas Edison to support it – so I've removed it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Images on this page

Hi Camera watchers, I have long been dissatisfied with some of the images on this page, particularly the main image in the lead, and the image used to depict autofocus. For me, the only thing the lead image has going for it is that it depicts a variety of cameras:

But that's it. On any screen that isn't more than 25", this image is uninspired and lacks a focal subject. When enlarged, the image has many defects, including a window glare in the top left, and other distracting features. My suggestion is that we change this to an image of a single camera, preferably an SLR type. The image should be high quality and look good in thumbnail and large size. Here's an example:

(in fact, it might be good to have a non-Canon or non-Nikon camera to avoid a war over which is "better". My goalpost is this question: "If this article were to become featured on the front page, would the main image be attractive and representative?" Alternatively, I also think a quality image of a person using a camera would be good for the lead. Here's an example:

I intensely dislike this image in the article:

...which is being used to illustrate focus. In thumbnail, it's distracting, ugly, and barely gets the point across. There must be another, more attractive image, we can use. Here's an example:

My inclination is to be bold and make these changes right away, but since there's over 100 watchers of this article, I wanted to make the proposal here on talk. I'd like to see any thoughts from you here. I'd especially like to see alternative suggestions for the images I want to see replaced. If there are no major objections to my suggested changes, I'll make them at the end of the week. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed the lead image to the single camera photo I suggested above. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those might be better, though a better focus image can probably be found. And please don't make up phrases like "range of focus" as you did in the caption there. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this one, which at thumb sizes has a clear distinction between in-focus and out-of-focus:

Thanks for your input. I like your suggested image better. Your snarky criticism of my off-the-cuff phrasing could be construed as pedantry, but I choose to see it as constructive suggestion from an elder. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

See-also section

User:Soerfm commented out the see-also section with an HTML comment of "Please include this in the navbar..." - merging the bloated see-also section into the article and navbar should certainly be looked into, but an HTML comment seemed likely to just get overlooked, with the content simply being missing in the mean time, so I've undone the edit and raised the issue here. --McGeddon (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the See Also section is bloated with everyone's favorite brands. A navbar would be the best solution (or just delete them all...). The list of camera types are probably unnecessary in the long-term, since they are mostly covered in the article, as is pretty much everything in the "Other" section. A see also section should ideally consist of related topics not explicitly mentioned or covered in the article, IMO. I haven't looked yet to see if a camera brand navbar exists. If it does, it can easily be added and this issue resolved. If it doesn't exist, then someone will need to create it. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So, I created the navbox called Template:Camera brands, since one did not previously exist. There are other, more specialized, navboxes, but this one is general, and I used the same list of brands as in the "See also" section. If there are no major objections, I think it would be reasonable to apply it to this article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved the brands list to the navbox. Certainly cleans up the "See also" section. On my "to do" list is to clean up the horrendously formatted "Camera types" section and accessories section, so that they flow as more prose and fewer subsections. Once that occurs, then pretty much all of the "See also" section can be cut. AstroCog (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been suggested that some of the articles about special camera types be updated. It appears that a good starting point would be to introduce in this article, or in the article "Digital camera", an agreed upon listing of camera types worth separate articles. For example: 1. Smartphones with camera. 2. Point and shoot cameras. 3. Compact cameras. 4. Superzoom cameras. 5. DSLRs or Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras. 6. Mirrorless system cameras. Varying sensor sizes would be described within each category. It could be argued that there are a lot more types than above. But it can also be argued that links to less common types can be included in the appropriate category above. Bengt Nyman (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Still camera

MERGE:

There is a clear consensus to merge still camera into camera because it is a short unsourced article. There is no prejudice against editors boldly creating a standalone article for still camera if a well-sourced start-class article can be created for it.
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Still camera be merged into camera? Qono (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Still camera is a unsourced stub that is redundant with camera and should be merged per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Qono (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. BTW edited your comment for a typo. LaurentianShield (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, merge. And provide a source or two if possible. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge I would generally be against this, and would like to see still camera return as a distinct article. But as yet, there's nothing there. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Y Done. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History section

Just wanted to point out that the Nikon SVC was NOT the first DSLR, it was a so called "still video camera", which essentially was as digital as a VHS camcorder - the image captured by a CCD was recorded as an analouge video still frame on a magnetic disc. Also, the distinction of developing this format belongs to Sony, which unveilded its MAVICA prototype in 1981, 5 years prior to the Panasonic-developed and Nikon branded SVC prototype. By 1987 Sony had already released a full fledged product to the market.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.49.151.128 (talk • contribs) on 4 Sept. 2018

Synonyms

photo chamber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411C:EE00:2C59:1EB3:A6ED:270C (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition to the article because you did not cite a source. Moreover, a Google search did not support this as a synonym. The closest I found was the opening of Sylvia Plath's poem Tale of a Tub: 'The photographic chamber of the eye'.[1], but this is insufficient. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Single lense reflex cameras

Why are there two separate sub-sections for these cameras in the history section? danno_uk 16:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why there were two SLR sections. But I've now merged the two SLR sections into a single section. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Development

I think plenty of significant texts should be extracted from history of the camera to balance article. The Supermind (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Physics

What is two features of simple camera 2409:4060:E8D:49B2:55CA:1DD7:3F8A:B8B9 (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

How about reading the article to find out? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsori015.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What is camera

Czchvhv 103.170.45.184 (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Few words about speaker

Needed it's usess 2402:3A80:1E04:5AF1:0:47:B8C9:3A01 (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)