Talk:Film frame

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Film frame article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Needed additions...

Additions needed are the difference in frame sizes for different kinds of projection. On the same 35mm fiim, there are a wide variety of frame sizes. Vistavision uses a frame size which is similar to 35mm still photography which is 90 degrees from standard motion picture frames and the film runs horizontally, not vertically like regular motion picture reels. Also, the history of the different frame sizes needs to be added.

See widescreen and aspect ratio (image). Girolamo Savonarola 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

What is Wikipedia policy for individual film frames of a work protected by copyright? I've seen elsewhere that showing less than 4% of the whole thing is considered fair use, but it is not an official source. I ask because I think it would be important to include in this article and it would help editing of other articles. If anyone can point me to a policy page where the answer can be found, I would be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.19.127 (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split Video and Film Frame

Consider splitting video and film frame, video can be interlaced which is impossible on film, this may cause confusion for readers. Also historically video/tv frames were scanned with a moving dot. This is now not the case but should be included for completeness.

Simontheu (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have different sections already. If there is an important difference, I think it should be clearly stated in the article. Having two separate articles would make it more confusing for those who don't know the difference, if they end up in the article they didn't intend to. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Film frame and Frame (video) into Frame (film)

The subject of Film frame and Frame (video) is about the same, and neither is long enough to justify wp:forking. As I understand, video is one of many electronic storage mediums of film, and can therefore be included in the scope of film. In the film field, it seems to be simply termed "frame" rather than "film frame", and therefore Frame (film) would be the most logical wp:article title. This relationship between film and video is then better explained in that article, instead of confusing readers with two separate articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:I don't think merging Frame (video) to Film frame is a good idea. According to WP:Merging there may be four reasons for merging and none of these apply here. For one thing, Frame (video) deals with the mathematics of of resolution in TV etc. This article doesn't cover these. Besides the history of Frame (video) will be lost by merging. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason is still that Frame (video) is basically a subtopic of Film frame. The mathematics of resolutions in TV is also relevant for Frame (film), which it should thereby cover. Also, a merge means moving content that is not present in the target article, including history, so nothing needs to be lost. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I performed the merge now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

toluca santana tlapaltitlan

gritos casa 3 pisos201 2806:265:480:904A:6D6F:3C1B:8047:F5AC (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]