Talk:Movie projector

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
 
WikiProject Photography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Movie projector shutters[edit]

I have been disambiguating links pointing at shutter, and found one at IMAX: "The projector's shutter is also open for around 20% longer than in conventional equipment and the light source is brighter." As you can see, I linked shutter there to the "Shutter" section in this article. Not knowing an awful lot about movie projectors, can someone confirm that this was correct? Also, I've added a new definition for "shutter" to the disambiguation page at shutter. Can someone please check this is correct as well. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you disambiguated the IMAX shutter to the correct place. With regard to the new dab page link that you added, that's a correct disambiguation but I think the current Wiki style is to not "pipe" those links, so I guess that means a naked Movie projector#Shutter.
Atlant 00:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I find those naked # links rather ugly. I know I should change it, but can't bring myself to do it. It also seems a little bit self-referential. Please change it if you feel it is needed. Carcharoth 11:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, it won't be me changing it; I'm on your side of the debate. ;-)
Atlant 00:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have another question as well. I recently moved shutter angle to rotary disc shutter, as this was linked from the shutter (photography) article, and I thought it looked like the right article. However, I wanted to check with people who know about movie projectors. Was this the right thing to do? Carcharoth 11:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

8mm Optical soundtrack?[edit]

I noticed in the description of 16mm film under "Types of projectors" that it states "It is also the smallest format that can carry an optically encoded sound track." but in my recent research of 8mm film formats I have read several times about Optical sound on 8mm. This is my first time posting, so if I haven't given enough information or have posted in the wrong area, I apologize. :-) MrGneiss 10:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You may very well be correct. From what I can tell from some quick research, it was not very common, and mainly existed only on professional 8mm prints blown-down from larger gauges (like feature films, for example). Girolamo Savonarola 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also noticed it listed in several places that the Fujica ZS400 Single8 camera recorded in optical sound. MrGneiss 11:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


I noticed that there is a picture of what I think is variable density opitical audio. It's located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Do17z_wikifilm.jpg I think it should be added to the audio section. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.71.80 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

GA?[edit]

Please expand the lead it's currently too short. I'm going to give the editors of this article time but if the lead isn't expanded I'm putting it up for review. A GA shouldn't have a two sentence lead. Quadzilla99 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just removed the GA class listing as it appears comeone just gave it a GA tag and it never actually went through the GA process. Quadzilla99 07:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In adition it's not on the list of GA articles, under either the Technology or Film listings. Quadzilla99 07:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Very outdated article![edit]

This article deals with chemical film based cinema projection only, which is a thing of the past. Modern movies are displayed from digital media. The much hated Titanic movie showed from a set of three very large optical data discs in the largest US cinemas, instead of film rolls. There is not a single word on that technology in the article. 82.131.210.162 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern movies still receive an overwhelming share of screenings in film theaters. Sorry, but that's the facts. As for digital projection, there is already an article for that - digital cinema. And about Titanic - all of the largest theaters received 70 mm blowup prints. Digital projection of Hollywood films didn't even exist until The Phantom Menace - and even then, it was shown that way in about 30 theaters for a limited screening months after the initial release. The only discs which shipped with the Titanic film prints would have been DTS audio soundtrack files - essentially a specially formatted audio CD.
If you are convinced film is dead, you'd best tell that to all the projectionists at Film-Tech.com; most of them seem to be doing a job you claim doesn't exist anymore. Girolamo Savonarola 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Girolamo, I think that its not well enough to tell just the projectionists at Film-Tech.com only, in the World, in India and even in my country Turkey. In modern World of electronics everything is changing so fast, oh my God, can you say that there is a rigid standard for electronic cinema, nooo, but analog. You can show a film with a projector made in 20s... But you could not show a film of yesterday's technology, forget that. I think that the people found a good reason to get money - digital technology. You buy today and you put it in trash tomorrow... We were so happy when we found one foot of simple film to show it on a search light. But today, everybody has a computer and access to full lenght of films of every kind - they are unhappy... Erkanumut 17:27, June 4, 2007 (UTC)

Why 1.96?[edit]

Why is the sample widescreen image 1.96:1? Is this intended to be an example of VistaVision? Wouldn't a 2.39:1 example make more sense, especially with the accompanying anamorphic squeeze? Jhawkinson 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense either that the squeezed image has a ratio of 1.33:1 because when un-squeezed that would be 2.66:1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.209.12.82 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion Picture Machine?[edit]

In Audel's electrical handbook (1910?) the chapter on movie theaters starts off with a rant reminding readers that correct term is motion picture machine. Was this a one man's opinion or is there a place in the article for this historic note? I don't have the book anymore so have no accurate citation. Georget99 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Film projector, cine(ma) projector, motion-picture projector, sound projector all are very popular terminology for this matter. I think that movie projector is used for amateur equipment for years and American usage. Sound-on-film projector is very rare as well. --Erkan Umut 17:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

70mm section[edit]

I cleaned up the 70mm section, primarily to make it agree with both historical and current practices, and the wiki page about 65/70mm.

This whole movie projector section is a bit woolly with some odd digressions. The 9.5 section is too long, and I think the 70mm section may be also. The persistence of vision explanation, which is long discredited as an explanation of the illusion of cinema motion is contradicted by the cited wiki section on persistence of vision, and the citations there. --StevenBradford 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can be useful? http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immagine:Proiettore_Cinematografico.gif&oldid=15629656#file —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.176.115 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bioscope??[edit]

What about bioscope = An early movie projector, as the dictionary says. --194.144.23.124 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)