Talk:Post-production

	Film portal 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Professional sound production Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction 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.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 17 June 2013 for a period of one week.

Comment[edit]

Would be helpful to describe the software tools that are used in digital post-production -- for film, TV, and more amateur efforts.

Surely this page should be broadened to cover all forms of post production. It is used in audio, video and television as well as in films. For the moment I have added a navigational template attaching it to Sound recording and reproduction, though I would suggest that ultimately there should be separate pages covering each of the fields. --Lindosland 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the navigational template because, although this page should not ideally be attached to audio I hope it will indicate help demonstrate have coordinated editing can be made easier using the Wikipedia:Root page concept. Ideally I would suggest that this page should stand alone, but with links (in see also to Audio post production, Film post production etc., which should then be attached to Root pages for those topics. --Lindosland 16:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major post-production companies[edit]

I am removing grind music and sound from the Major post-production companies section.

A quick google search shows, as of 03/05/06 shows: "Industrial Light and Magic" 328,000 results "Weta Digital" 267,000 results "Cinesite" 175,000 results "Ascent Media" 153,000 results "Framestore CFC" 138,000 results "BUF Company" 17,700 results "grind music and sound" 611 results

Parasite 02:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto "Channel Z"

Parasite 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto "LaserPacific" 12,900 results - inclusion adds nothing to article.

Ditto "Treehouse Media" 2,760 results - inclusion adds nothing to article.

Parasite 22:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto "LaserPacific" - inclusion adds nothing to article.

Ditto "PostWorks, New York" - inclusion adds nothing to article.

Ditto "Silk Sound" - inclusion adds nothing to article.

Ditto "The Bridge" - inclusion adds nothing to article.

We do not need every single post-prod company in the world listed here.

Parasite 08:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto External Link to Digital Sound Magic Recording Studios., Vancouver, Canada. - inclusion adds no new further information.

Parasite 07:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto "Teatown Communications Group" - inclusion adds nothing to article.

Parasite 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto "MG Studios" - inclusion adds nothing to article, target page marked as advertising.

Parasite 03:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto External Link to "Pinewood Studios"

Parasite 01:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto External Link to Directory of Post Production vendors - lnks to web directories are sometimes appropriate, but I do not believe that in this instance the inclusion adds any value. If you disagree, please discuss on this talk page before reinstating.

Parasite 07:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto EL to Kemps - A comprehensive list of international post production resources and suppliers.

Also removing EL to Post production film scanning and recording systems, inclusion adds no encyclop. value and appears to be a vanity link.

Parasite 07:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling here is that the Kemps link Kemps - A comprehensive list of international post production resources and suppliers points to content that helps to define the range of services that constitute the international post production industry and does add value to this entry. Hence I am proposing to reinstate it. Film Man 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have already added links to http://www.kftv.com/group-KG08.html to the articles Reed Business Information, Kemps Film and TV Production Services Handbook, Location scouting, Stock footage and of course Post-production. I am going to remove it from Post-production as I do not believe that the link does help define the range of services offered by Post-production companies as Sound & MultiMedia are also represented in the list. A better way to define the range of services would be to edit the article to include the information in the articles text. I am removing the External Link unless another editer agrees with you position and reinstates it. Thanks - Parasite 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parasite: Thanks for the feedback. For the record, Post Production does include sound and multi-media (both are already referred to in the article - broadly it's everything that takes place after the shoot or recording; although even that distinction is blurring with the advent of CGI) - it was the granular detail of the services that were referred to in the link that I thought would help to flesh out the understanding of the sector. I take your point about adding the additional content to the article itself, and I'll leave it to other editors to re-instate the link if it's felt appropriate. Thanks again for your feedback.

Film Man 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed External Link to "Pinewood Studios" - inclusion adds nothing to article.

Parasite 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed redlink to BBC Postproduction

Parasite 03:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed redlink to Treehouse Media Services

Parasite 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed redlink to Teatown Communications Group AGAIN!

Parasite 07:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed internal link to Bird Studios - I do not believe that this link adds any value to the article.

Parasite 23:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page title[edit]

Got here on a random. Recommend this page should decide if it wants to be Post-production or Post production and clean up the text to match the chosen title. -- cmh 02:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - did this a while ago. Parasite 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use the prefixes properly[edit]

It's not post-production or post production, it's postproduction. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.24.132 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orthography. Spelling. Prefixes. Hyphenation.[edit]

Although is pretty common to see prefixes pseudojoined with hyphens, in most cases the hyphen is not needed and so incorrect.

http://grammartips.homestead.com/hyphens2.html

post-production X post production X postproduction V

62.57.222.230 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing and marketing?[edit]

Publishing and marketing, aren't those two considered post-production processes? Can anyone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PWNGWN (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they're not stages of making a film, etc. --Imroy (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some consensus on the spellings of this word?[edit]

Can we get some consensus on the spellings of this word? And if it's really both spellings, let's include that in the first line. Some dictionaries list it as "postproduction", others as "post-production", and quite a number of them don't mention the other spelling at all. Very strange. I did a survey of the online dictionaries, and here were the results:

American Heritage Dictionary: postproduction. No alternate spelling seen. post-production was not found.
Cambridge/dictionary.cambridge.org: Neither spelling found.
Chambers: post-production. Auto-corrects postproduction to post-production.
Collins: postproduction. See Dictionary.com.
Dictionary.com (both Random House and Collins): postproduction. Auto-corrects post-production to postproduction.
dictionary.reference.com: postproduction. See Dictionary.com.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: Neither spelling found.
Macmillan: post-production. Auto-corrects postproduction to post-production.
Mirriam-Webster: postproduction. Auto-corrects post-production to postproduction.
Oxford: post-production. Auto-corrects postproduction to post-production. (oed.com & oxforddictionaries.com)
Random House: postproduction. See Dictionary.com.
wiktionary.org (en.wiktionary.org): BOTH. It has a post-production entry, but for "postproduction" it says, "postproduction ‎(usually uncountable, plural postproductions) ¶ Alternative spelling of post-production"

Other online dictionaries:

dictionary.babylon.com: Mixed results. Only the Wikipedia article entry came up for postproduction. That article and a definition came up for post-production ("Post-production Definition from Entertainment & Music Dictionaries & Glossaries ¶ film and video ¶ Movies & TV Dictionaries").
hyperdictionary.com: post-production. Nothing found searching for postproduction.
thefreedictionary.com: postproduction. Auto-corrects post-production to postproduction.
webopedia.com: post-production. Auto-corrects postproduction to post-production.
webster-dictionary.org: Neither spelling found.

Misty MH (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an equal split between "postproduction" and "post-production". Same story with Google hits. I support your recent edits and think we're good now. ~Kvng (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Dan Flanders" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dan Flanders. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 5#Dan Flanders until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]