Talk:List of motion picture film stocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

[edit] No release print stocks?

What's the rationale for omitting release print stocks like 2383 and 2393? Jhawkinson 08:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the short intro, the list was originally formulated for camera film stocks. But the primary rationale for omitting intermediate and print stocks is the lack of historical sources. I have not found any comprehensive source that details print stocks older than 10 years. As demonstrated by the list, camera emulsions can be traced back to the early 1900s. It is of no value to list only a couple Kodak or Fuji modern print stocks without being able to present a comprehensive historical list. LACameraman 08:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, I missed your reply last month) Hmm...there are a lot fewer release print (and intermediate) films, but I think we can find plenty of stocks older than 10 years (diacetate, Eastmancolor triacetate, the introduction of low-fade LPP triacetate (early 1980s?), and then the first ESTAR-base, followed by VISION). And that's just Kodak... jhawkinson 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jhawkinson - No problem on the delay - it happens. I'm quite guilty of it all the time as real life draws me away from Wikipedia. If you can find a comprehensive reliable resource that gives us emulsion numbers as well as introduction dates and discontinued dates for a significant number of print stocks - then let's put them in there. Otherwise, I'm inclined to omit them altogether. All the best, LACameraman 11:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Kodak's Chronology of MP Films - 1980 to Today and related pages (from 1889 forward) basically covers it for most stocks Kodak. It omits the discontinuance of '386 and some other things, but that shouldn't be too hard to dig up. I'll start populating from it when I get a chance. Any reason there aren't references/footnotes/sources on this page? Or an {{Unreferenced}} tag? Also, what's with the overlap to List of products manufactured by Kodak — should stocks be removed from there? jhawkinson 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That. Took. More. Effort. Than. Expected. But I think the print stock section is decent now, and I fleshed out some other details. There are still stocks in Kodak's chronology that are absent here, and I didn't do the intermediate stocks justice. What do you think about the tabular format? I think it is easier to read, but I didn't want to convert everything... jhawkinson 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was JUST coming in here to comment on the tables. We really should go one way or the other - all tables or all list format. Otherwise it's confusing and will be open to wiki-editor criticism, for sure. The info on the prefix numbers was great - but in table format I was confused for a moment as to what it was telling me - especially with the intro to the table outside the table... You've done a great job compiling the print info - I take back my earlier comments as it seems detailed enough to belong here. But we should have a consensus on table or not table and format the whole article to that. LACameraman 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree they should be consistent. What I really meant was I didn't want to go to the effort to convert them all to tabular form if concensus was going to be against it. I'm happy to do the conversion if you think it's the way-to-go. Think of this as a "beta test." I'll try to neaten up the prefix table and put in a heading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhawkinson (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Merge Fuji stock pages

Let's merge these specific pages in, it doesn't really make sense to have a single page for every stock, unless it is somehow exceptional. jhawkinson 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree Silly to have those entries. They're not encyclopedic articles, they're abbreviated sales brochures. I'd go farther and say both might qualify for deletion. LACameraman 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done jhawkinson 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tabular or no?

So, following up from my comment above of 29 Mar (under "No Release Print Stocks?"), do people like the tabular format better? Should I convert the rest of the page? jhawkinson 01:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks a lot nice and it is much easier to read in tabular format. Nice work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.228.63 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)