Talk:Film stock

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
	This article is in the scope of the Filmmaking task force
Improving this article Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Start to B-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this start-class article, the following requirements must be met: It should already have a developed intro, infobox, image(s), sufficient plot summary, cast and crew section, two other developed sections (production, reception, soundtrack, etc.), and adequate categorization. Statements that may be questioned by a reader over their verifiability must be referenced with an inline citation, preferably using citation templates. Cite any quotes, box office figures, movie reviews, production notes, and any questionable statements. The article should be free of major grammatical errors. Follow the guidelines of the Manual of Style. Consider having the article reviewed by another WP:FILMS member and/or the League of Copyeditors. The article should be broad in coverage, and should have at least six sections of information (plot, cast, and four others: production, reception, DVD release, soundtrack, differences between TV show/book, sequels, themes, awards/honors, etc.). Remember to cite information within these sections.  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be nominated for reassessment to B-class and this template will be removed automatically if it qualifies. 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

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Video

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0190590/technical
Acording to that O Brother, Where Art Thou? was shot on 35mm and did not originate on Video.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.54.76 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2006

DStoykov (talk · contribs), at 03:15, 8 November 2006, modified the (then unsigned) contrib in favor of a related URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190590/technical

• No, what the article is saying is that it was the first major feature to do a complete digital intermediate. This means that the film was shot, everything was scanned in at high resolution, the visual effects and credits are added and the image is graded, and then the video files are printed back out onto film. Girolamo Savonarola 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Video To Film" section is very confused and could do with a re-write. The comment on shooting "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" on 35mm is a clear example of this. The section starts off by saying we can now go from video back to film stock, then talks about how "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" used a digital intermediate. This is not the same thing, as the above comment makes clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.62.144 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2006

[edit] Inventor

Only Hannibal Goodwin is the inventor of transparent flexible film. Check with Wikipedia respective page. John Carbutt came a little later. Contrarily to Goodwin he was not too deeply interested in chemistry. 80.219.85.112 18:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

A ToP Dab that needs to intimate it's not entirely on one subject is very rare (don't think i've seen one before), and probably indicates need to split the article. Is the issue that the start describes the history of motion-picture film stock, and the Film stock#Classification and properties (& perhaps Film stock#Deterioration) sections apply to the behavior of all film stocks? How abt making

1. the Film stock title a Dab,
2. Motion-picture film stock the bulk of this article, and
3. Film-stock technology for the rest.

Or maybe, making,

1. Film stock keep the bulk, and
2. Film stock (disambiguation) the Dab, pointing to something like
   1. Film stock
   2. Photographic film
   3. Film-stock technology

Or whatever. --Jerzy•t 21:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so certain about this, myself. You have to remember that the term "film stock" usually applies to large quantities of film used in motion picture work, well beyond the lengths needed for stills photography. There are many characteristics of the stock which are different (from perforations and pitch to chemistry and packaging), while the general photographic theory is of course consonant with most other film stills or not. I don't think that a certain degree of overlap or redundancy is undesirable - like any other article, the main topic should be pointed to for those desiring more information on the general photographic film theory. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)