Jump to content

Talk:35 mm movie film/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Using Anamorphic lenses... with Super 35?

Why hasn't there been use of super 35 mm film with anamorphic lenses; this will take advantage of the left over negative space; and will be very competitive against standard 35mm with anamorphic lenses; the quality will no doubt be better (more negative space). Has this been considered; or, would it work at all? And why haven't anyone thought of combining the two?

See Talk:Super 35 mm film Girolamo Savonarola 09:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Seattle Film Works

The chemical process is different. Seattle Film Works used to sell their own color film, that according to other photo processors it was film stock. They mentioned the shape of the perforations and the color of the film to recognize them.

There used to be several firms that repackaged Motion picture film for still cameras. The Film is easy to recognize because it has rounded (bell and Howell Perfs) and black backing. The Motion picture film will totally mess up a process for regular still film (c-41)
The film was identified by the Kodak 4 digit code number, such as 5293 (which was in use at the time)
They switched to a private label c-41 film, but kept a four digit code to discourage other firms from processing the film.
cmacd 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First Kodak 35 mm color negative film

This Kodak website says, under the year 1950:

EASTMAN Color Negative film, 5247. 35mm. Daylight, EI 16. First Kodak incorporated-color-coupler camera negative film. Replaced by 5248 in 1952.

Under the year 1952, it says:

EASTMAN Color Negative film, 5248. Tungsten, El 25. Daylight, El 16. Speed increase and image structure improvement. Replaced 5247. -- Awarded OSCAR -- (25th Academy Year) Class I. Scientific or Technical Award. Replaced by 5250 in 1959.

— Walloon 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Walloon - thanks. I made that change in the article. The H-1 may be referring to the refined stock in 1952. LACameraman 23:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Academy Award for improved safety film

See Academy Awards given on 23 March 1950. — Walloon 08:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Walloon - the Academy Awards are always given in a year following their awarded year (as the period of elligibility is January to December, so the Awards must be presented in the next calendar year), however it is protocol to refer to the awards as having been given for the year the film/individual was elligible, NOT when they were actually presented. For instance, the Academy Awards that aired this past March (2006) were for achievements in 2005. Philip Seymour Hoffman won the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role in Capote. Although he was presented with the Oscar statue on March 5, 2006 the correct statement is: "Philip Seymour Hoffman was presented with an Academy Award for Best Actor in 2005" NOT 2006. All the best, LACameraman 07:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, that the year the award was given should not be confused with the eligibility year. For example, "In 2006, Philip Seymour Hoffman won the Academy Award for Best Actor of 2005." Note the all important prepositions: "in 2006/of 2005." The technical award given to Eastman Kodak for the improved safety film was given "in 1950". To say this technical award was given "in 1949" is not protocol, it's just incorrect. — Walloon 07:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Walloon - the year of an Academy Award, when correctly cited, is always referred to as the year of award (achievement), not the year of presentation, any other reference is incorrect. The Award is "won," "given," "received," "presented," in the year of achievement NOT in the year it was physically handed out. Here's just a two official examples:
  • Al Mayer Sr. Oscar 2000 Please note how the award is listed - it was actually physically presented to Al Mayer Sr. on March 1, 2001. It is incorrect, however, to say that Al Mayer Sr. won an Academy Award in 2001.
  • From Oscars.org: "In 1979, the Academy honored Young, Paul Kaufman and Frederick Schlyter from Du Art Laboratories with a Technical Achievement Award for the development of a computer-controlled paper tape programming system and its application in the motion picture laboratory." Official Oscar.org website Irwin Young was PRESENTED with the Oscar on April 11, 1980, yet the correct way to state this (unless for some reason you are specifically referring to an incident that happened on the night of the ceremony) is to say that Irwin Young won an Oscar in 1979. Please note the verbiage above is from the official Oscar website. To confirm the date of presentation, you can utilize your own source: [1] LACameraman 20:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A little confused...

I'm a little confused here. Now, I'm just getting into film, so I'm obviously a bit of a newbie. :) But I can't help but notice that the film quality for most hourlong dramas (The West Wing, Stargate: SG-1, Ally McBeal, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc.) is markedly different - with richer colors and darker blacks, for one, and what appears to be a higher definition - than the film for say, the average sitcom (like King of Queens, Reba, What I Like About You, Seinfeld, Friends, etc.). And film quality is sitcom level or worse for news programs, especially cheapo local news programs.

So, I gotta ask - does this mean that sitcoms and studio news are filmed in 16mm and hourlang dramas in 35mm, or what?

I ask not just because I'm interested (and because the page is confusing on the matter), but because I'm looking at requirements for a couple of film festivals I may want to eventually enter, and they require "16mm or 35mm" film, and I'm wondering if my to-be-shot-with-a-$700-digital-video-camera film will look crappier on 16mm or not. :P Runa27 08:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing film and video (and videotape). Shows like the network news, your local news, game shows, daytime dramas, talk shows, and sports events are either live video or recorded videotape. All the other shows that you mentioned, both comedies and dramas, are shot on 35 mm film. What you perceive as the difference between the look of filmed shows such as The West Wing, and sitcoms such as King of Queens, both of which are photographed on 35 mm film, is actually in the lighting and camerawork. The West Wing is an example of a "single-camera" show, in which each shot is done as a separate set-up, after the lighting has been desgined for that particular camera angle and movement. King of Queens is an example of a "three-camera" show, which is filmed by three cameras simultaneously before a live audience in entire acts (not single shots). Because of this, the lighting can only be set once, and then not changed throughout the act, which compromises the artistic level of the lighting. The lighting for three-camera shows tends to be "high-key" to eliminate unwanted shadows, and allow the actors to be photographed evenly from whatever angle they move around the set. — Walloon 09:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Widescreen

The widescreen is a little askew in the representation of the reasoning and placement of events that took place between the fall of 1952 when Cinerama premiered and the spring of 1954 when flat widescreen was uniformly accepted by all of the major studios for all of their films. The motivation for CinemaScope, 3-D (which played a large part during this time but isn't even mentioned in this article), Cinerama and flat widescreen was not to compete with each other at all (although CinemaScope and 3-D seemed to duke it out, but that's its own story).

The whole point of these "realism" formats was to draw people away from TELEVISION, not each other. CinemaScope was certainly not designed to be used by Fox only: they realized holding a monopoly on it would not help sell their own films.

Matted widescreen came out a full five months before animorphic did, but they were deveolped simultanously for the same goal. The Photoplayer 13:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Widescreen had been suggested many times before (witness the 1930s developments of large formats), but the studios passed on the idea due to perceived costs. While television certainly motivated, widescreen as a serious method was ignored until the massive success of the Cinerama format, which the studios had passed on. After that, widescreen was viewed as a legit improvement, and at that point exploited for use against television.
While they didn't specifically compete against each other, they were all competing for the audience's attention, and hence market share. Fox specifically wanted to license its lenses out for exorbitant costs, and spent a great deal of time marketing its upcoming Cinemascope films from the moment they went into production. Fox also certainly wasn't going to let someone else debut "their" format. As there was less and less time to find an alternate and viable route for a similar widescreen solution to draw audiences, the matting solution was brought about quickly. That it was a last-minute effort is evidenced by the fact that the first films to use it were shot with the intention of being shown in 1.37, not matted. The success of Shane also helped to convince the non-Fox studios that matting would be accepted by audiences. Additionally, the rival studios certainly did not want to give additional money to Fox; along with their technical work, this was a large reason why Panavision was so readily successful among studios such as MGM - they were a non-studio third-party company. Girolamo Savonarola 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

3-perf vs. scope

The 3-perf section claims, "Most motion pictures today are shot and projected using the 4-perforation format, but cropping the top and bottom of the frames for an aspect ratio of 1.85 or 1.66." which seems to ignore the fact that many 4-perf films are in cinemascope. I don't know what fraction is (I thought it was about half?), but this text should probably be revised. Jhawkinson 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

35 mm film - EXACTLY 16 frames per foot and EXACTLY 90 feet per minute ?

It is commonly accepted within the industry (because, few people have actually done the math to verify this) that 35mm, 4 perf film is 16 frames per foot and runs at 90 feet per minute. The publications cited in this article even say that is the case. However, it isn't EXACTLY true.

Release perf pitch = 0.187 inches and There are 4 perfs per frame.

So, the length of 16 frames = .187 inches/perf x 4 perfs/frame x 16 frames = 11.968 inches

Running speed = (.187 inches/perf x 4 perfs/frame x 24 frames/second x 60 seconds/minute) /12 inches/foot = 89.76 feet/minute

Running time for a 1000 foot reel = (1000 feet/reel) / 89.76 feet/minute = 11.14 minutes = 11 minutes and 8.4 seconds

The difference isn't much and film footage counters are built to actually indicate 16 frames per foot. But, what they are really counting is integer blocks of 16 frames. Which makes the math easier when you are cutting a lot of film.

If you measured your 1000 foot reel of film using a standard film counter, instead of a standard measuring tape, it would only be 997.3 feet long and the play time would be a little less.

Clay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.71.1 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please Be Bold and fix it. It's only in the Technical section that these are mentioned, right? That section could use a bit of reworking anyhow. On the other hand, we shouldn't lose the forest for the trees — 16frames/foot and 90feet/min are useful numbers for people to keep in mind, that they shouldn't be hidden, but instead the actual information should be available if you look hard enough. Remember that pitch will shrink some over time (a lot less with polyester than acetate!), projectors will run fast/slow, etc. 11.968" versus 12.000" is a 0.3% difference...it's unimportant for most people when you get down to the 4th and 5th significant figures. jhawkinson 12:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that this isn't simply a byproduct of not having enough significant digits? Girolamo Savonarola 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first paragraph on the page says "which makes for exactly 16 frames per foot.[3]". It was the use of "exactly" that caught my attention .I agree totally with jhawkinson's comment above. The industry uses 16 frames per foot, because it is really the integer number of frames that is important when you make a film cut, and as long as everyone agrees to call 16 frames 1 foot, everything just works. There really aren't many instances where you need to care about the absolute accuracy. But, I have run across a few.

The difference isn't in the number of significant digits used. Check the appropriate SMPTE spec. for film perf pitch.

Here is a link to a document "Motion Picture Film Basics", on Kodak's web site, that has a wealth of technical information on 35 mm and other film formats: http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/education/Film_Basics.pdf

Clay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.71.1 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (Please sign your posts by typing ~~~~—thanks!)

optical soundtrack

Suddenly the soundtrack segment of Fantasia makes a lot more sense. Gazpacho 07:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Super 35 and DI

The section on the effects of DI is unclear to a lay person. Will Super 35 become obsoltete?

The DI is actually more likely to continue increasing the possibility of Super 35, since it makes an optical conversion in the intermediate stage obsolete. Each have their weaknesses, but DI is generally considered to be the better of the two if done at a high quality resolution such as 4K or higher. That being said, films shooting on anamorphic or Academy 1.85 have the advantage of being able to retain a purely contact printing-based workflow to release print, which tends to both be cheapest and highest-quality. So Academy-width is unlikely to die out. However, DI makes less-conventional formats easier to convert to projection standards. Girolamo Savonarola 11:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

duopoly, should that not be clarified?

Agfa-Grevert, still makes 35mm Print film (and sound recording film) although they gave up on Camera negative, and in fact all film on Acetate base. Only Kodak and Fuji make colour Negative anymore. I think that ORWO at least advertises 35mm B&W negative.cmacd 12:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia itself notes, In reality, this definition is generally used where two firms must only have dominant control over a market. I can't think of any recent films printed to Agfa, and Orwo, Foma, et al are generally not greatly used or easily accessible throughout most of the globe. Few would contest the fact that Kodak and Fuji are the only two companies with substantial market share at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION

The article is a credit to Wikipedia, but I've seen a small error - the usable area of super 35 film is correct in millimetres, but totally wrong in square inches - not 9+ sq inches, more like 0.4 of a sq inch, if someone could do the necessary calculations....88.110.33.31 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good spot. I've had a look at the articles history and it's been there a while. I guess everyone is thinking metric these days. Many thanks. Megapixie 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

35 mm vs film in general

A lot of this article applies to all film formats, not specifically 35 mm. Should those sections be cut and/or moved to other appropriate articles? Zocky | picture popups 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Competition from video?

I am a bit surprised to read that 35 mm is very common and the article suggests by omission that it suffers no competition from e.g. Television cameras for movies. Is this true? The article independent_film suggests otherwise. I would appreciate some expansion on (lack of) competition with digital formats. Andries 07:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Studios Shift to Digital Movies, but Not Without Resistance by SCOTT KIRSNER July 24, 2006 New York Times Andries 07:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

so-called "Souveneirng"

In these revisions User:JzG added this text:

== Souveniring == The 35mm format is compatible with domestic slide projectors. Frames removed from the film can be shown on projectors, and the absence of one frame, in a film which runs at 24 frames per second, is barely perceptible, though removal of souvenir frames is unlawful.<ref>[http://www.shocktreatmentnetwork.com/merchandise.htm Example] discussion for the movie ''[[Shock Treatment]]''</ref> Sometimes souvenir frames are claimed to be the result of sections cut from the film in order to repair a break; this may not be accurate as tears can and should be repaired and a complete intact frame should in any case not be removed as part of a repair. The practice of souveniring has declined with the increasing prevalence of [[Anamorphic]] formats.

I reverted it with this es: "rv. "Souveneiring" is not a standard term, it *IS* perceptable, should not be promoted, single frames SHOULD be removed when damage affects picture; &mere discussion of this promotes unprofessionalism"

OK, do you dispute that souveniring happens? That it is a problem? That a frame undamaged enough to function as a slide should not be taken out? I typically repaired rips in prints, but actually I rarely if ever had them because I always repared any broken sprocket holes first :-) Guy (Help!) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have several issues; I'll address your questions first and then move on
  1. I dispute that there is any significance incidence of "souveneiring." I'm aware that people sell "cells" on EBay, but I project a large amount of second-run prints and I've essentially never run into a case of this. I think those cells on EBay are generally from trailers.
  2. It would certainly be a problem if it happened. But so would all kinds of vandalism to all kinds of property; for instance we do not have a Vandalism section in Western painting.
  3. Generally speaking, if a frame has visible damage in the picture area, it is best to remove it. Of course, it depends on how much damage there is. I think this is generally speaking the industry concensus, but reasonable projectionists do disagree on this, and the question is very similar to that of whether to remove lab splices. My recollection from the last time it was discussed on Film-Tech was it was about 5:1 in favor of removing them.
  4. The very presence of this section will have a negative impact. People who never thought of doing this may think of it, and it lends credence to a terrible terrible idea that is not actually a problem right now. But putting it in here may cause it to become a problem. To put it in wikipedia-speak, it is not currently a "notable" phenomenon. This is my concern about professionalism.
  5. I have several issues with your wording. I don't think it is reasonable to say it is "compatible." yes, you can stick a 4-perf 35mm frame into an 8-perf slide mount. But it leaves a lot of empty space and it's kind of like saying that it is "compatible" with medium-format. Yes, it is "smaller."
  6. I dispute that the absence of one frame is "barely perceptible." That's a judgment, and not one I think Wikipedia should be making. For one thing, it produces a sound glitch (of varying severity depending on the splice, on the digital sound format, if any) and a picture glitch (splices are visible on-screen, generally the tape boundaries, the focus shift, and perhaps the gate-jump). Furthermore, 42ms is indeed perceptible. Not extremely, but I would say more than "barely" (this does depend on who is watching).
  7. I don't really know what people who ostensibly market these things claim, and I'm don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia (in re "claimed to be the result of sections cut from the film")
  8. The statement about whether an intact frame should be removed as part of a repair has no place here. It's a value judgment, and one that I think is unambiguously incorrect for all cases. You can argue there are plenty of cases where it is correct to leave the frame or to remove it, but I don't think you'll find many who think there is a blanket rule one way or another.
  9. Increased prevalence of anamorphic formats? I don't think we're currently seeing a rise in scope movies.
  10. Declined? I don't think we have any evidence at all on the prevalence of this supposed practice.
  11. I don't think your reference is appropriately canonical.

So, I think the text you have proposed is not very good, and I don't support having any text about this in there at all. But if there has to be something (and I think it is wrong!) it should be correct and verifiable. So, again, I'm going to revert this. jhawkinson (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

When I was a projectionist, most of the big name films we got in US wide and other non-anamorphic formats had souvenir frames missing; anamorphic prints are horizontally compressed if shown without the right lens, so look odd (and showing an academy ratio print through a scope anamorph is also amusing). The print we got of Kelly's Heroes ran nearly seven minutes short, and a lot of that was souveniring. It's much more common once the print goes on distribution to clubs and societies, though. 1/24s of missing film is not generally perceptible, in my experience. I reviewed a number of sites discussing film restoration, it seems to be the case that repair is still preferred over removal of a frame. The longest tear I repaired spanned 12 frames, the film arrived broken (very unusual). Guy (Help!) 09:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you know they were souvenir frames missing, rather than lab splices or severe runs of damaged film? There is sadly lots of opportunity for 1970s-era titles to have been damaged (even seen a takeup fail and see film get wrapped around the lower constant-speed sprocket in the soundhead, filling up the cabinet?). But in any case, Wikipedia is Not For Original Research. As I said, repair versus removal is somewhat of a judgment call in each case, but an absolute statement isn't warranted (I really don't think that you're going to find people advocating leaving white horizonal "lightning bolts" in...). If you could substantiate it from an authoritative source... I know what anamorphic movies are, but I've never heard it claimed they have more missing footage than flat films. But in any case, my overarching point is the one numbered (4) above: this practice is not "notable" or of significant incidence, and noting specific ways that vandalism can happen only encourages that sort of vandalism. jhawkinson (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with most of Jhawkinson's points. The article is about the general development and specifications of the film format, not possible outside applications not pertinent to the format itself. (Ie, there's nothing about the practice which suggests it wouldn't also have occurred in 16mm prints, amongst others.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why 35mm? Why not 1 3/8"?

Great article, and a credit to Wikipedia. But one thing's puzzling me. It seems fairly clear that, being American, Dickson and Eastman would have measured and referred to their film stock as 1 3/8" rather than 35mm. So how and why did the standard become known as 35mm? Does anybody know? It seems to me that this nugget of information would be a relevant addition to the article, if anybody could unearth it... Stewart Robertson 10:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing mysterious to “unearth”. Metric System is the universal scientific measurement method and much more accurate that any local old middle ages mumble jumble. So, for something to be comprehended internationally –and scientifically- has to be expressed with Metric System.--201.252.45.42 (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

George Eastman, like Alexander Graham Bell and others loathed US customary measures and didn't use them. Eastman wanted his film to be 35 mm and 35 mm it really is. The 1 3/8 is a fiction initiated by metric haters who think if they tell a lie often enough and others believe it, then it must be true. Just because something originates in the US doesn't mean the developers used obsolete units of measure. Many to this day use metric behind the scenes and keep it hidden from the Luddites.

Removal from marketplace of Kodak's Kodachrome(r) Brand of Image Film

On June 22, 2009 the Kodak Corp announced that it was retiring the Kodachrome manufacturing process. [see link here] http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2709&gpcid=0900688a80b4e692&ignoreLocale=true&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=5096

So with this I researched the differences that would be missing, and found the article (Main) had the descriptive about the 3 layers of filtered emulsion, that would comprize the other types of film. To this articleI have added the Exception, as I see that Kodachrome, was not the same type of film, and should be noted as such.TerrificInTahoma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC).

However, I'm pretty sure this announcement referred to 35mm still photography film. 16mm Kodachrome has been off the market for some years now, and 35mm Kodachrome for motion picture used was abandoned decades ago. The Photoplayer 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation for "law" requiring use of safety film in 16 and 8mm

This is a great article. One line struck me though, in "Amateur Interest": " By law, both 16 mm and 8 mm gauge stock (as well as 35 mm films intended for non-theatrical use) had to be manufactured on safety stock." My question is, What law, when? In one country? Initially, back in the early 20's when Kodak introduced safety film for 16 mm, this was initiated by Kodak, as far as I've ever read, it was not initiated by any governmental action. Later, in the safety film section, there is no mention of any legislation or governmental regulations about safety film for 8 and 16 mm. 8 and 16 mm were always safety films, but that wasn't caused by legislation. I think this should be sourced and cited. But I don't want to change the entry, as I don't know for sure if there was a law covering this or not. StevenBradford (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this needs better citation. Additionally, this may need some clarification. A quick online search shows a few links that provide circumstantial indications
  • [2] - Nitrate films required two projectionists by law in Massachusetts
  • [3] - US agencies holding nitrate film base items must follow strict handling and preservation procedures
  • [4] - etc
This is all in a modern context, however, mainly relating to storage and projection. There were other laws that can be cited, such as the London Underground prohibiting all transport of motion picture film well into the 1950s. As for amateur films, this may require more research, possibly offline by someone with better access to historical legal codes. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, here is a better link, although it doesn't cite its own claim, nor is it an academic paper, despite the Stanford provenance. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Movie vs still film

What is the relationship between 35mm movie film and 35mm photo film? Are they the same? Well, other than both being about 35mm wide, no. Camera film doesn't generally have a sound track, for example. --LDC

They are pretty much the same. 35mm movie film sometimes uses slightly differently shaped perforations to go through the projector better (I'll go into that after I find where I put my old textbooks), but the main difference is in the numbers and whatnot that are printed along the edges of the film: movie film has keykode, still film has frame numbers. But there's no substantive difference to their function; it is common for cinematographers to test out film stocks by buying motion picture film that has been cut and put into canisters, then shoot some test pictures with a still camera. The size of the frame and the presence or absence of the soundtracks is a matter of what's put onto the film when you use it, not an intrinsic difference. Brion VIBBER, Friday, March 29, 2002

The original Leica (the first 35mm camera) was build to use standard 35mm movie film packaged in a cartrige. The standard cartrige we still use now. Emulsion may differs magnetic track could be added for movie but that's the same film format. Ericd 00:25 Sep 7, 2002 (UCT)

Movie film is exposed in the camera by passing the film behind the lens vertically in relation to the surface the camera is on, whereas still film passes horizontally behind the lens. In other words, the perforations of movie film are on the sides of the exposed frames, but the perfs on still film are on the top and bottom of the frames.Thomprod 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't 135 just a reference to 35mm film being in a spooled light-trapped housing, then followed by a hyphen and estimated frame amount, based on the most likely still camera aspect ratio, the length of film will have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.200.180 (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

35mm film vs. HDTV

I saw an interesting article on BBC about cinemas starting to use 1080p HDTV instead of 35mm film: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5262456.stm

Maybe an idea to include a comparison between 35mm film and it's new digital counterpart? -- 194.247.44.135 12:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The exhibition side of the film industry is now changing to digital projection, currently about 1/3rd of UK cinema screens have digital, rather than film, projectors. By 2013 the expectation is that over 75% of UK screens will be digital and that new releases will be increasingly offered as "digital only", no film prints being available. I understand that this rate of conversion is similar in other ""first-world" countries. The change-over is being driven by the film distributors, who stand to save a lot of money by cutting back on the cost of buying film prints.

Although in theory 35mm offers better resolution than 2K digital, in practice the difference is not evident in normal exhibition, and the new 4K digital projectors will wipe that out when they come on-stream. Dyed-in-the-wool film types like to claim that film has a 'certain something' that digital could never match, but ordinary film goers don't seem to be aware of it. Certainly 3D works better with digital, which is why the current resurgence of interest in 3D has come now, riding on the switch to digital projection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlooser (talk • contribs) 12:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Davidlooser (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Aspect Ratios Image

The picture comparing aspect ratios needs to be updated.

Cinemascope should be replaced with anamorphic. Cinemascope is a proprietary (and now defunct) process of 20th Century Fox. Anamorphic is the technical term used to describe all anamorphic processes. The aspect ratio should also be updated from 2.39:1 to the more accurate 2.35:1.

Also, the 4:3 television image area should be removed from all examples. It was more common to crop the sides of a widescreen frame off when displaying widescreen images on a 4:3 television than show areas outside the widescreen frame. Because of this, the area of the widescreen frame shown could be taken anywhere from the original widescreen image, not just the center of it. This was a process called pan and scan. Further, it's simply unnecessary to show 4:3 television frames at all, as the article is talking about film aspect ratios.

I would do this myself, but I'm not certain how to do so. If someone can direct me to instructions on how to do this, I'll gladly do it myself or someone who already knows how to do this can feel free to make the changes. Thanks. Filmnuts (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Article scope

As just a lay reader, I find the scope of this article, and the article on 35 mm still film, to be deeply confusing, and it does not address the subject named in the title. I expect this issue is being worked on, since it seems to be the only non-crossed-out item in the list of to-do items, at top.

The two problems as they stand are: One, an article titled "35 mm film" ought to be about just that. Instead, it is limited to 35 mm motion picture film, and of course it is profoundly technical. It's as if an article on the Civil War dealt only with the Confederacy or with the United States, not both; and furthermore delved into, say, battleship designs.

Two, to make matters worse, the article on 35 mm still-photography film has the converse problem--it ought to be called by the phrase I just used; instead it's titled "135 film", namely, it's apparently limited to Kodak's subset of the 35 mm film world. It's as if an article about the entire Confederacy were titled, say, "Secession". It ought to be called, and its scope ought to be, "35 mm still-photography film."

I came to the present article simply to read about and understand the important milestones of all 35 mm film--motion-picture and still. I find it unreasonable that I can't read that overview in one article. I was utterly dumbfounded, for example, to find an article having the title "35 mm film" never even mentions Kodachrome.

Moreover, this article mixes history and description--and even prescription, what with the plethora of format specifications. The person wishing to read about the overall history of 35 mm film most definitely does not want to be told about detailed data on sprocket holes.

Hence, you should offload the vastly detailed motion-picture content--by all means keeping all that detail--to another article.

So as I see it, you need three articles: "35 mm film," "35 mm motion-picture film," and "35 mm still-photography film." The current article titled "135 film" can also remain, if you wish to treat Kodak's 35 mm products as a separate topic.

As I said, I suspect this issue's being worked on.

Jimlue (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

History of film

This topic is especially pertinent as I'm in progress on an article on the history of color film right now. I have some question about the attribution of "invention" to certain people. The sources that I have credit George Eastman for the creation of the clear nitrocellulose base film (or a nameless worker for Eastman). I understand that Hannibal Goodwin invented it in 1887 (based on one credible source PBS), but if there wasn't an early connection between Goodwin's invention and Eastman's - even though Goodwin won (or it was won in his name posthumously) the law suit for patent infringement - this doesn't say that Eastman didn't invent the same object. Unless Goodwin's nitrocellulose was used by Eastman (stolen, borrowed, given, inspired by - whatever), then it should be noted that it was an Eastman invention (simultaneous with Goodwin) as Eastman is the most notable influence on the motion picture industry. The same goes for Charles-Émile Reynaud, who is said to have invented the concept of perforated film - but if he did so in France and Eastman did the same thing in Rochester (unbeknownst to each other) than Eastman is still the inventor of perforated film for all intents and purposes with respect to the film industry (especially since this source biography states that Reynaud invented perforations the same year as Eastman (1889) (although this biography states 1892 - three years after Eastman/Edison). Unless a connection can be established between Eastman and these individuals - then the attribution for "invention of" should go to Eastman with mere afterthoughts that others invented the same item at nearly the same time. For instance, it is known that the Lumiere brothers saw Edison/Eastman's Kinetoscope and ran off to do their own experimenting and invented the projector - there's a direct connection there. I think we need to find a source that makes a connection between Eastman and Goodwin/Reynaud PRIOR to Eastman's "invention" of these two crucial elements to attribute the inventions to them; preferably a published resource, not a website (as I inherently distrust the Internet). LACameraman 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may interfere: Look at the people as what they were and did. George Eastman was a bank clerk. He knew little about chemistry, physics or machine engineering. The first celluloïd roll films he sold was produced by Englishman George Alfred Blair in Kent, England. The invention of film is Goodwin´s property. Eastman bought so many things together like Edison, his mugger colleague, who also was a true ignorant in respect of physics. Eastman, for instance, bought the roll film and the roll film holder from Turner, an American camera maker, for $ 40´000. Don´t believe too much of what Eastman-Kodak marketing men try to spread. On the contrary, Dickson was a thoroughly trained technician, Edison´s house photographer. He, and no one else, devised a camera (Kinetograph), a printer (sprocket continuous drive), a viewer (Kinetoscope), and much more.
Reynaud was on optician. His Praxinoscope dates from 1878. Father Lumière experienced it then at the world fair in Paris. One connection lies in Dickson. He spoke English and French. He travelled and met with Marey. Another lies with Le Prince. Le Prince spoke French, German, English at the minimum. Read the SMPTE Journal, August 1990, pages 652 through 661, John Belton: The Origins of 35mm Film as a Standard. --Filmtechniker 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this Blair bio would seem to indicate otherwise wrt Blair/Eastman. Eastman had created a roll film holder, paper-based roll film, and a camera well before Blair even was on his feet. Most of the early Dickson tests were with Carbutt or Eastman film. And I don't see that what one does to earn a living is necessarily directly correlative to their capacity to be scientifically innovative. Einstein was a patent clerk, Lavoisier was a tax collector. For that matter, how much does Steve Jobs or Bill Gates actually understand about the underlying code for their systems anymore? It's not really relevant - it is assumed that all corporations (or even labs) contain bosses and employees, idea men and technicians, etc. Sometimes these boundaries are less distinct than others. PhD-level university-funded biologists don't actually do the lab work today either. Synecdoche, if you will.... Girolamo Savonarola 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My dearest friend, how true! You don´t see that what one does is necessarily correlative to your capacity: I write about a George Alfred Blair of England. You appear to try puzzling me with the name of Thomas Henry Blair, an American. That a Philosophiae Doctor not does the laboratory work today is, to my personal belief, a shame. Look at Einstein, wasn´t it his wife, Maleva, who countercomputed everything her husband had sketched ? She was by far the better mathematician than him. No wife, no “Einstein”. And, contrary to Gates´ case, Dickson did his work alone. No lobbies, no secret organisation behind. --Filmtechniker 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

35 mm film in television production

Changeing the subject a bit, 35mm film was used by the BBC as well as 16mm film in the 1960's for television programmes. As far as I know for Doctor Who, an episode of The Dominators is held on 35mm film as well as one episode of The War Games. But the BBC has chose to have duplicute copies on 16mm film which sujests in broadcasting terms 35mm film was not used as much or maybe not considered as important as 16mm Film. J2F Duck (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

On the use of 16 vs 35 mm. In America since the major studios began to finally consider TV as a viable market for Production product, they already had the entire infrastructure dedicated to 35mm assembly from top to bottom. Mitchell Cameras, 35 Dolly's Lighting, Cinematographers, editors, developing, budgeting... just no incentive to switch to the smaller, more touchy medium. But in terms of Resolution, 35mm is overkill on NTSC tv. Only 525 horizontal lines for vertical resolution... 35mm is charted at more than 2,000 lines in either direction. & 16mm is close to that. Also 16mm equipment is lighter & uses a smaller crew for location shooting. So for the smaller budgets of various BBC productions, & the acceptable image quality of the 16mm transfered to PAL, (Also enhanced by the fact that at 25 FPS British film could be transfered to 50 hertz PAL without needing a 2/3 pulldown- resulting in a cleaner transfer) The United Kingdom TV producers found cost savings in Shooting long scene interiors in multi camera PAL format- then switching to single camera film style shooting for exteriors. Unless the production was intended for USA release- (i.e. "The Prisoner" or "Avengers") then they would go 35mm all the way. 71.6.81.62 (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) MBD 71.6.81.62 (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What I am still waiting for is an article on 35 mm film in television production. At a minimum we should have some section somewhere to redirect it to. It is not helpful to link television shows to an article with a photo of 135 film cassette as the top image. We should also have a category for Television programmes shot on 35 mm film or something.
The reason this is of general interest now is that anything produced using traditional television production methods with interleave absolutely sucks when shown on today's flat panel television sets. Television shows from the 1960s shot on 35 mm would however look absolutely stunning on HDTV and Blu-ray. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 35 mm film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 35 mm film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 35 mm film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 35 mm film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 35 mm film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Can it be comparable with megapixels?

Can 35 mm film be comparable with mega-pixels? there is a myth going about people say it has infinite resolution. But I believe it cant be more than 10-20 mp ? --95.173.244.106 (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The estimated value of 20.8 MP given in the first section applies to 35mm film for photography where the 24*36mm image is oriented longitudinally on the film. As 35mm film for movies is exposed rotated by 90°, this value is reduced further as the covered area is smaller. Not taken the audio tracks into account, the value would reduce roughly to only about 20.8/(24*36)*(24*24*2/3)=9.24 MP for a 3:2 format. 77.119.131.151 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the first section now reads: "The ubiquity of 35 mm movie projectors in commercial movie theaters made 35 mm the only motion picture format that could be played in almost any cinema in the world, until digital projection largely superseded it in the 21st century. It is difficult to compare the quality of film to digital media but a good estimate would be about 33.6 megapixels (67.2 megapixels DSLR Bayer equivelent) would equal one 35 millimeter high quality color frame of film.[12][13]" I am digitizing 35 film (still film) on a regular basis. 33 MP is not even remotely possible with any 35mm film I have used in the past years. How do I know that? I use a 36.3MP camera for digitizing, I am always able to focus on the grain and resolve the grain in my digital raw file. So 33 MP are impossible on still 35mm, and thus totally impossible on 35mm movie film due to the frame orientation which results in a smaller area! Anyway, standard digital movie projection is somewhere around 2MP. So the whole paragraph does not make sense to me. Furthermore, [12] links to a forum, [13] to a questionable Q&A. How are these credible sources? [13] states 'around' 20MP, waht is the source for the 33MP? 178.115.129.55 (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: 35mm articles

Currently, I think our coverage of the various formats referred to as "35mm" is a mess. We have four articles:

  • 35 mm film, on the movie film
  • 135 film, on the still photographic film
  • 35mm format, on the 36×24 mm size in still photographic film or digital photography
  • Full frame, on a particular gate size of the movie film

I think it is safe to say that the topic of each article is not readily apparent from its title. There are several issues I'd like to address:

  1. Do we really need four articles? I'm open to any solutions, such as merging existing articles, moving things around, creating new overview articles or disambiguation pages, etc.
  2. Is there a less confusing way to title the articles? If you google "35mm film" or "35 mm film", almost all of the top results discuss the still photographic film, suggesting to me that the movie film is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term. Likewise, "Full frame" should probably be turned into a disambiguation page based on a cursory Google search.
  3. We have one article called "35 mm film", and another called "35mm format". Should there be a space between "35" and "mm"?

Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • My vote is to merge all of the articles into a single "35mm film" article (with no space between "35" and "mm"). Qono (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • From a quick glance at the articles, merge 135 film, 35mm format, and Full frame. The 135 film article seems to be the proper base article, but the name is obscure. The other two articles are quite small and should be mergeable (if not already contained in the 135 article). 35 mm photo format, albeit verbose, comes closer to what a descriptive name would be. The article 35 mm film, however, seems separate. I'd suggest rename that article to something like 35 mm movie film (it is specific to film, the digital world having moved to pixels to describe motion resolutions). Tarl N. (discuss) 06:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with all of Tarl N's suggestions, except that I don't think there should be a space between "35" and "mm". My quick Google search almost exclusively returned "35mm". Someone made a good argument for this in 2014 at Talk:35mm format. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Proposal: Move 35 mm film to 35mm movie film. Move 135 film to 35mm filmsee below and merge 35mm format into that article as a section. Merge the content of Full frame into 35mm movie film as a section, and then turn it into a disambiguation between Full-frame digital SLR and links to the newly created sections in 35mm film and 35mm movie film. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    Agree. Qono (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    Ditto. Whether the content from frame goes into still or movie is largely secondary. This is having the whiff of consensus... Tarl N. (discuss) 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    Mostly agree but I think that 135 film should be moved to something less ambiguous, like 35mm photo film. I think a problem with the above proposal is that all the current links to 35mm film, which presumably are referring to the movie film, will suddenly be linked to an article about the photo film. 35mm film itself should maybe be a disambiguation? Or a redirect? --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    In that case keeping 135 film where it is would be fine with me as well. We can turn 35mm film into a disambiguation page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    On that, we disagree. 135 film may be a technically correct title, but it is obscure. As someone who shot 35 mm photos for decades before digital arrived, I never heard it called that, and certainly today most people won't have heard that name. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    It's an official name which is used with reasonable frequency and provides natural disambiguation, much like Association football. But instead of derailing this discussion over a naming issue, how about we leave it there for now (as the default option), and after the various merges are completed you can start an WP:RM on Talk:135 film? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There are three distinct and separate topics here, 1: the actual film material (used for both still and movies), 2: the 24x36mm size of the frame used in still photography, and 3: the movie "full frame" format. Merging everything would make a quite messy article. IMO, 35 mm film and Full frame could very well be merged, but not the others. --Janke | Talk 07:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    Interesting, I think I see what you mean, but it doesn't seem that the current articles correspond with your three topics. What would you think about merging 135 film and 35 mm format? I think they both fall under your topic #2. Take this quote from 135 film as an example: "The term 135 format usually refers to a 36×24 mm film format, commonly known as 35 mm format. The 36×24 mm format is common to digital image sensors, where it is typically referred to as full frame format." --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    I think the main problem is that we don't have a good title for an article on the 36x24mm format, if we decide we still wanted to retain one. For example, Medium format is unambiguous and covers different types of physical media on which an image of such size is commonly shot, including 120 film, 220 film, and medium-format digital. What do we call 36x24mm? Anything with "35mm" in it is bound to cause confusion with the various things called 35mm. "Full frame" is also an ambiguous term. "Small format" exists by analogy to medium and large format but is not commonly used at all. I think it's not too much of a loss to cover the format in the 135 film article, because 99% of the time 135 film is shot in a 3:2 aspect ratio. This would be analogous to what we have with APS: an article on the film (Advanced Photo System), an article on the digital sensor size (APS-C), but no article covering the size as a whole across film and digital, which is fine since the information is already in the two separate articles anyways. The main distinction here with medium/large format (which do have their own articles on the size itself) is that while each of those two comprises a broad category of sizes, the concept of a "small format" stretching from, say, smartphone sensor to full frame just isn't attested in the literature.
    As to Janke's 3rd item, the movie "full frame" is clearly a distinct concept but it is so obscure that I think it is better as a section in the article on 35mm movie film. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

All four of these articles deal with similar topics and none of them are beyond Wikipedia's article limit constraints. I think that they could all be profitably merged. As for the title of the potential mega-merger, several very good choices have been proposed. I personally lean towards Qono's suggestion of using this article entitled "35 mm film".Eliteplus (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with merge of Full frame – surely the article would be better made into something that might include Half frame and other subformats of 135. This has enough meat (or potential meat) to warrant its own article, rather than be relegated to subsections of film formats or scattered within half-frame camera. In general if an article would contain multiple sections independent of say a parent category, as 35 mm might apart from 135 (or in the extreme 'France' apart from 'country', then it should have its own page. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
What particular meaning of "Full frame" do you think we should have an article on? The current content there is clearly not the most common use of the term "Full frame." As for covering all meanings in one article: yes, there are some cases where it might work (e.g. Football), but absent a clear plan such general-concept articles are frowned upon. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Actions taken

Per the discussion above, I've taken a few actions which should not be controversial in my opinion:

I'm still not entirely happy with 35mm format, but I haven't thought of a better alternative yet. Thoughts? Any further actions to take (in general)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your first move squeezed out the space in "35 mm" that required by standard SI usage norms. Can we fix that please? Dicklyon (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I think "35mm film" is a more WP:COMMONNAME; it gets 6.47 million GHits compared to 3.68 million for "35 mm film". At this point I think it's become a fixed term rather than an actual unit of measurement; for example, you can refer to a full-frame DSLR sensor which measures 36 x 24 mm as a "35mm sensor" even though no part of the sensor actually measures 35 mm. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
COMMONNAME doesn't mandate that we adopt common errors. It makes more sense to follow standard usage guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:35_mm_movie_film/Archive_1&oldid=1164854954"