Talk:List of motion picture film stocks

No release print stocks?

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done jhawkinson 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agfa R-stock

Leni Riefenstahl mentions the use of a special Agfa film that she used in "The Blue Light" that she calls R-stock. With the use of a red filter on the camera, blues are converted to blacks, so she could shoot the scenes on the mountain in daylight and they would seem to be at night. These scenes were tinted blue in the release print. 52.119.118.14 (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Color Film?

There is a chinese film manufacturer (which kodak invested in but pulled out) that sells b&w and color negative films in 35mm still size... they also sell "pancake" 1000 to 2000 ft rolls of the b&w and color films, which could be used for motion picture work - I'm trying to buy some and waiting for the company to contact me back, I also noticed they have a page that describes color positive film they sell comparable to kodak films (with code numbers) in 8mm, 16mm and 35mm and other sizes, definately for motion picture work.

Information is here - http://www.luckyfilm.com/eng/products_1_3.html and here - http://www.luckyfilm.com/eng/products_1_1.html and here - http://www.luckyfilm.com/eng/products_2_1.html

If more information can be obtained it would be noteworthy for other film producers as a resource to list these on wiki as viable products, as stills their film seems quite good, they also sell chemicals for processing, it would be interesing to see if we could get more information out of them.

--Athiril —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athiril (talk • contribs) 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got contacted back by a representative of Lucky Film Corp stating they no longer produce colour positive materials (unfortunately), but is able to supply GBR100 and GBR400 (2 of their C41 colour stocks) in large rolls, will update when I get more info etc.

I do think its worthwhile adding after more info is obtained, since to get Fuji Motion Picture Stock in Australia, Fuji's official contact is a single mobile phone number, everyone goes through the one guy..

--Athiril —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.68.73 (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on List of motion picture film stocks. 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:

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of motion picture film stocks. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625062139/http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Chronology_Of_Film/chrono2.htm to http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Chronology_Of_Film/chrono2.htm

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) 07:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of motion picture film stocks. 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) 15:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]