User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 2

List of Film Formats

Wow!

Um... Okay - that's waaay beyond my sphere of knowledge. Quite an impressive list, for sure. I think you'd give Rob Hummel (often affectionately referred to as "Dr. Format") a serious run for his money. Wow, again. An impressive list - about 90% of which I have never heard of. Anything I thought of (Circarama (which you could credit to Roger Brogge and Don Iwerks), Univisium, TechniScope - and the obvious ones: Vistavision, etc.) you already had on the list. Although my research (for an article in 1999) put TechniScope as an invention of Technicolor Italia in 1963 ( - found my source right away... "The Complete Film Dictionary" Konigsberg, Ira Signet/Meridian Press 1987 pp. 372-373), you have it down as 1960; I'll defer to you on that one. The only thing I might add is Multivision, but that was merely a reincarnation of Techniscope in 99 (the reason for the article), which - according to your specs - may reject it from consideration (although we should add a note on the Techniscope page as to the brief reincarnation. I'm also not sure about listing Univisium as a 25fps format.

Ooo! Found one - Circarama was reinvented in 1960 to cut down 11 cameras to 9 Arriflex cameras with larger capacity magazines that were mounted vertically and pointed into an array of front surfaced mirrors mounted at a 45 degree angle. That was for a Fiat Motor Company film. Don Iwerks was one of the engineers behind that. I'm fairly certain it remained a 16mm format, but don't have any further info.

After seeing this list, I no longer argue the semantical usage of "format" with you. :)

All the best, LACameraman 10:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to your notes on my talk page. All the best, LACameraman 06:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail... Sort of. More responses on my talk page. All the best, LACameraman 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of film formats changes

Thanks for catching the Pharaoh's Woman typo! I'm not entirely sure I understand your edits to the link names, though. 8mm vs 8 mm, perhaps, but why 8 mm instead of 8 mm? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct wikipedia formatting has a non-breaking space for units such as millimetres, so I'm correcting them as part of my misspelling correction. In this case it's probably unnecessary to correct them, but they don't break the links, so I haven't bothered to cancel those changes. Rjwilmsi 18:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics? I'm always up for some antics!

Great googily-moogily. You've gotten yourself into quite the debate there on Talk:Univisium. After reading, I whole-heartedly agree with your stance. I wrote three responses, hopefully that will shed some light on the situation. All the best, LACameraman 06:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo-boy... Okay... Now I've got this can of worms here... My proposal for major revision to the Univisium article is on the Talk:Univisium page. Looks like this is a solid candidate for the first Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films technical article revsions that you suggested. See what you started? :) LACameraman 11:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, I'd appreciate taking a look at the revisions to the Univisium article. LACameraman 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got your note.

About the wikiproject. As you might notice my edits have really dropped off in the past year. Originally I wrote match moving and did some diagrams and stuff for timelapse if there is a specific topic that needs work, perhaps I can be motivated. --Plowboylifestyle 02:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Digital Interface

I notice you added, then removed, {{WikiProject Filmmaking}} to the article Serial Digital Interface. While it may be outside the scope of your WikiProject, various forms of the SDI interface (especially 1.5 Gb/s and 3 Gb/s versions) are used in filmmaking (by which I mean the production of motion pictures, regardless of the capture medium) when digital rather than chemical imaging and processing is performed. --EngineerScotty 17:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikiproject filmmaking template

OK. --Srleffler 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe increasing the quality of an article like this one Film could be your first major project. (Or would it be out of scope?) Hehe. :) --P-Chan 15:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color film (motion picture)

G -

Many thanks for your extraordinary edits on the new Color film (motion picture) article. Not only did you catch my zillion-and-one typos and bad spelling - but you made some great additions. Thanks for all your work. LACameraman 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working schedule

G- Thanks for the schedule news, I appreciate that. I'm starting a show on the 17th for about four months, so we'll both be in the same boat. I'll be doing a lot more watching and making small additions/revisions than making major changes or writing new articles. Nature of the beast. Have a good shoot. LACameraman 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion Collection essays

Thank you for your work inserting the links to these into the respective movie articles. I enjoy reading them and your efforts are making them easier to find. I hate to push my (our?) luck, but would you think it useful to also insert links to the Roger Ebert reviews? (I'd hate to see someone start deciding that all of these "reviews" links needed to go.)

Thanks again!

Atlant 12:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

35 mm film

Thanks for your note. It appears someone else has already modified the image - Greetings, --Janke | Talk 05:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

35mm FAC

Thanks for looking at my previous comments. I've left a reply on the nomination page. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 10:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New comments and I've added my support. Thanks for your time. darkliight^[πalk] 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on the 35mm FAC. I'm sorry I haven't been around more. I'll try to keep a tighter eye on the FAC process and further comments to help out. Great work. LACameraman 18:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing Pumpkins

Thanks for the kind words, and I too want to see this reach FA status at some point. I do think it's close, but there are a few things I feel definitely need to be taken care of before we list it:

1. More soundclips. So far they only come from SD and MCIS. I particularly think the article needs "I Am One" and "Perfect".
2. "Musical style and influences" section. This is something I've been putting off for a bit, mainly waiting to buy a book that has some choice quotes about the influence of shoegaze and particularly My Bloody Valentine on the band (particularly notable: Corgan hired Alan Moulder, who also went on to produce MCIS, to engineer SD because he liked the sound of the Creation Records albums he had done).
3. I really hope someone rewrites that MACHINA paragraph. It's really fannish and unverifiable as it stands, and I've been looking at ways to rewrite it but I haven't come up with anything yet.

If you can help with these aspects or find someone who can, that'd be much appreciated. WesleyDodds 01:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh???

What are you talking about dude? You are breaking my heart. Me and my friend worked on that article for a long time! Courtney Akins 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Do you want to write the article with me to help us improve it so it will be one of wikipedia's best?Courtney Akins 02:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about reposting? I haven't done that have I?Courtney Akins 02:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No i meant that it will be kept after consensus is reached to keep it. You yourself said you thought it was a "weak keep." Sorry about the misunderstanding. Why dont you go vote yourself? Thanks,Courtney Akins 02:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep

So what do you have to say about that? Are you saying that the films now don't exist? That's how fanatic you are about deleting all our hard work.Courtney Akins 03:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WikiProjects

Off the top of my head, WP:TROP is a great place to borrow ideas from; I'll see if I can think of any others.

As for your other questions: I'm actually starting on a proposal that would address many of them; I'd be very interested in your comments on it. Do you think it's something worth doing? Kirill Lokshin 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no; it's not really intended as a peer review. It would act, in my view as a discussion forum, but not only that (it could be interpreted, in some sense, as a WikiProject on WikiProjects). In particular, the very first objective—"Provide recommendations on current best practices in WikiProject structure and operation"—would be what you're interested in: an overview/essay/guide to the various aspects of running a functional project. Hope that's a bit clearer :-) Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite plausible; I would actually go further and say that WikiProjects—which act as natural collections of the primary encyclopedia-writing editors—should try to take a more active role in policy formation, rather than leaving it to people who work primarily on policy rather than content. Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of color film systems

Take a look at the new List of color film systems I'm putting together. It's incomplete as of now, but any input would be appreciated. Thanks! -The Photoplayer 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: 35mm film FAC

Hi Girolamo,

Thanks for the quick and courteous response. I must admit that I didn't have a lot of time to read the article (that's why that thing about widescreen competition slipped through), but it certainly looks like FA material to me. Green451 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 perfs - G, My source was a simple one for confirming it - I pulled out a piece of film and set it down next to a ruler. :) 6 perfs per inch. The reason it doesn't work out cleanly, mathematically, is that 6 perfs fit into one inch from the top of the first perf to the bottom of the sixth - not counting for space between the 6th and 7th perfs and 0 and 1st perfs. Take a look at [1] - it's a big image, but 100% to scale. You'll see how it works out. LACameraman 06:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for eavesdropping. So it's really 1 1/8 inch per 6 perfs - or 64 per foot. Actually looking at the photo 16 frames x 4 perfs frame = 12 inches approximately (though not exactly). Interesting. Megapixie 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes - it is exactly 16 (4-perf) frames per foot. Girolamo Savonarola 08:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest films

Hello Girolamo

I feel sure that you have it on your watchlist but I just wanted to let you know that I have added a few points to the longest films discussion page about Fassbinder's Berlin Alexanderplatz. I am not going to fill up your discussion page repeating them, but I did want to leave a couple of other notes.

First, you may want to check the War and Peace page. User:Kmorozov made an extensive entry going into the original release of the film and its actual runtime, which conflicts with IMDb's and the longest films page data. Also, his edits runtimes for the four parts do add up to 484 minutes but I think that the 255 minutes listed for part two is actually part one and two added together. The info for the full length DVD release at Image Entertainments website actually lists there version at 431 minutes. There is an informative message board at IMDb discussing these conflicting runtimes that you can connect to here [[2]].

One other thing, I saw The Best of Youth in Seattle and Denver, and heard from friends in New York who I recommended it to, and none of us had a six hour screening. I mean the sound of kidneys bursting at the four and a half hour mark would have been very distracting. I am not doubting your entry but I could not resist typing this joke.

Cheers and thanks for the good work you put in here at wikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How things are...

Girolamo -

Crazy on my end, too. I wound up replacing a good friend on a tv show for the rest of the season - working through October. Been sneaking in here once or twice a week - but looks like everything is under control. Come November I should be able to get active again. Was very happy to see the 35mm FAC coming along. Much work to do, of course, but need the "free" time to do so. Good to hear from you, glad you're staying busy. Thanks for all the hard work on keeping up with the FAC suggestions, hopefully I can be much more active on the next one. All the best, LACameraman 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 35mm film

I'm glad the article has achieved a featured status. It is one of the most well written articles that I've participated on in recent months. Good job.

As for the addition to the color section, I'm at odds here: on one hand, discussing color photography in 35mm is critical, but on the other hand, we've got many other great articles that go in depth as to how and when it was/is done. However, if we're going to name names and be that specific about Technicolor in the article, it's important to add the events that worked up to it. Prizma and Cinecolor are VERY important to the history of color photography. Prizma most of all because while relatively forgotten today (mostly due to incomplete reference books), it is THE color system of which dozens of other color systems (including Technicolor, to which they had a lawsuit with in 1923) stem from. So either we should cut down the specifics on how the color systems worked and perhaps focus on chronology, instead. I think that will moderate that section and if anyone is interested past that point, they can click on the article links. --The Photoplayer 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that note is better suited for Color film (motion picture) than 35mm film? LACameraman 17:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is sorta what I was aiming for. It's not that I doubt that those technologies were important in the development of color cinematography, but I don't think they're important enough for the 35mm film article - that's all. Just like I don't think that the hypergonar lens development in the 1920's is important enough to be mentioned when discussing anamorphic within this article; clearly it was CinemaScope that had the impact; Chretien's system should be elaborated within the anamorphic article. Likewise, I think its fair to concede that Technicolor deserves to be mentioned as it was both groundbreaking technically and vastly more successful than any other process, to the degree that the 3-strip system is still well known more than 50 years after its obsolescence. That's a crucial difference. Again, I'm not saying that the information itself is irrelevant - I'm saying that it's not relevant enough for this particular article, and especially as some of that info (to my recollection) hadn't yet even appeared in such depth in the color film article. In my opinion, when an article section starts with a main article link, it means that the section will give a general summary of the topic as it relates to the article its in, and then allows the readers to follow the main article link to read more in depth. Girolamo Savonarola 20:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:thanks

You're welcome :) — Moe Epsilon 22:58 September 11 '06 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SP discography

It's not a personal issue. It's only that I couldn't assume good faith when the editor seemed to have a thing for going to various discography pages and tagging them without any comment. Now that they have finally been drawn out to provide specific reasons, I'm happy to have it tagged. I probably jumped the gun and didn't directly contact them as I noticed you did to try and get some reasoning behind the cleanup tag. I was frustrated that someone would go about tagging articles without any sort of constructive or helpful dialog to go along with the tag, that just seemed rather unproductive to me. Cjosefy 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing Pumpkins

Look, we've resolved the matter for now - let's just keep cool and edit the article. :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed =) SOADLuver 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking

Hi, thanks for inviting me, I feel honored. However, I planned to spend less time on the wikipedia in the future, so I will watch the progression of the project from the sidelines. Good luck! Peter S. 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: rough cut article

I just wrote my reactions to the rough cut article on the talk page. Thanks for the compliments. --GHcool 06:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production sound mixer

Fantastic job of merging the article on location sound recordist with production sound mixer. --GHcool 21:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Scope

Hi, when I sign up I looked at the project scope that says jobs frequently involved in filmmaking and thought of directors/directing and I was like, "okay, I'll sign up." Then when I was signing up, thought of the directors whom I like. I realized now that can confuse people into thinking that I want to do people or characters. :D LOL. Well, It's not what I meant. I'll take steps to remedy it. Btw, does the project also works on wikibooks? There's a whole wikibook about filmmaking that is in, imho, a miserable state. ''F3-R4'' 02:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''F3-R4'' has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

LOL Silly me. Grammatical error. I don't mean the director as a person, but director as a job title. I'll go ahead and make some changes.''F3-R4'' 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Filmmaking announcements

I see your point. However, Portal:Film indeed does highlight individual film articles under its "Feature Content" section. Thus, I would assume that those perusing the portal (where the film project's "to do" list also appears) might be interested in commenting on that film's FAC. --Myles Long 20:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yeah, that's the point. I'm well aware as to the reason for portals existing, thanks. I put it on WikiProject Film's "to do" list, or at least I think I did. Ahh, now that I look at it, I see that both projects' "to do" lists are on the portal, my mistake. --Myles Long 19:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to 8 mm film

I noticed that you "rv linkspam" here [3], but you actually reinserted the link. 149.159.104.198 (talk · contribs) actually removed the link. Did you intend to reinsert or remove the link? The link was actually added back in April [4]. -- Gogo Dodo 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short end

As requested, I added some explanations to the Talk page. I usually would leave a comment, but I believe I ran across the page right before I had to leave my house, so I just added the tags and went. Sorry about that! Wyatt Riot 11:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List-Class

Thanks so much for doing that before I could tag even more articles. I added that class to our template ({{Film}}). All of them are being changed to |class=List right now. Cbrown1023 20:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Template-Class so that all the Templates related to WikiProject Films could be accessed from a central category, Category:Template-Class film articles. Cbrown1023 23:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS---Anouncements

Thanks for changing the number of articles, we must have overlooked that... ha-ha, I looked at your edit and was like "duh!" Cbrown1023 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattes

Please see matte talk page. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 20:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:35 mm film

you're right, i made two columns for the refs section. it saves space; not as much as you'd think sometimes (maybe what you're feeling), but it is less space than the single column at least. once refs go about 35-40 i usually go to two columns. sorry for the confusion. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weird! it looks like two columns to me (FireFox 2.0RC2); try clearing your browser cash and reload the page? JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 20:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go over to AIDS, it has the same code. do you see two columns? JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 20:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thats the first i've heard of this. You are using the most current version of Safari too. At least it doesn't garble the page or something. You should bring this up over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Glass (Photography)

Not an attack page. Perhaps I misundersood something? Please clarify. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ground glass

The problem is that when someone wants to learn about the urban myth they do a search of ground glass, referring to the 'fact' that it is poisonous. Then they come to your page. They don't KNOW it is a myth. No one, looking for this information is going to try and find it on an Urban Myth page - because they think it is a fact.

Originally I was happy to leave your original page as mostly being about photography. All I wanted was a single ONE line reference to the fact that it ground glass is not deadly. But people erased it because 'it was not relevant'.

It IS relevant to people doing a search on ground glass. Merely because more people looking for information on ground glass are talking about photography does not mean you have the right to totally prevent people from finding out information about ground glass killing people.

Wikipedia is NOT a photography encylcopedia. If you want to claim that ground glass myth does not belong on the ground glass photography page, then you should call it the ground glass (photography) page, not the general ground glass page. If you want the 'own' main page, then you should accept references to none-photography uses of the phrase.

Why? Because you don't own the phrase 'ground glass', it has several meanings, even if it is more often used to refer to photography. Just as SPAM has two meanings, the computer people can not force the meat people off the page, neither can you.

You don't want it to be a disambiguation page, fine - then put in a single one line entry at the bottom about the alternate meaning.

Gurps npc 16:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA- Woo-hoo!

G - Sorry I've been away for so long. "Dexter" has taken over my life. Congrats on the FA for 35mm film - very happy to see that. Onwards and upwards! :) - All the best LACameraman 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Filmmaking

Hi. Thanks very much for the invitation to the group. I appreciate it and look forward to contributing however I can. As for FAC, I've never really been involved in one. I imagine both sound film and RKO Pictures would be about ready to start that process, but I don't have much of a sense of what's involved. Best regards, Dan —DCGeist 04:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The above was my response...I was waiting to hear from you!

So...I'm quite happy with the current state of sound film. It might be nice to eventually add a graf on the brief international fad for multiple-language versions to the "Commerce" section, once I've checked enough sources and digested all the data, but that's by no means essential to the article's value. If there's anything you think needs a final tuneup or expansion before FAC, let me know. If you think it's ready for FAC, I'd be pleased to see it nominated for that status. Are you suggesting I do it as a self-nomination?—DCGeist 19:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Coach, I've nominated Sound film. As for your Kinetoscope query, technical nitty-gritty isn't my forte, but I don't mind stretching myself—I'll give it my best shot. (PS: I didn't think it was possible for a list to excite me, but list of film formats is pretty damn brilliant.)—DCGeist 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've responded to your query on Image talk:MonkeyshinesStrip.jpg. Best, D—DCGeist 19:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar for WP:FILMS

Do you have any recommendations? I didn't want to change it because it looked so nice and the colors went well together. Cbrown1023 01:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need something on your userpage... it's empty, I recommend this userbox:

This user is awesome.

Cbrown1023 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the colors, but it doesn't like that nice... idk... On your user page, why not make it a redirect to your talk page, like at User:Nscheffey. Cbrown1023 00:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetoscope

Thanks for the Salt and I'll think about how to address the Latham loop in the article. I've made one modification to the change in the lede--it seems pretty (though, I admit, not absolutely) clear that the classic, non-projecting Kinetoscope did not incorporate intermittent movement--see Robinson (1997), pp. 54-55; Grieveson and Krämer (2004), p. 32--though the Kinetograph camera did.—DCGeist 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the Kinetoscope did have a Maltese cross mechanism. As far as I've been able to determine, it relied entirely on the intermittent lighting produced by its shutter to produce the "persistence of vision" effect. I'll attempt to verify that and then spell out in the article that the camera and the exhibition device had this essential technological difference in how each conveyed the film.—DCGeist 00:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good quote that efficiently explains the importance of the Eastman film to the development of movie technology; included a couple more details on the Kinetograph; did my best to make the notion and significance of intermittent movement accessible; explained the delay in progress on the kinetoscope project for much of 1893; and added a few images. Let me know if you think anything's still missing.—DCGeist 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "Light and Movement" lead. I'll take a look at it at the library and see if there's anything applicable to Kinetoscope, et cet.—DCGeist 05:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18% Grey

Hi Girolamo,

yes, that is the explanation given by Anselm Adams, and it worked so well because of the fact that the 82% established prior. The fact though, is that the five paper types did not exist at the time (special was introduced in the '50s, way after the establishment of the DIN and ASA norms for film and paper).

The most divulged explanation is that, to test the papers and films they were divided in 5 fields and if you imagine a test strip exposition every field gets exposed twice as long as the one before and therefore... but that is something I cannot swear on.