Talk:Film stock

message: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0190590/technical
Acording to that O Brother, Where Art Thou? was shot on 35mm and did not originate on Video.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.54.76 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2006
:: , at 03:15, 8 November 2006, modified the (then unsigned) contrib in favor of a related URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190590/technical
*No, what the article is saying is that it was the first major feature to do a complete digital intermediate. This means that the film was shot, everything was scanned in at high resolution, the visual effects and credits are added and the image is graded, and then the video files are printed back out onto film. Girolamo Savonarola 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

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

message: A ToP Dab that needs to intimate it's not entirely on one subject is very rare (don't think i've seen one before), and probably indicates need to split the article. Is the issue that the start describes the history of motion-picture film stock, and the Film stock#Classification and properties (& perhaps Film stock#Deterioration) sections apply to the behavior of all film stocks? How abt making 
# the Film stock title a Dab, 
# Motion-picture film stock the bulk of this article, and 
# Film-stock technology for the rest. 
Or maybe, making,  
# Film stock keep the bulk, and
# Film stock (disambiguation) the Dab, pointing to something like
## Film stock
## Photographic film
## Film-stock technology
Or whatever.
--Jerzy•t 21:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so certain about this, myself. You have to remember that the term "film stock" usually applies to large quantities of film used in motion picture work, well beyond the lengths needed for stills photography. There are many characteristics of the stock which are different (from perforations and pitch to chemistry and packaging), while the general photographic theory is of course consonant with most other film stills or not. I don't think that a certain degree of overlap or redundancy is undesirable - like any other article, the main topic should be pointed to for those desiring more information on the general photographic film theory. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Film stock. 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/20150823030506/http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Our_Company/History_of_Kodak/Milestones_-_chronology/1878-1929.htm to http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Our_Company/History_of_Kodak/Milestones_-_chronology/1878-1929.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page needs a more informative section on the onomastics of film stock.
The name "Film stock" has an issue because its shape discourages metaphoric use which is problematic in the case that what it names, the thing-in-itself, is a deep metaphor, a prototype.  
Say I meant to compare the act of shooting with a camera to the act of bringing fresh metaphors to life. When a metaphor is first produced it's like an image recorded on sensitive film but not yet revealed. When a fresh metaphor succeeds, it enters culture, the film is developed and the movie is published. Say I mean to bring better attention to the task of figuring out the conditions of the production of fresh metaphors.
Film stock serves to probe whether there are benefits to believing that production of fresh metaphors consumes something like film stock -- so that there would between potential fresh metaphors exist a competition much like that which exists between possible exact spectacles competing for the privilege of impregnating any given piece of precious virgin film from stock.
Of course our age of terabytes and petabytes and digital cameras has upended the rule of film stock, at least enough that film stock painted as above, feels late, off. However, that's in particular irrelevant to its possible value as an analogue to a component we possibly could discern in the production process of fresh metaphors. And we'd love to borrow the name not of film stock but of an appropriate synonym. 213.55.247.67 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onomastics