![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Movie projector received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have been disambiguating links pointing at shutter, and found one at IMAX: "The projector's shutter is also open for around 20% longer than in conventional equipment and the light source is brighter." As you can see, I linked shutter there to the "Shutter" section in this article. Not knowing an awful lot about movie projectors, can someone confirm that this was correct? Also, I've added a new definition for "shutter" to the disambiguation page at shutter. Can someone please check this is correct as well. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have another question as well. I recently moved shutter angle to rotary disc shutter, as this was linked from the shutter (photography) article, and I thought it looked like the right article. However, I wanted to check with people who know about movie projectors. Was this the right thing to do? Carcharoth 11:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed in the description of 16mm film under "Types of projectors" that it states "It is also the smallest format that can carry an optically encoded sound track." but in my recent research of 8mm film formats I have read several times about Optical sound on 8mm. This is my first time posting, so if I haven't given enough information or have posted in the wrong area, I apologize. :-) MrGneiss 10:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I have also noticed it listed in several places that the Fujica ZS400 Single8 camera recorded in optical sound. MrGneiss 11:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there is a picture of what I think is variable density opitical audio. It's located here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Do17z_wikifilm.jpg
I think it should be added to the audio section. Thanks! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.5.71.80 (
talk)
17:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please expand the lead it's currently too short. I'm going to give the editors of this article time but if the lead isn't expanded I'm putting it up for review. A GA shouldn't have a two sentence lead. Quadzilla99 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This article deals with chemical film based cinema projection only, which is a thing of the past. Modern movies are displayed from digital media. The much hated Titanic movie showed from a set of three very large optical data discs in the largest US cinemas, instead of film rolls. There is not a single word on that technology in the article. 82.131.210.162 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is the sample widescreen image 1.96:1? Is this intended to be an example of VistaVision? Wouldn't a 2.39:1 example make more sense, especially with the accompanying anamorphic squeeze? Jhawkinson 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense either that the squeezed image has a ratio of 1.33:1 because when un-squeezed that would be 2.66:1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.209.12.82 ( talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In Audel's electrical handbook (1910?) the chapter on movie theaters starts off with a rant reminding readers that correct term is motion picture machine. Was this a one man's opinion or is there a place in the article for this historic note? I don't have the book anymore so have no accurate citation. Georget99 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the 70mm section, primarily to make it agree with both historical and current practices, and the wiki page about 65/70mm.
This whole movie projector section is a bit woolly with some odd digressions. The 9.5 section is too long, and I think the 70mm section may be also. The persistence of vision explanation, which is long discredited as an explanation of the illusion of cinema motion is contradicted by the cited wiki section on persistence of vision, and the citations there. -- StevenBradford 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Can be useful? http://it.wikipedia.org/?title=Immagine:Proiettore_Cinematografico.gif&oldid=15629656#file —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.176.115 ( talk) 16:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
What about bioscope = An early movie projector, as the dictionary says. -- 194.144.23.124 ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The article should also mention blade shutters, as two-blade shutters make visually flickerless 24fps projection possible (sound film speed), and three-blade shutters do the same for 16 and 18fps projections (silent film speed), by reducing the dark flicker to 48 Hz. -- 2003:71:4E07:BB09:FC3A:9551:4E36:AD36 ( talk) 06:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Movie projector received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have been disambiguating links pointing at shutter, and found one at IMAX: "The projector's shutter is also open for around 20% longer than in conventional equipment and the light source is brighter." As you can see, I linked shutter there to the "Shutter" section in this article. Not knowing an awful lot about movie projectors, can someone confirm that this was correct? Also, I've added a new definition for "shutter" to the disambiguation page at shutter. Can someone please check this is correct as well. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have another question as well. I recently moved shutter angle to rotary disc shutter, as this was linked from the shutter (photography) article, and I thought it looked like the right article. However, I wanted to check with people who know about movie projectors. Was this the right thing to do? Carcharoth 11:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed in the description of 16mm film under "Types of projectors" that it states "It is also the smallest format that can carry an optically encoded sound track." but in my recent research of 8mm film formats I have read several times about Optical sound on 8mm. This is my first time posting, so if I haven't given enough information or have posted in the wrong area, I apologize. :-) MrGneiss 10:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I have also noticed it listed in several places that the Fujica ZS400 Single8 camera recorded in optical sound. MrGneiss 11:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there is a picture of what I think is variable density opitical audio. It's located here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Do17z_wikifilm.jpg
I think it should be added to the audio section. Thanks! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.5.71.80 (
talk)
17:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please expand the lead it's currently too short. I'm going to give the editors of this article time but if the lead isn't expanded I'm putting it up for review. A GA shouldn't have a two sentence lead. Quadzilla99 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This article deals with chemical film based cinema projection only, which is a thing of the past. Modern movies are displayed from digital media. The much hated Titanic movie showed from a set of three very large optical data discs in the largest US cinemas, instead of film rolls. There is not a single word on that technology in the article. 82.131.210.162 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is the sample widescreen image 1.96:1? Is this intended to be an example of VistaVision? Wouldn't a 2.39:1 example make more sense, especially with the accompanying anamorphic squeeze? Jhawkinson 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense either that the squeezed image has a ratio of 1.33:1 because when un-squeezed that would be 2.66:1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.209.12.82 ( talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In Audel's electrical handbook (1910?) the chapter on movie theaters starts off with a rant reminding readers that correct term is motion picture machine. Was this a one man's opinion or is there a place in the article for this historic note? I don't have the book anymore so have no accurate citation. Georget99 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the 70mm section, primarily to make it agree with both historical and current practices, and the wiki page about 65/70mm.
This whole movie projector section is a bit woolly with some odd digressions. The 9.5 section is too long, and I think the 70mm section may be also. The persistence of vision explanation, which is long discredited as an explanation of the illusion of cinema motion is contradicted by the cited wiki section on persistence of vision, and the citations there. -- StevenBradford 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Can be useful? http://it.wikipedia.org/?title=Immagine:Proiettore_Cinematografico.gif&oldid=15629656#file —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.176.115 ( talk) 16:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
What about bioscope = An early movie projector, as the dictionary says. -- 194.144.23.124 ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The article should also mention blade shutters, as two-blade shutters make visually flickerless 24fps projection possible (sound film speed), and three-blade shutters do the same for 16 and 18fps projections (silent film speed), by reducing the dark flicker to 48 Hz. -- 2003:71:4E07:BB09:FC3A:9551:4E36:AD36 ( talk) 06:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)