text:
Talk:Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem

Article is too technical
The articles is not written to the "Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable" guidelines. Nowhere in the article does it plainly state the concept that a digital signal should be sampled at twice the resolution of the original source to achieve quality reproduction. With the theorem's most famous use being the 44.1kHz/16bit CD-quality resolution standard, there's no mention of Phillips/Sony using the Nyquist-Shannon theorem to reach that seemingly arbitrary resolution.

DracheMitch (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I think that your assertion is broken on a few levels;
 * It's written elsewhere that the sampling rate used for digital audio sampling at the time of the creation of the CD-DA format was 48,000 samples per second.
 * You conflate "rate" with "resolution".
 * The statement which you deem as "famous" is often over-simplified and misunderstood. It's a realisation that there's an obvious limit. Simply re-expressed, it's that there's no chance at all that a sine wave[1] sampled two times per cycle can be reproduced accurately. I'd assert that it's more akin to the event horizon in cosmology and the relativistic physics of supermassive objects.
 * Sony already had a tape format which used the lower 44.1ks/s rate and pushed for alignment with that.
 * [1] I say "sine wave" here as it's the minimum unit of information at the extreme upper limit - anything which is not a sine wave has components at frequencies higher than the fundamental and therefore not relevant.
 * Anything written is understandable.
 * Is the article not understandable?
 * It's not likely that my writings here would be allowed in the article, as what I write here counts as "thought" and as not "reference". Qfissler (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I disagree in one respect and agree in another. First, the theorem actually applies to any band-limited spectrum, where supp X ⊆ [f₋,f₊] where 0 < f₊ - f₋ ≤ 1/T, not just to the special case where f_± = ±½ 1/T, nor even just to the further specialization where x is real and X is redundant across f = 0. The Nyquist condition is a separate issue that shouldn't be mixed in with this. Second, I agree in one respect that the derivations don't get to the essence of the matter: the distributional identity ∑_{n∈ℤ} δ(x - n) = ∑_{k∈ℤ} exp(2πikx) that also underlies the Poisson summation formula. It should either be used for the derivation (and possibly also retrofit into the Poisson summation formula article) or else at least noted and shown how equation 1 can be expressed in terms of it (e.g. using properties such as T δ(Tx) = δ(x) for T > 0). It's a pretty important fundamental that crops up in engineering texts, as well.

Small Mistake in Introduction
The last sentence in the Intro says that "usually followed by an "anti-aliasing filter" to clean up spurious high-frequency content."

This is not quite right. The "anti-aliasing" filter goes at the beginning of the process between the analog signal and the ADC. The filter at the end of the process is a low-pass filter called the "reconstruction filter". For more details, see http://www.dspguide.com/ch3/4.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.208.115 (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Historical background
Looking at Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem, Shannon was just one mathematical step (and the obvious assertion of Fourier series periodicity) away from writing the Poisson Summation Formula for his specific case (T = 1/2B). Instead he chose to describe that step in the briefest possible text, which makes it look like he was trying to avoid drawing attention to Poisson's earlier and more general discovery. Perhaps Shannon's actual contribution was not his proof, but highlighting the relevance of Poisson's work to contemporary DSP. I mention this because of all the other 20th century mathematicians we mention who have an arguable claim to the discovery. But Poisson was a century ahead of them all. --Bob K (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, assuming more editors agree with "Poisson was a century ahead of them all" I think this would be a good addition to the article. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion in naming comes from conflating different areas of study. Nyquist’s work was specifically aimed at determining what sample rate would be needed to transmit analog information in a digital medium. So to Electrical Engineers or anyone studying digital audio or video equipment and technology “Nyquist theorem” makes the most sense. A mathematician may see it differently because they see it as a broader mathematical problem. 75.100.4.194 (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

is it true that smartphone cameras "remove aliasing with a digital filter"
In the section 'Application to multivariable signals and images' talking about digital cameras, there is this: "Instead of requiring an optical filter, the graphics processing unit of smartphone cameras performs digital signal processing to remove aliasing with a digital filter."

This is not my area, but is that actually true? I thought the main point of Nyquist-Shannon was that the analog signal has to be bandwidth-limited before being digitized, to avoid aliased signals in the digital representation, because aliased signals generally can't be 'filtered out' of a digitized signal, because they don't look any different than un-aliased signals. Or is smartphone digital photography one of the special cases mentioned in the article's 1st section? "Perfect reconstruction may still be possible when the sample-rate criterion is not satisfied, provided other constraints on the signal are known"

I feel that 'remove aliasing with a digital filter' needs at least a word or two of explanation. Surely with a smartphone camera they aren't just oversampling by 2x or 4x?? Spike0xff (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem


text:
Talk:Taekwondo

Taekwondo
Voice

P 98.58.104.9 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 * me too toobigtokale (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

==

Significant edits
I made some significant edits, sorry if I stepped on any toes, I know I deleted a lot. Some reminders:

 * Don't add information without sources
 * If you use multiple pages from a source, indicate which page number you used. See how the article Cleopatra does it for reference.
 * "Taekwondo" shouldn't always be capitalized, see WP:WPMA Proper names of individual schools of martial arts should be capitalized e.g., "Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage-ryū" or "Shotokan". Broad types of martial arts should not be capitalized e.g., "kenjutsu", or "karate" (see above for definition of 'art' vs 'school').
 * Romanized terms that haven't yet become accepted words in English (e.g. hogu) should be italicized (preferrably wrapped in the Transliteration template), as per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. "Taekwondo" is considered an acceptable english term because it's in dictionaries (apparently)
 * Non-english text (e.g. 호구) should be wrapped in appropriate language template (here, usually Template:Korean)
 * Try to only link when you think it'll be useful to the reader (generally once or twice per article). Don't link every noun or subject, we end up overhighlighting.

Much of what I deleted was either unsourced or out of scope with the article. Please feel free to discuss if you disagree with choices I made and feel free to add stuff back yourself. Thanks. toobigtokale (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image
Can we find an alternative infobox image? It's a great image but tragically has that blurry thing in the lower left corner. I think a good candidate would have a simple background, so it's immediately clear what the subject is.

After scrolling through several hundred pics, all I can find is this. It's decent but I don't like the blue background for some reason. toobigtokale (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Something like these: . These are copyrighted though, and there's small things about both that aren't ideal. toobigtokale (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A while back I put in a new image, but it's too thin horizontally I think. Doesn't have a feeling of weightiness, should be squarer 211.43.120.242 (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Taekwondo


text:
Talk:Radio broadcasting

Dictionary
This sounds an awful lot like a dictionary entry. It would be nice to have a history of radio stations and some information about how they have affected modern culture (and been affected). Chadloder 04:46 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Agreement
I absolutely agree. I only wrote this as a beginning to get it off the most wanted list, and hoped that people would add to it. --user:jaknouse — Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 24 January 2003 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but, we still want it, and now those who use that list to decide what to add won't see it there any more.
 * Don't forget pirate radio stations, they have their own colorful history, and are a very important cultural force in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.75.31 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2003 (UTC)

"W" and "K"
For weird reasons, Illnois, Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts are in the "W", or "Dubya", side, and Texas, Utah, and Iowa are in the "K", or "Kerry", side.

However, few states are accurately placed. California, Oregon, and Washington are in the "K" side, and Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina are in the "W" side. - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:03, 2 January 2005 (talk)

 * For those confused by this entry, it is a political joke. Actually most stations east of the Mississippi river have call letters beginning with W and stations west of the Mississippi have call letters beginning with K. There are exceptions, mostly because the rule was introduced after a number of stations (KDKA - Pittsburgh, WHO - Des Moines, IA, for example) were licensed.  --Blainster 03:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This also has to do with a station's city of license, in cases where the station is close to the Mississippi (such as several stations in the Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN area)DC 14:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

KDKA
Did KDKA not broadcat a baseball game first or was it WBZ? Scott 02:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved FM commentary from article to here
Note: The following three paragraphs are not technically accurate and require extensive editing. For example, spacing between stations was set to permit wideband FM (+/- 75 kHz deviation), with the remaining 50 kHz to provide some protection from adjacent channel interference. Also, low-pass filter in stereo FM generators limits highest audio frequency to 15 kHz.

--Blainster 01:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AM Stereo
I have just removed a recent edit and some existing material about the reasons for AM Stereo's lack of acceptance. If we want to lay the blame on the FCC we must find a source for that information (because we don't do original research at WP. Also, we would need to locate and fairly treat all opposing points of view. Also, this doesn't address the fact that AM stereo did not catch on outside the US either. -- cmh 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

First Radio Station
KDKA is listed here as being the first radio station on the air in North America in 1920. However, CFCF radio in Montreal began broadcasting in 1919, the previous year. I know for sure that CFCF was the first radio station to regularly broadcast in North America. Just thought I'd bring this up to your attention. Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.124.111 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * CINW (AM), formerly CFCF-AM, claims program broadcasts began on May 20, 1920, still nearly six months ahead of KDKA. --Blainster 22:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

American stations
Can someone explain why American (US) radio stations have names which seem to be random concatenations of letters? Are they call signs? What's the history behind that? Wooster (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Station call sign prefixes were apportioned around the world early in the 20th century. US commercial radio stations have four call letters beginning with "K" (west of the Mississippi river) or "W" (east of the Missisippi). There are historical exceptions, with some stations dating to the 1920s having just three letters, and some "K" and "W" stations ignoring the dividing line (see North American call sign). The succeeding three letters can be requested from the FCC at the time of licensing if the combination is otherwise unassigned, and are sometimes incorporated into an acronym or initialism for marketing purposes. --Blainster 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I would also add that callsigns are absolutely unique in the world, which is really the whole point. Monikers, on the other hand, are not -- they are usually used at several stations in different media markets, sometimes even with the same frequency number (often truncated or rounded to a whole number on FM, and on AM formerly dropping the final 0 sometimes [like 780 becomes 78], which was used to save space on analog-tuning dial radios).  Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Bahamas also use this, as do a few shortwave stations like HCJB.  Australia used to, but broadcast stations went from VL5UV to 5UV to just Radio Adelaide now, for example.

Radio Infobox
I'm hoping someone can help me clean up some articles. There are several Mexican radio stations serving U.S. markets, primarily San Diego. The infobox used for many of them has the station's class included (Class A, B, C). I'm still new to Wikipedia and know noting about infoboxes. However, I'm pretty sure the FCC isn't assigning station classes to Mexican stations. Thus, as in Canada, the station class should be deleted, right? Maybe someone can check these out and fix them. Goeverywhere 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Globalize tag
the globalize tag is the first thing visible on this page. Reading though the discussion here on the talk page though, I see no mention of why the tag was added. Would anyone care to elaborate, please? -Ohms law 12:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for this tag to be here. If there are concerns they need to be spelled out. This question has been here on the talk page for nearly a year and noone seems to care enough to answer it. I'm removing the tag.--Rtphokie 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Station location?
Why is it that a radio station will be listed as one city when it's actually based in another city far away (i.e. KFNK-Eatonville is actually based 25 miles away in Tacoma, not Eatonville)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustN5:12 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I assume you are talking about FM. There is a table of separation requirements which the FCC maintains at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/spacing/index.html. The idea nowadays is to find any "hole" you can which meets separation requirements per all available frequencies. If you do, you can plop down an FM radio station. These "holes" can be in strange places. My in-laws are in a triangle of land 3 miles on a side where I could put a 50,000 watt (class C-2) FM station, if I had the money. I have a friend whose brother wheeled in a temporary building alongside an interstate in the boonies just because he found such a hole. But, the FCC also says that a license must be tied to a town or city through an "allotment". The location of the antenna must be within 25 miles of the allotment. For commercial reasons, stations which have a choice of allotments will usually pick the biggest town, so it looks like they are a bigger station. For example, 93.9 in central Illinois is allotted to Lincoln, but the antenna is also within 25 miles of Springfield, so they will say Springfield even though the license emanates from Lincoln. Listen carefully: if the bigger town is farther than 25 miles, they must use the real town of license, but can add on anything else they wish afterward, e.g., "93.9 WWWW Lincoln Springfield". Otherwise, if the station really is farther away, the one you are listening to is either a "translator" (low-power remote transmitter) or under an LMA (local marketing agreement) contract for the other station to provide the programming. Absentee owners often do this latter thing.

Definition of Radio
Back in April, the following was removed when vandalism was removed: A radio station is an audio (sound) broadcasting service, traditionally broadcast through the air as radio waves (a form of electromagnetic radiation) from a transmitter to an antenna and a thus to a receiving device. Stations can be linked in radio networks to broadcast common programming, either in syndication or simulcast or both.

What is left is only the "other" ways that "radio" programming can be distributed. What credible evidence is there for the expansion of the term "radio broadcasting" to be expanded to include distribution that does not involve the transmission of an electromagnetic signal through the air? I believe pretty strongly that "internet streaming" is *not* "radio". Nothing in this article supports the idea that transmission over the internet is "radio", other than the first sentence.StreamingRadioGuide 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I inserted the obviously missing description. (SEWilco 04:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think that That's why I propose moving this article. Maybe one can create an article Radio staion as well, but a redirect might work as well. --Abe Lincoln 18:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) there is no article about radio broadcasting,
 * 2) there should be one,
 * 3) this article is exactly describing radio broadcasting.

 * Support: I tend to agree with Abe here—an article on a radio station should surely cover the structure and organisation of a radio station, as well as the different formats. There are existing articles on AM broadcast radio and FM broadcast radio, and the current article acts as a good summary of these, as well as of radio broadcasting in general. Construction of a new Radio station article could perhaps then involve the content of the current Radio format article, info about the people in a radio station, and some information about studios, music libraries, and syndication. Sjb90 09:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Article seems to be about broadcasting; it should be named as such. Oren0 04:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Great idea; this seems to be a better name for the content here if nothing else. --Cheers, Komdori 18:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

DIY radio station
Please include information about DIY stations in the article. The DIY station described only cost 1€ See DIY station

81.246.154.99 (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Amateur and CB radio
Doesnt really belong here as these are primarily intended for communications between two (or more) people rather than broadcasting (which is actually prohibited on CB and Amateur frequencies in moany countries)

Although in some countries religious services can be legally transmitted on CB frequencies while In the very early days of amateur radio licence holders were allowed to broadcast music (In the early 1920's this was "temporairly" outlawed and was never relegalised) back in those very early days the distinction between amateur and broadcast radio was quite fuzzy. 213.40.112.230 (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming Callsigns
Where do the station names come from?Fruckert (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

SW is actually AM
In the section Types three types of radio wave broadcasting have been listed: SW, AM and FM. I think this categorisation is erronous. Because SW broadcasting is also AM. The difference between LW, MW and SW is in the carrier frequency, LW broadcasting has the lowest and SW broadcasting has the highest frequency of the three. But the modulation technique is the same; namely AM. So I think SW must be included within AM. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

AM is correct, regarding entertainment or public broadcasters. Other comms must now use SSB, or FM as appropriate. Only aircraft comms still use AM on VHF, as it came into use circa a 1940. Marine AM was phased out in 1973. The very first comms systems used spark-gap coils for xmit, and huge iron coils driving galvenometers as recievers. Spark gaps were outlawed circa WW1.203.219.80.29 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny quotations
I am wondering whether this page could be enhanced by some of the now amusing quotations said about radio. These include:

"Radio has no future" Lord Kelvin "The radio craze will die out in time" Thomas Edison

And was there not an early comment on radio broadcasting that it would never work, because "who would want to spend time listening to messages sent to no one in particular"? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Power
There are numerous mentions of "power", a link to "Low power stations" in the See also section and the radio station template also includes a Power attribute, but nowhere is it explained what this "power" means in real terms. Is 1000 watts a little or a lot? How far away could that be received? Etc. da nn o _ u k  01:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"In 2009, there were 3,494 radio broadcasting stations in the United States."
The fact in the introduction "In 2009, there were 3,494 radio broadcasting stations in the United States." is a bit country-specific, it's not like only the Americans have radio broadcasting technology??? is it really necessary to put this here, in the introduction? Is there some sort of place where we could find how many radio broadcasting stations there are in the world (or at least an estimate) to replace this?~J349 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Usage of "unidirectional"
Simply referring to broadcasting as "unidirectional" without any definition, while not technically wrong, is extremely misleading. Simply linking to the article "Simplex" does not address this. The word does not even appear in that article, nor is simplex strictly synonymous even if we limit consideration to this one, frankly rather obscure, sense of the word. In the context of radio communications unidirectional is used in 2 senses - as the opposite of bidirectional, basically a communications-topology thing; and as the opposite of omnidirectional, which is a physical thing pertaining primarily, but not exclusively, to antennas. It would be a very rare anglophone indeed who would read this article and not already know that radio broadcasting stations are NOT bidirectional, so the word contributed essentially NO useful information to the sentence. Certainly, the number of people who would be enlightened to discover that they can't talk into their radio and expect the DJ to respond will be far less than the number who would find this word misleading or confusing. I go on at length about this because I thought simply omitting the word made for a clearer and shorter sentence without ambiguity, but the edit was reversed.

I think the lead sentence as I left it -

"Radio broadcasting is wireless transmission by radio waves of a signal intended to reach a wide audience, without provision for any return signal."

-while needlessly prolix, and inferior to simply omitting the word "unidirectional", at least has the merit of being unambiguous and preserving the the point that radio broadcasting is a one-way communication, not a conversation. I don't really think that point NEEDS to be made as I doubt anyone will read this article who doesn't already consider it obvious. I'd be happy to have the second sentence I inserted afterwards deleted, as I don't think defining one rather obscure sense of the word "unidirectional" contributes anything of value to this article, but, if you are partial to the word, at least this is better than including it in a way that is misleading.

- - - -

"Ooookay." Some "clever" person keeps reverting changes to maintain the presence of this word in the lead sentence while removing any attempt to define it. And then they ignore this talk section and simply put smart remarks in the field where they are supposed to justify their edits. I don't think I can improve on what I already wrote here about why the inclusion of this word adds absolutely nothing to this article that any likely reader doesn't already know, and why it is potentially confusing. But if you are going to insist on using it, it needs to be defined. I've done so, with as short a sentence as possible. Unless it has been added, the word "unidirectional" doesn't even appear in the article the word "unidirectional" is linked to here. Hopefully, this short definition will not offend the editor's apparent desire for obscurity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Way too wordy, and really, a redundant definition in true Wikipedia style...it's unlikely someone looking up "broadcasting" isn't already aware of at least that much of how it works, but is probably more interested in "why" and "who" and "when" of milestones. Any Wikipedia article that gets bogged down in the definitions of "simplex", "duplex" and "half-duplex" is usually improved by removing any such references and just describing what is meant in that context. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"2023 in radio" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2023 in radio and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  WC  Quidditch  ☎   ✎  20:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Radio broadcasting


text:
User:Punny

(Noun) George Bloor

title: User:Punny


text:
Talk:Geography of Slovenia

What is the right English name for the mountain range Karavanke?. Zocky are you sure that it is Karawanken. It sounds more like German to me. I believe it would be something like this: Karavanken Mountains with ordinary 'v'. --XJamRastafire 04:57 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

All pages in English I found on the Internet (including many based in Slovenia) call it Karawanken, as well as an atlas in English that I have seen. I think it just got into English from German. Of course the name is originaly Slovene (or at least Slavic), but that seems to be the way it is. Zocky 09:32 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

File:General map of slovenia.svg
I've spotted some erroneous spellings on the map that should be corrected:

 * Grintavec should be Grintovec
 * Škofjelosko hribovje should be Škofjeloško hribovje
 * Jesenece should be Jesenice
 * Juliske Alpe should be Julijske Alpe
 * Kamniško Savinjske Alpe should be Kamniško-Savinjske Alpe
 * The river Idrija should be Idrijca, while the name of the town is spelled correctly.

 * The legend should say "Urban area (only for the settlements with over 25,000 inhabitants)" - using comma instead of the period as a thousands separator per WP:MOSNUM.

 * Also, due to the bilinguality of the region, Muggia should be Muggia/Milje, Gorizia should be Gorizia/Gorica, and Trieste should be Trieste/Trst (in the same manner as Koper is Koper/Capodistria)

 * Trdinov vrh should be put exactly on the Slovenian-Croatian border and should be named as Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera, see Sveta Gera and its related talk page for an explanation.

 * Finally, if time permits, the status of the expressways should be updated according to this map made by DARS (Motorway Company in the Republic of Slovenia), dated to 16 July 2009. --Eleassar my talk 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geography of Slovenia. 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/20100305004052/http://www.geckogo.com:80/Guide/Slovenia/Natural-Environment/Climate to http://www.geckogo.com/Guide/Slovenia/Natural-Environment/Climate/

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) 13:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geography of Slovenia


text:
127 film

127 is a roll film format for still photography introduced by Kodak in 1912.

The film itself is 46 mm wide, placing it between 35 mm and 120 "medium format" films in terms of size. The image format normally used is a square 4 cm × 4 cm. However, rectangular 4 cm × 3 cm and 4 cm × 6 cm are also standard.

127 enjoyed mainstream popularity until its usage began to decline from the 1960s onwards in the face of newer, cartridge-based films. However, it survives as a niche format and is still in production.

Technical details
127 is a roll film, 46 mm wide. Frame number markings for the 4×4 and 4×6 image formats are printed on the backing paper, while 4×3 cameras typically have two frame counter windows, exposing the left and right halves of the 4×6 frame.

Using the square format, there are 12 exposures per roll; 4×3 and 4×6 give 16 and 8, respectively.

Less commonly, other frame sizes have been used. For its "Alfax" model (circa 1940), Kimura Kōgaku had 4 cm × 4.5 cm frames, spaced by markings on the wind knob. In addition, the manufacturer C. F. Foth & Co. used an image format of 3.6 cm × 2.4 cm (the same size as is standard for 135) for initial versions of their 127-based "Derby" camera.

History

The format was introduced by Kodak in 1912, along with the "Vest Pocket Kodak" folding camera, as a compact alternative to larger portable cameras using 120 film. The folding "127s" were in fact smaller than most 35 mm cameras today. The 127 format made a comeback during the 1950s as the format of choice for small inexpensive cameras such as the Brownie and Satellite, and continued in wide use until surpassed by the 126 film and 110 film "Instamatic" cartridges (introduced in 1963 and 1972 respectively), and especially by 35 mm. 127 cameras from that era were often characterized by simple box-like construction. Slides shot on 127 slide film were often preferred over 35 mm for example for sets of slides sold at tourist gift shops, because of the larger photo area (hence the advertised name "Superslides") and completely square dimensions of a 127 slide. The format was part of the ISO 732 standard until it was dropped in the third (1991) edition of that standard.

Variations
Not all 127 films were labelled as such. After 1913, many Kodak cameras included the Autographic feature, and Kodak's 127 films which had Autographic backing were identified as "A127". Other film manufacturers did not produce Autographic films, for which Kodak held a patent. Other camera manufacturers did make Vest Pocket-format cameras, however, and 127 film at the time was often labeled “Vest Pocket Film”.

Uses
The format was mainly used for amateur cameras like the Brownie or the Zeiss Ikon Kolibri, with the Exakta SLR, the “Baby” Rolleiflex, the Yashica 44 TLR, the Komaflex-S SLR and the Primo jr as possible exceptions.

127 color transparencies can be mounted in standard 2” square slide mounts, and projected in an ordinary 35 mm projector. Because of their much greater area, the projected image is larger and more brilliant than a 35 mm slide, and they are popularly called "Superslides", a name once reserved for 40 × 40 mm slides cut down from 120 film.

Production
Kodak stopped producing 127 film in July 1995, with all but one manufacturer following suit shortly thereafter. Fotokemika of Samobor, Croatia, continued to make 127 film, which it sold under its own Efke brand, as well as custom-packaged for other sellers, until 2012. Macophoto UP100 and Jessops 200 were made and packaged by Fotokemika. Chromazone 127 film is also sold intermittently on eBay. In September 2006, Bluefire Laboratories of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, began packaging 127 color print film, cutting Kodak or Agfa film to size from bulk rolls, and assembling the rolls of film from their own components.

In July 2009, Rollei (Maco Photo Products, Hans O. Mahn GmbH & Co. KG) introduced Rollei Retro 80S film, available in 127 format.

In August 2014, Maco announced that they will be selling black-and-white 127 film under the Rera Pan brand. This film is manufactured in Japan by EZOX Corporation, who are better known for manufacturing agricultural equipment and bicycles.

title: 127 film


text:
National holiday

National holiday may refer to:
 * General strike, a mass work stoppage as part of an industrial dispute
 * National day, a day when a nation celebrates a very important event in its history, such as its establishment
 * Public holiday, a holiday established by law, usually a day off for at least a portion of the workforce, such as public-sector employees

title: National holiday


text:
Sarah Knauss

Sarah DeRemer Knauss (Clark; September 24, 1880 – December 30, 1999) was an American supercentenarian. She is the oldest person ever from the United States and, on April 16, 1998, became the world's oldest living person. She is the third-oldest verified person ever, living to the age of 119 years and 97 days. Her birthdate has been independently verified through numerous census and other records.

Early life
Sarah DeRemer Clark was born on September 24, 1880, to Walter Clark and his wife Amelia, the daughter of German immigrants, in Hollywood, Pennsylvania, a small coal mining community in the Coal Region of Northeastern Pennsylvania. She was the third of her parents' seven children, but three of her brothers died in infancy and childhood.

Her family later moved to South Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in the Lehigh Valley region of the state.

Personal life
In 1901, at roughly 21 years old, she married Abraham Lincoln Knauss (1878–1965). Abraham was a tanner who later became a prominent Republican leader and the recorder of deeds in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, serving as the county's recorder of deeds from 1937 until his retirement in 1951. Abraham died in 1965, at the age of 86. They had one child Kathryn (1903-2005) who lived to be 101. Through most of her life, Knauss acted as a housewife. She enjoyed knitting, crocheting, and sewing.

Before Knauss' death, there were six living generations in her family. In February 1999, Life magazine photographed Knauss with a member from each of these generations, up to her newborn great-great-great-grandchild.

Health and lifestyle
It was not until Knauss reached 111 years old that she took up residency at a nursing home in Allentown, Pennsylvania, due to her frailness and failing eyesight. In 1995, Knauss remarked that she enjoyed her life because she still had her health and could "do things". At 117 years old, Knauss underwent a blood transfusion due to having low hemoglobin, and she continued to take heart medication for the rest of her life. Those around her believed her to be of sound mind up until her death. Within the last year of her life, she still had conversations with her daughter Kathryn. Eventually, she struggled to recognize her daughter; however, this may have been due to her failing hearing and eyesight rather than a failing mind.

When asked how she had survived to her great age, Knauss responded that one should “keep yourself busy, work hard, and not worry about how old you are.” She was a non-smoker and was never considered obese at any point in her life. She did have a fondness for sweets, however, and her great-granddaughter claimed that Knauss "hated vegetables". A member of the staff at Knauss' nursing home claimed that she was the friendliest of all residents at the home, and her relatives failed to remember a point in her life that she scolded anyone or even appeared stressed.

Death
Knauss died of natural causes on December 30, 1999 in Allentown, Pennsylvania. An autopsy was performed on her body, but the results were never made public; however, she was not known to have been suffering from any illness at the time of her death. After her death, Ella Miller (1884–2000) became the world's oldest living person.

Knauss remained the second oldest known validated person until Kane Tanaka surpassed her age on April 10, 2022, nine days before her death.

Longevity records and verification
Knauss became the United States national longevity record holder after surpassing the final age of Delphia Welford (1875–1992) on November 30, 1997. On April 16, 1998, she became the world's oldest person after 117-year-old French Canadian Marie-Louise Meilleur died. Knauss remains the oldest documented person from the United States, and is the third-oldest fully documented person ever, after French supercentenarian Jeanne Calment and Japanese supercentenarian Kane Tanaka, who lived 10 days longer than her. She was recognized as the world's oldest living person by Guinness World Records from April 16, 1998, until her death the next year at the age of 119 years and 97 days.

Knauss' records have been heavily reviewed to ensure the claims surrounding her lifespan are legitimate. Many records have been found that verify her claim, including the record of the 1890 census, taken when Knauss was still in childhood.

title: Sarah Knauss