text:
Talk:Digital cinema

History and Distribution
I have submitted a section under history of digital cinema based on the request for verifiable information. Feeback is welcome.

Also, I have cleaned up distribution. Because this is still very hotly debated I recommend maintaining informative rather than 'position' statements. Feedback is welcome.

Split topic
Perhaps is would be best to split Digital Cinema into "Digital Filmmaking," the process of producing film via digital techniques, and Digital Cinema, a method of distributing and presenting motion pictures.

This would be best because movies shot on film may be distributed digitally, while films made digitally (including Star Wars Episode III, Sin City, etc.) have been primarily distributed through film prints. In fact, even if digital projectors become the standard many filmmakers like the look of film and will source material on film for digital projection. 216.64.26.114 11:44, August 26, 2005 (PST)
 * Agree. I'll put a proposal on the main page Fitch 08:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is already a lot here that overlaps with the digital cinematography article.--Onejaguar 00:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The latest edit, on August first under economics, while good for formatting, highlights an older entry that really should be under digital cinematography. And has POV problems. It repeats as gospel truth the idea that DC is much cheaper than film production/distribution. StevenBradford 13:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Exposure Latitude Adjustment
I have added the fact that the lack of exposure latitude can be handled and mitigated through techniques used with reversal film stocks which also have the problem. Please reword my adjustments as I am not a good technical writer. 66.32.95.85 12:07, August 25, 2005 (PST)

More Info Needed
However, I think this article needs more information on hybrid motion picture production: More information about mixed media filming (both HD and film), and more important, filming on film stocks but completing the post in digital. 66.32.95.85 12:07, August 25, 2005 (PST)

Bias against Video
I have a concern about this passage:

"Film is in many ways more portable than its high quality digital counterparts. The chemical process initiated by exposing film to light give reliable results, that are well documented and understood by cinematographers. In contrast every digital camera has a unique response to light and it is very difficult to predict without viewing the results on a monitor or a waveform analyser, increasing the complexity of lighting. However, accurate calibration techniques are being developed which eliminate this as a practical problem, and the possibility of inexpensive post-production color grading can make digital cinematography more flexible than film in achieving artistic color effects."

It seems to be biased to the point that film is better than video. Each is its own medium. While "[t]he chemical process initiated by exposing film to light give reliable results, that are well documented and understood by cinematographers," is true, it is because most cinematographers have little practical experience with video. If a pro videographer were to suddenly try shooting film I'd expects bad results as well. "In contrast every digital camera has a unique response to light," is true, but every different film stock has a different response to color, illumination, shadow, etc. Once a DP knows the digital camera it should be more of a task to get what you want. In fact, a camera like the Sony F-900 has a very predictable response to these conditions, like film, but has an advantage that the response can be tailored. Perhaps the difference in thought is that the visual nuances of film are dure more to the media, while in video it is due to the camera more. Also, the line "without viewing the results on a monitor or a waveform analyser, increasing the complexity of lighting," is fallacious. In fact my DP can get amazing shots on his F-900 without anything but his light meter and camera. And our interior shots were FAR EASIER to shoot than with film, allowing use to light a scene beautifully with about half the equipment and time invested. 66.32.95.85 12:07, August 25, 2005 (PST)

 * Agree I think this is what wikipedia people call weasel terms or something like that. I'll put a note on it. Fitch 08:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Rubbish!
 * "It seems to be biased to the point that film is better than video."
 * Unfortunately, THE INESCAPABLE FACT is that the vast majority of film producers, makers of prime-time TV shows and larger budget commercials are adamant that film IS better than video, and they'll always use film if the budget allows it. They are not all morons; video cameras simply do not produce as good a picture as film, for a variety of technical reasons that most video enthusiasts seem incapable of either understanding or observing.

 * This is not a "weasel term" either. These are facts: How many movies are released each year? How many were shot with Digital cameras? According to George Lucas in 1999, film should have been dead and buried by now. It hasn't happened. Nothing like it has happened. One of the problems is that many self-styled experts simply cannot tell the difference between film and video, whereas the people responsible for making the decision about what is to be used usually can!

 * There is a weird "culture" that has grown up on the Internet that seems to be dedicated to denial of the Status Quo. (AKA wishful thinking). Somehow there seems to be a shared "adolescent" fantasy that: "come the (video) revolution" THEY'RE the ones who will be called upon to make the next Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones etc. Which is arrogant nonsense.

 * I've been hearing the same old statements for over 20 years, since the first Betacams came on the market, and film still remains the preferred medium. Video is just about good enough for low-budget films like "Wolf Creek". That is the situation now, and barring any massive technological breakthroughs in the next few years, that's the way it's going to stay. There are certain laws of Quantum Mechanics that would need to be repealed before a video camera could ever equal the performance of a film camera. Electronic sensors haven't gotten all that much better over the last ten years, it's more that camera manufacturers have gotten better at disguising their deficiencies!

 * OK, if they want to fantasize about their career prospects, fine, but the Wikipedia is supposed to be about verifiable facts. It's proven almost impossible to sort out the facts from the fantasies, because as soon as you do, some loudmouth dreamer comes along and re-edits the page. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 139.168.91.193 (talk • contribs) 03:32, November 12, 2005

 * Agreed

 * "It seems to be biased to the point that film is better than video. Each is its own medium."

 * Why does it state in the article:

 * "Given the constant year-on-year improvements in digital cinema technology, it appears that the long-term future of cinema is likely to be digital"

 * You can't have it both ways. Either one is better than the other because they are competing with each other for what will be the direction of the cinematic medium or one will not replace the other because they are seperate mediums.  Either take the latter out of the article and replace it with the former or drop the complaint. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Kasbrakistan (talk • contribs) 14:58, December 23, 2005

 * There are certain laws of Quantum Mechanics that would need to be repealed before a video camera could ever equal the performance of a film camera. The quantum efficiency of photographic film is well under 10%.  The QE of a modern image sensor is about 30% (wavelength and filter dependent -- sensitivity is even higher if the CFA's are not engineered into the sensor).  The current crop of high-resolution still cameras from Canon (5D, et al) and Nikon (D200, et al) are are all basically photon noise limited .  I would expect that the motion cameras being made today are probably equal to, if not better than, these still cameras.  Which is all to say:  digital stuff already is better than film stuff.
 * This discussion -- and the rantish behaviour of the film freaks -- is old hat in the still photography arena. Just peruse the USENET.  Heck, barely 5 years ago, people were still predicting a long life for still film photography, arguing on the basis that the image from a digital camera wasn't good enough ... and today we have announcements from Nikon they are shit-canning most of the their analog camera line, and trivially observed truth that few professional photographers are still using film on a large scale in the 35mm form (now even medium format is yielding).  Even to digital afficionados the rate of developement is startling, breathtaking.  The claim that it will take "10 to 20 years" for silver-halide film to be replaced by a CMOS/CCD sensor in the motion picture realm is frankly silly given this history. mdf 04:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another point of view... 2K doesn't hack it
Digital projection will only be good when 4 K is the norm. 2K digital is like a Xerox copy of film, not quite up to snuff. For the forseeable future, films will be shot on film, and composited with digital DI technology if the effects demand it. On non-effects driven films, film will continue for production, and 2K digital will take over for all the cheaper theaters, to run them after about 2012. The better grade of theaters will run either bigger 6 perf. film or 4K digital to get a superior look, especially with 3D in the mix.

HD in the home with raise the ante, so that theater display will have to be superior to present or the admission prices will have to be cut by at least 40% to literally save the theaters in the digital age. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Nativeborncal (talk • contribs) 21:05, December 25, 2005

 * Disagree
 * Despite my personal favor of as high a spatial image resolution as possible, as of 2008 the majority of film prints are (and have been) made from digital intermediates in 2K. 4K is used only for filigrane structures as smaller fonts with serifs for titles or recent big-budget productions like Spider Man 3. Also, the more close-ups of faces you have, or the more the image is moving (due to pans, dollys etc.), the less you will recognize lower spatial resolution. The only advantages you get with 4K in a regular production would be less visible pixels on fonts on title cards and finer reproduction of the film grain. --85.182.75.81 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Disagree
 * Having viewed quite a few 4K packages on Sony and then on DLP 2K projectors, it is near on impossible to visually determine a resolution difference. The only case I have seen is with fonts, usually subtitles. There is also the bit rate limitation. 250Mb/s is a good bit rate for 2K, but remember that 4k is 4 times the image resolution of 2K, so the compression effect is larger. For stills this may not be such an issue but for moving image, it does come into effect.

 * Then there is also the 3D matter. There is no 4K 3D as such. With 2K you have 125Mb/s per frame per eye. With 4K you could have 125Mb/s per frame per eye also, but that is per 4K image. So now the effects of the compression come into play in a big way. It is effectively 31.25Mb/s per 2k segment of the 4K image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.65.70.178 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Disagree
 * As someone who works at an independant cinema that converted to 2K digital some 6 months ago I can honestly say that we are more than pleased with the picture quality from our Christie 2K projector, as are our audiences. The resolution is at least as good as that of the 35 mm release prints we used to get. Whilst 4K may be necessary on the really big screens of the old 70 mm houses, I very much doubt that the increased resolution of 4K would be apparent on our screen.

Davidlooser (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, seems like there are facts and bias in dispute in this article
Regarding bias: The use of broadly perjerative terms is troubling. For instance, "stillborn digital revolution" and "at this point, no movie directors are seriously using HD cameras to make theatrical films." Huh? What about Spike Lee, Steven Soderberg, Michael Mann, David Fincher, George Lucas, Bryan Singer, James Cameron, Lars von Trier, and Robert Rodriguez? One failure like "Shark Boy" does not a "stillborn" digital revolution make.

(The author's petulant response to the post alleging bias doesn't help his argument against his bias: denigrating phrases like "weird culture," "adolescent fantasy," "wishful thinking" and "loudmouth dreamer?"  Whew!  Let's talk rationally here.  I doubt the many millions of dollars being invested by films studios, filmmakers and technology companies into evolving video into worthy competition for film involve wishful thinking, unless they're financially incompetent.)

Conversely, some of the ADVANTAGES of digital cinema could also be taken issue with as stated. The "digital cinematography" W-entry claims that the digital format actually does not, in the overall, save money in production, and cites concrete reasons. Which one is right? Which claim about digital cameras' superiority in low-light situations is accurate?

These two articles have been suggested for merger. I suggest a review of the facts and general attitude beforehand. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 65.42.107.58 (talk • contribs) 12:31, December 29, 2005
 * Lucas.. Example: Ep III 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 08:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Film versus Digital
"There are certain laws of Quantum Mechanics that would need to be repealed before a video camera could ever equal the performance of a film camera. Electronic sensors haven't gotten all that much better over the last ten years, it's more that camera manufacturers have gotten better at disguising their deficiencies!"

What utter rubbish! What laws of Quantum Mechanics? Show us please this verifiable scientific data. That digital cinematography could equal film, in terms of resolution, dynamic range, latitude, and DOF eventually I would say is undeniable and self-evident and is only a matter of pixel count, bit depth, quantization and the physical dimensions of the imaging device. Furthermore, although 35mm film is often quoted to have an equivalent pixel resolution of somewhere between 4-6k, in its original NEGATIVE form, it is also demonstrable that once a well worn release print is shown in many provincial theatres (which is quite often) then it's resolution is dramatically reduced through worn print, bad projection setup/lens and dirty impaired screen. Whilst HD skips this multi-generational degradation, the problem of dirty screens and bad projection can remain; the point is that any talk of 35mm's inherent superior resolution is subject to various qualifying conditions and is almost impossible to verify in absolute common practice.

To replicate the particular 'qualities', as seen in a modern aesthetic sense, that make 'film' look like 'film', as opposed to video, is however a matter of really accurately simulating film's many peculiar 'artifacts' such as jitter, grain, speckles and floating image registration etc. However these are strictly speaking not qualities but defects that were never intended in the first place and manufacturers of film equipment and producers have striven to minimize their effects over many years. It is only recently, since the so called digital revolution, that mostly young filmakers, striving to emulate a 'glossy Hollywood' look on video, perceive these defects to be positive qualities.

I think, on the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the average public patron will even notice the difference between 2k and 4k digital projection since they have a hard time distinguishing between 16:9 SD and HD video. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.58.2.44 (talk • contribs) 11:04, January 1, 2006

Stop Acting as if There is a Bee in your Bonnet!!!
You digital people are amazing! You say that digital will replace film. You talk of this utiopia where digital cinema produces better quality images. When we point out flaws in your argument (flaws we can prove), you jump up and down and say we are applying an unfair standard to digital. Right now, film is undenyably a better quality image than digital. All studies prove this. Many DPs have said digital will not have the same look as film. How an audience will respond (and which one they will embrace) is yet to be seen.

The complaints for digital are fair game. Name me one digital film that is on par with Battleship Potemkin or Citizen Kane in cinematic art. Sin City? Revenge of the Sith? Maybe Sharkboy and Lavagirl? If you give me this stupid "you're just being subjective", I swear I will break something!!! Film only advanced by critism. You have to be able to prove digital will be able to create artistic masterpieces like Potemkin or Kane in order for us "film snobs" to take you seriously. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.139.61.28 (talk • contribs) 22:53, January 5, 2006 (PST)

 * If you really wanted a digital film on par with Citizen Kane, take Citizen Kane's film and use a conversion device to change it to 10000x5405 digital, and there's a digital film. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 04:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The director creates the art, not the camera. Two (identical) great movies, one shot with a DV camera, and one with a film camera, will still be great. Last Avenue 00:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * So it's the talent's fault, not the technology? Are you saying that filmmakers today lack the talent that people like Renoir and Welles had? —the preceding unsigned comment is by User:71.139.43.28 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 January 2006 (PST)

 * No, I never said today's filmmakers lack talent, nor was I saying today's films aren't as good. If someone thinks today's films suck, it is pretty much the talent's fault, and not modern technology. Last Avenue 02:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This is where film and digital supporters differ. Film supporters believe digital causes a certain amount of laziness.  It used to be you could only do so many takes because it would cost too much film stock and you would spend months editing.  So you made the takes count.  With digital, you can just keep shooting and shooting and never have to worry about stock supplies or editing.  So filmmakers do not pay attention.
 * It would hardly cost more in film to go from 10 to 20. Sort of like arguing about wasting money by losing a quarter when both are losing millions elsewher (financial markets, etc.) If film directors started using 20 instead of 10 takes, then the price would go up from around $2M to $3M. The other $1M that didn't increase was the distribution/etc. costs. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The many shots problem has occurred in current motion pictures where people just use electronic editing to edit. 20 takes are made for a shot (up from the usual 10).  Also, scenes are just shot for the editing room, where the film is haphazardly made.  If they switch to digital tape, it will get worse.

 * Also, CGI just never seemed real. I know I am not alone in this.  Yet people keep using it instead of using good effects or beautiful scenery or great acting.  Not as much work goes into it.  Just a bunch of 1s and 0s.

 * Woot. Filmmakers can simply continue their old ways, using ten takes, no CGI, etc. Then it will still be the same '1s and 0s' as before? A simple conversion of an older film to 8192*3428 (2.39:1) or something similar will still yield '1s and 0s', yet still be the same. A frame of film can easily be summarized as '1s and 0s' and still look exactly the same. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * A lot was lost in the transition from Silent to Sound. While it proved beneficial in the long run, it took decades to get the visual style back and we have never fully achieved the style once so innovative in silent.  Also, since black and white has essentially become illegal in film making, a lot has been lost as well in the visual style.  Any transition to digital would also loose style.  None of you digital supporters have given me any reason to believe such a loss would be beneficial in the long run. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.51.137 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
 * "Loss of style in the long run?" The tiny costs of extra takes (see above) is hardly preventing directors from taking 20+ times. "A lot has been lost as well in the visual style" due to black/white to color? Why not wear a pair of colorblind glasses? 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work
This article is currently a mixture of useful information and material that ranges from mistaken to nonsensical. This article desperately needs contributions from experts. -- Karada 22:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What's worse is that people keep adding stuff about digital cinematography! I just don't have the time to merge it properly there, so I'm not deleting it, but it needs to go! And the above discussion is all about digital cinematography, too, not digital cinema. I don't think digital cinema should be associated with that kind of attitude. —Wikibarista 06:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I made a very controversial statement (and can back it up)
I have made the statement that Ben-Hur's and Lawrence of Arabia's entire production budgets cost less than the amount of money spent on Superman Returns's CGI effects.

Superman Returns spends $100 million on special effects:

http://www.cinematical.com/2005/10/31/superman-returns-hits-250-million-picks-up-investor/

According to IMDB the production budgets for the major epics are:

Ben-Hur = $15,000,000

Lawrence of Arabia = $15,000,000

Adjusted for inflation (according to http://www.westegg.com/inflation) are:

Ben-Hur = $95,811,724.46

Lawrence of Arabia = $92,628,161.25

I will be the first to admit there is not much of a difference between $100 million and $95 million. However, this is a tremendous factor when we are talking about JUST THE SPECIAL EFFECTS!!! Also, Superman Returns was shot on digital. Where was the cost effectiveness there? They saved $2 million to spend over $200 million. This is before they spend well in to the nine figures promoting and distributing the film. Is this the final word in the arguement? No. But it should be considered when stating digital is more cost effective than film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.33.98 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 February 2006.

 * How exactly did they spend over $200 million due to digital? Either way, digital didn't cause the producers/director to spend $200M on CGI and whatnot. Either way, there would have been special effects, and the special effects would have been more expensive with film-->digital-->special effects-->film (digital intermediate). —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 04:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all due to the directors wanting more special effects. It's not the fact that they're switching to digital, it's the fact that there are more big-budget and uber-special-effects movies. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 04:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The person who posted the paragraph entitled 'Criticism' appears to be citing facts that have no actual relevance to the debate about the merits of digital filmmaking. He states that the cost of film production has risen incredibly, which is true, but what does that have to do with digital video which has been a valid format since Spike Lee's 'Bamboozled' which was released in October, 2000 -a little over five years ago? Since then only a few features have been filmed on digital video, and all of those would have cost much, much more if they were shot on PanaVision 35mm, or a comporable format. The writer then seems to oddly cite that because special effects, CGI in particular, are still high cost, that somehow that means any savings from the feature being shot in digital video are negated due to the CGI (!?) The same feature would still have those CGI effects on top of the already high costs involved with film. It just seems to be an illogical connect the dots, that makes zero sense!

What really baffles me to know end is when someone stupidly makes a comment like "The complaints for digital are fair game. Name me one digital film that is on par with Battleship Potemkin or Citizen Kane in cinematic art. Sin City? Revenge of the Sith? Maybe Sharkboy and Lavagirl? If you give me this stupid "you're just being subjective" b#llsh*t, I swear I will break something!!! Film only advanced by critism. You have to be able to prove digital will be able to create artistic masterpieces like Potemkin or Kane in order for us "film snobs" to take you seriously. Otherwise, shut up!!!" Ummm! Ok??? (scratches head!) You can make any film with digital video! Are you saying 'Citizen Kane' could not have been made on digital video, had the technology been available?? "Name me one digital film on par with 'Citizen Kane' HUH??????? What does that have to with anything at all? Creative minds create using the tools! The tools themselves do not create the film. The camera does not prohibit creativity, nor does it ensure it! This person seems to have a severe mental impediment, and I don't mean that as an insult. His comments seem to lack any real logic. Orson Welles could have made 'Citizen Kane' using HD DV, the script could have been developed on 'Final Draft' and edited digitally on a G5. It would still be the same film. You are not a 'Film snob' you an illogical, none too bright, quasi-luddite! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.179.235 (talk • contribs).

 * What you don't seem to realize is that Orson Welles said himself "there has never been a good film made in color." He also denounced widescreen as a "bag of tricks."  Now, I personally don't agree with these asumptions.  However, he did have a point.  Welles was not a big fan of super-high tech technology.  He only switched to color when he had no choice (on his last two films).  I bet you can't even name me these films of the top of your head.  He was trying to make the point black and white Academy film still could achieve greatness.  He made his film on black and white.  Mind you, he went to RKO with a contract that gave him unlimited power for "Citizen Kane."  On "Lady from Shanghi," he had a big budget with Rita Hayworth as his star.  She was in plenty of Technicolor productions.  So if he asked Harry Cohn (he was the head of Columbia, for all you digital know-it-alls), he could have easily obtained them.  On "Touch of Evil," the studios were switching to color and he probably could have got Eastman stocks.

 * In all of those cases, did he persue color? NO!!!  He realized black and white is different from color.  This would have changed his entire films.  They would have lacked the same look as in the older black and white format.

 * If his films had been in totally different in Color, imagine them in digital. There would be no flicker, no moving images through a projector, but a digital rendering of images from a computer program.  No creative editing, no miese en scene.  It would have been totally different.

 * So please, all you digital supporters, SHUT THE F#$K UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go back to computer programming you do so well and stop acting as if you know about the art and craft of cinema!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.36.29 (talk • contribs).

Off-the-cuff calculations
Some of the above comments are rather absurd, but also rather lacking in... detail.

Let's do some quick math for fun. Say we're shooting a two-hour feature film, with a comfy 8:1 shooting ratio (for every 8 feet of film we expose, 1 foot ends up screen). That's 3600*2*8 = 57,600 seconds, at 18 inches per second (24fps, 4-perf = 0.75in), comes out to 86,400 feet of film. A quick check of FotoKem's web site doesn't show a price list, but a little Googling turns up a price list for their services to the USC cinema school which should give us a decent start. $0.10/ft for basic negative, another $0.20/ft for one-strike dailies... that's $25,920 to develop all our film and give us a complete set of daily prints to go over in preparation for picking what to edit with.

A little more Googling, here's some company selling filmstock ; a 1000-foot reel of, say, the 250D costs $705.64; so let's say $60,967.30 to buy all the film negative in the first place.

Even if we give a huge amount of wiggle room on these figures, we're looking at something on the order of $100,000 for a huge amount of film. Double it and we're still looking at a measly $200,000. Now, compare this to the costs of talent, labor, insurance, location fees, set construction, equipment rental, electrical, post, etc etc. These things add up, especially with the big names... ten million dollars, thirty million, a hundred million, two hundred million?

Now, if you're a no-budget amateur production, sure, that film cost is big, and since it's consumable you can't borrow it from a buddy for free. Going digital can be a big budget-saver for a small production. It can also be really convenient if you're a big-budget CGI-fest, as you can skip film scanning. But the cost of film over tape doesn't seem likely to cause a significant production to decide to run fewer takes; the cost of labor is going to be a much bigger factor.

Disclaimer: just an ex-film student, not a real producer. :) --Brion 08:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the few more takes is the cost but rather editing equiptment. Before, with either a Movieola or flatbed, you had to actually cut the film. This took a long time and people tried to reduce editing time by taking less shots. Now, with digital editing equiptment, it takes less time to edit so people shoot more. An example: the movie Con Air shot over one million feet of film. They then hired 8 editors to cut the movie.

This is a problem the DGA addressed. People no longer have to map everything out. You shoot first and ask questions later.

This is getting ridiculous
I posted some warnings at the top of this talk page, hopefully to curb the abuse. From WP:CIV —Wikibarista 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Quality of Digital Projection versus Film
Ok this is likely going to cause some controversy :D I would, however, like to see some discussion on the quality of digital projection.

Here's what NATO (National association of theatre owners) says: '' C) High Quality Levels Capable of Exceeding both Film and the Home Digital cinema is capable of achieving quality levels that exceed that of duplicated film, and capable of significantly exceeding that of the home. Image quality is associated with (generally in this order): Color space, Contrast, Resolution. Many have been impressed with the current TI 2K projector. This technology comes close to matching the color space of film, and well exceeds the color space of conventional HDTV. Its contrast is not yet that of film, but has improved significantly over the years. In comparison to the home, it well exceeds that of conventional NTSC television, although this comparison may be less favorable as consumers switch to new high-contrast digital HDTV sets. Resolution, however, is the one number that commands popular focus, and is easiest to market to consumers. In its studies, the ITU demonstrated that duplicated 35mm film has less resolution than HDTV (HDTV has an image resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels). However, to differentiate the lower range of digital cinema from the consumer image format, DCI has specified a low end “2K” resolution maximizing at 2048 vertical lines by 1080 horizontal lines. An “upper-end” 4K resolution is also specified, maximizing at 4096 vertical lines by 2160 horizontal lines. While 2048x1080 is only slightly larger than the consumer HD 1920x1080 format, the 4K 4096x2160 format offers 4 times the number of pixels found in consumer HDTV. While 4K is the goal, the technology today is only proven for 2K. Sony is demonstrating a 4K projector at trade shows, but the demonstration has yet to match the color space or contrast of the TI projector, making the Sony projector an under-performer visually. The Sony projector has yet to be tested in a busy, metropolitan cinema that operates many shows daily. Even if a 4K projector were available, it would need a 4K server. As of this writing, no vendor has a 4K server on the market, or even in demonstration. Sony, notably, uses 4 servers to drive one projector in its trade show demonstrations. 4K technology is likely to be many years away from achieving theatre-level performance and operation. To insure single-inventory content in a 2K / 4K world, DCI specified a standard compression technology capable of handling both sets of image resolutions in one data file. Using JPEG2000, a compliant server can play a 4K image to a 2K projector by extracting the 2K version of the image from the 4K image file. The specification of JPEG2000 and the specific application of it for single-inventory content distribution was a significant milestone in the DCI process.''

-Tying it with economics: A big part of digital cinema specifications is ensuring that the quality stays above that of home theatre, which is a competing market. Hence instead of adopting the 1920X1280 frame size of HD, d-cinema is going with 2K instead.

Glennchan 01:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 * "As of this writing, no vendor has a 4K server on the market, or even in demonstration."

 * Not true. QuVIS demonstrated its Digital Cinema System 4K at NAB in April, and at IBC in September. QuVIS offers a 4K JPEG2000 mastering system, 4K servers, and 2K servers that can do a realtime extraction from 4K material.  4K is now only hampered by the shortage of projectors, and that will change soon.

 * PyroGuy 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Digital Cinema Venues
Since the Digital Rev has started, is it appropriate to start a category of theaters using digital projection technologies?

suggested addition to "claims to significant events"
While earlier presentations have been recorded, it should be noted that the popular introduction of digital cinema to the public was on June 18, 1999 with the digital premiere of George Lucas's "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace." The movie was shown in four digital theatres in the US, two on the West Coast and two on the East Coast. These were Loew's Meadow 6 Theater in Secaucus, NJ, Loew's Route 4 Theater in Paramus, NJ, Pacific Theatre's Winnetka-21 in Chatsworth, CA and the AMC-14 theatre in Burbank, CA. Two different projectors were used, one on each coast: a prototype DLP-Cinema projector and a JVC ILA-12K projector. These projectors were driven by Pluto servers storing the movie in a lightly compressed format. Karagosian 05:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose the introduction of the Doremi Labs DCP2000 as a "significant event" in digital cinema. The DCP2000 was the first released server based on the evolving DCI specification. Its introduction put pressure on all other players in the market and in part ensured that the DCI spec would become a meaningful specification. The DCP2000 has retained the highest rate of installations, for almost 5 years, leading to a current installation base of over 14,000 units world wide.

Quvis should also be mentioned in the article as this was the most significant pre DCI digital server in use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.65.70.178 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

4K Digital TV for the home?
When will we see 4K monitors go on sale for the consumer market? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.112 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

2K height
What is the typical height of 2K video? I'm very confused. Both RED Camera Systems and this website seem to show 2K at a height of 1152—the way it looks here: Image:Digital_cinema_formats.svg. Then this article describes projection at a height of 1080—same with this image Image:UHDV.svg. Photoshop CS3's built in presets for 2K (and 4K) are also different from the aformentioned. Anyone have any insight? Is it likely a pixel aspect ratio issue? TIM KLOSKE 01:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Short: There is not "the" 2K standard, and especially not in image height.
 * Long: 2K, as in 2 kilo, regularly 2000 pixels, are here calculated base 2, therefore resulting in 2048 pixels. Some companies (like Arri) define the 2K as covering the entire 35mm film width, so after subtraction of the space for the optical sound track, they specify 1828 px as 2K. And since it is so close in resolution HDTV's 1920 px might sometimes also be referred to as 2K.
 * Then you have a great variety of image aspect ratios - 1:1.77, 1:1.85, 1:2.21, 1:2.35 … All will have different pixel heights, when their horizontal size is "2K". In addition, you might have pixel aspect ratio issues, as you can have some images anamorphic and some spherical. A DCI-2K (non-anamorphic) "Cinemascope" picture (1:2.35 [not mentioned the newer standard according to the ASC handbook of 1:2.39]) would measure 871 px in height; the same anamorphic image in 2K for print on film might give 1556 px (Arri) etc. --85.182.75.81 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Article for use
Here is an article in the Wall Street Journal that can be worked into the article:
 * Universal, Disney Back Rollout of Digital Cinema Equipment --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The area of technology seems sparse to me.
I would really like more on the method of projection in this wiki. It is my understanding that the projectors use a strong light that passes through transmissive LCD panels. Are there different panels for each primary color (R,G,B)? Is it one panel? You get the idea.
 * I have developed a system that culminates three diode pumped lasers into a single white beam. I then use two spinning mirrors to create a raster that scans across a transmissive LCD screen. The light passes through and carries the image from the LCD to the screen. Being that laser light is a zero point source, it needs no lens to focus the image that it carries. You can see the project that inspired me to try this on instructables. http://www.instructables.com/id/Laser-Image-Projector/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.98.22 (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I came to the article looking for an understanding of the actual mechanics of the projection room, that is, how they differ from a normal film projector, and did not find anything concrete. The link to "Digital projector" was not too helpful either. In an ordinary "analogue" movie house the film is run through a device which directs intense light through the medium to project an image against a screen. What is going on in an actual projection room of a digital cinema? Orthotox (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Links to consider as references
Copied from a comment on my talk page: --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wordpress.com/tag/digital-cinema-events/
 * http://digitalcinemabuyersguide.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/dvidea-at-cine-expo-2008/
 * http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=865
 * http://www.d2cinema.com/
 * http://www.cinemaexpo.com/filmexpo/photos/pdf/A_CEI09_TSB.pdf
 * http://www.madcornishprojectionist.co.uk/news-europe.php
 * http://fullres.blogspot.com/2008/06/dvidea-introduces-new-functionalities.html
 * http://www.cineserver.nl/
 * http://www.manice.org/
 * I've looked through each link, and I don't think any of them meet WP:RS. Mostly, this is just self-published information from Dvidea, or discussions about Dvidea in blogs. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Typical cost to the theater for a digital print?
One piece of information I am looking for which is not in this article: what is the typical cost, to the movie theater, to buy a "digital print", that is to say, rent the digital file to load into the digital projector? I was briefly a movie projectionist, in 2005. I learned that the cost to the theater for one 20 minute roll of analog film is $6,000 (US dollars). So, for a 10 reel movie, like Alexander, the cost to the movie theater is $60,000 per copy of the movie. Does anybody have ballpark figures for the digital equivalent, and can put those figures in the article?68.186.59.182 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be misunderstanding here about the way that exhibitors are charged for the movies they screen. The charge is per movie, not per reel, and it is based on a percentage of the box-office income that the exhibitor earns from showing that movie. The percentage charged varies from movie to movie and also on how much time has passed from that movie's release to the start of the booking. DCPs (Digital "prints") are charged in exactly the same way and at exactly the same rates, ie. for a given title and time since release the same percentage is charged for a 35 mm print or a DCP.

However when a movie is taken as a DCP rather than a film print a fee known as a "Virtual Print Fee" (VPF) is paid by the distributor either to the exhibitor, or commonly to a third party organisation (called an integrator) who funded the installation of the digital projector. The amount of the VPF is determined per booking rather than being based on the box-office receipts earned. The amount of the VPF will be small compared to the rental fee but in most cases will be sufficient to pay-off the cost of the digital projector over a period typically of 5-10 years.

Davidlooser (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of VPF (Virtual Print Fee)
There are several references to "VPF", but no clear explanation of what exactly this is, or even what the acronym stands for. Apparently, in the Virtual Print Fee business model the distributor pays a third party to install digital cinema equipment in a theater. The theater pays the distributor the full price for each "print", and the distributor uses the money they save (since digital distribution is so much cheaper than traditional film prints) to pay the third party which provided the digital cinema equipment. Any experts willing to add something like this to the article?

I'm not familiar with Digital Cinema myself, but here some possible references:
 * What is a VPF? http://www.mkpe.com/digital_cinema/faqs/#vpf
 * What is the VPF (Virtual Print Fee) Model? http://www.artsalliancemedia.com/vpf/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtwernbold (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong abut red
""Multipurpose", and cameras capable of recording 5K, such as the RED EPIC" The red epic can't record in 5K - it captures STILLS in 5K. From RED.com "With the innate ability to capture 5K REDCODE RAW stills and 4K motion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joffboff (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a block on HD TV at the end of this article?
The article is about digital cinema. If there is a close enough relation between HD TV and digital cinema to warrant the presence of the block, that relation should be elaborated in the article. Dick Grune (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

additional external resources for Digital Cinema Package... which I authored
Hi

there seem to be much more discussion going on here than on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digital_Cinema_Package, so I'd like to draw the attention of the community to my suggestion Talk:Digital_Cinema_Package to add two resources. Because I authored both resources I suggest and because I'm a new contributor, it might look as spam. I hope it won't because the resources are neutral and interesting, and because I won't be doing the edit myself ! cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charbonstudio (talk • contribs) 07:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Digital cinema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130319052633/http://www.doremilabs.com:80/downloads/manuals/DCP-2000_and_DCP-2K4_User_Manual_001822_v1_2.pdf to http://www.doremilabs.com/downloads/manuals/DCP-2000_and_DCP-2K4_User_Manual_001822_v1_2.pdf

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Digital cinema. 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/20140101065704/http://www.dolby.com/gb/en/professional/hardware/cinema/cinema-servers/dss200.html?utm_campaign=cin-dss200-pro&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_content=dss200-v1 to http://www.dolby.com/gb/en/professional/hardware/cinema/cinema-servers/dss200.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326214343/http://www.natoonline.org/pdfs/NATO%20Digital%20Cinema%20System%20Requirements%20-%20release%202%201.pdf to http://www.natoonline.org/pdfs/NATO%20Digital%20Cinema%20System%20Requirements%20-%20release%202%201.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113223151/http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2013-04-16-sonys-digital-cinema-momentum-continues-with-record-number-of-4k-projectors-shipped-eight-years-of-continuous-growth to http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2013-04-16-sonys-digital-cinema-momentum-continues-with-record-number-of-4k-projectors-shipped-eight-years-of-continuous-growth
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150812075520/http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html to http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Pros and Cons
Under cons we have:"Digital cinemas' efficiency of storing images has a downside. The speed and ease of modern digital editing processes threatens to give editors and their directors, if not an embarrassment of choice then at least a confusion of options, potentially making the editing process, with this 'try it and see' philosophy, lengthier rather than shorter.[40]:63 Because the equipment needed to produce digital feature films can be obtained more easily than celluloid, producers could inundate the market with cheap productions and potentially dominate the efforts of serious directors. Because of the quick speed in which they are filmed, these stories sometimes lack essential narrative structure."[40]:66–67 This doesn't belong anywhere in this article.Longinus876 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Texas Instruments, DLP Cinema Prototype System, Mark V, Paris, 2000 - Philippe Binant Archives.jpg

Reason for redirection from "6K" ?
What is the reason for the creation of a redirect from "6K" to this lemma? --Angerdan (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History and Theory of New Media
— Assignment last updated by Jnolan27 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Digital cinema


text:
Talk:Darkhawk

Kirkman's Darkhawk?
Is it worth mentioning that Kirkman's original pitches to Marvel Comics were the (printed) Sleepwalker Epic and a Darkhawk reboot? The reboot would have given the amulet to Chris' dad, the cop. - Darkhawk

 * Read the 1st page of Darkhawk #1. it says Created by Mike Manley and Tom DeFalco. Mr. Fingeroth is only mentioned as the writer, not a creator. This should be changed.

 * Then change it! Be brave! Also, it's a good idea to "sign" your posts in talk groups so people know who they're talking to. At the end of your post, just type in four tilde signs (the shift of the upper leftmost key on a QWERTY keyboard). Matt Deres 19:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Changed the creator credits to give props to Mr DeFalco, and expanded a little on the history of the Excelsior group and the aftermath of their battle with Ultron. - Sean Fewster

 * Added a summary of the story from Robert Kirkman's Marvel Team-Up arc. If I'm misrepresenting the denouement of that story (in regards to the reason they are stuck in the future), feel free to correct it.  I also updated the bibliography to include the Runaways arc. - Ubik2000 01:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved and slightly corrected the Excelsior/Loners part of Darkhawk's entry; due to the fact that the RUNAWAYS Series is within the 616/Marvel Universe.PaxHouse 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A Note
The chronology is all out of order and there is loads of redundant information. Lots42 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit WikiProject_Comics/Assessment and list the article. Hiding T 13:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mutate?
Is Darkhawk a mutate, or simply a human with an amulet that gives him powers? Rosencomet (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's a human with an amulet. --GrantBnet (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Darkhawk's crossover
Just to mention that DH fought U-foes with captain america and Daredevil. I thought that was worth mentionning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.219.36 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Without telling us what titles or issues this happened, your comment is solidly unhelpful. --GrantBnet (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

First appearance?
The first issue of the Darkhawk title has been established as his first official appearance. However, one editor insists that the 5 page preview in Marvel Age #97 supersedes this. Marvel and DC issue previews of titles all the time, but should in house ads for upcoming books be considered official appearances? It's my understanding that unless it is a full-size comic book intended to be in continuity, it is just advertising, and should not count in a character's bibliography. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Continuity is irrelevant to determining a character's first appearance, since continuity is strictly an in-universe concept, whereas first appearance is an out-of-universe concept. Also, remember that there are many popular characters who don't have any appearances intended to be in continuity, yet we still list first appearances for them. As a side note, I wouldn't equate previews with advertising.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion has clearly stalled here, so per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I'm restoring Marvel Age #97 as the first appearance to see if that gets it started up again. Also, Fortdj33, you say "Marvel and DC issue previews of titles all the time"; was that just an offhand remark, or are there other characters who first appeared in previews that we don't acknowledge as their first appearance? If the latter, maybe we ought to make this a general discussion at WikiProject Comics so we can form a consensus on what to do in these situations.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That may need to be a project discussion. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Note the two external sources at the bottom of the page. Both sources, including the owner of the IP in question, Marvel Comics, list Darkhawk #1 as the first appearance. Regarding previews, many characters, especially more recent creations, appear first in ads or in excerpts of upcoming books (previews which are effectively ads). Other examples occur in Marvel's Marvel Age magazine as well that are not acknowledged on Wikipedia (e.g. Cable_(comics) was included in a sketchbook page in issue 82, which preceded New Mutants 87). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.243.177 (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Asking NukeofEarl for commentary, as another edit war had been going on. 2601:D:B482:CCE0:3112:572F:AABB:E14A (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Darkhawk's First Appearance, Round 2
Hey people. I'm the guy who wrote the very first Darkhawk wiki page, way back before they brought him back in Runaways. A lot has changed since then, but one thing should be set in stone: Darkhawk's first appearance, which was definitely in Darkhawk #1. Marvel Age simply doesn't count -- according to its own page, it isn't even a comic, but rather a "promotional comic book sized magazine". An earlier argument against Marvel Age as Darkhawk's first appearance described it as "out of continuity", but I'll do you one better: it contains no original material. Rather, it's a five-page preview of Darkhawk #1, containing reprints of pages made for Darkhawk #1 followed by a blurb at the end telling you to buy Darkhawk #1. Think of it like a movie trailer. You wouldn't say that Neo's first appearance in a film was five minutes before a screening of some movie that isn't the Matrix.

Unless you're willing to argue that Darkhawk #1 contains a five-page reprint of material from Marvel Age followed by original material -- and that is completely insane -- then you must concede that Darkhawk #1 is, in fact, Darkhawk's first appearance. If for some reason folks insist on including Marvel Age #97 on Darkhawk's page -- and you really shouldn't, it doesn't count and it's confusing to include it -- I point you to the page of a character with a much more nuanced character, Firestar. She has three "first appearances" listed: one for her first appearance in media (a cartoon), one for her first comic book appearance (an adaptation of the cartoon), and one for her first in-continuity appearance. If you can come up with an elegant way to include Marvel Age #97 while concisely explaining that it is, in fact, just a five-page advert with no original material, and if you honestly think it's important to do so...have at it, I guess. In the meantime, I'm changing Darkhawk's first appearance to Darkhawk #1, because that's what it was. --Malvolio80 (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's some new information that will hopefully put this whole thing to bed forever. I dug up a copy of Marvel Age #97 to confirm that it contains no original material. Not only is that the case, but in fact the five preview pages are from pages 2-6 of Darkhawk #1 -- and Darkhawk does not appear in those pages. He first appears on page 14 of Darkhawk #1, or you could say he first appears in a pin-up on page 1, which is also not in Marvel Age #97. In fact, the Marvel Age version of Page 6 ends with the following blurb: "Ooops! Our preview ran out before we got to meet our newest hero. But you can pick up where we left off with Darkhawk #1, on sale in January." There are two pictures of Darkhawk in Marvel Age: one on the cover, and one illustration accompanying a text article about the character. So, even if you reject all of my arguments above, I think the fact that Darkhawk doesn't appear in Marvel Age #97 at all is pretty much the final nail in that coffin. Malvolio80 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Marvel Age 97
The first appearance keeps getting edited. I'm going to keep it on Darkhawk #1 until someone makes an argument here. I want to emphasize that Darkhawk is not in Marvel Age 97 -- he's on the cover only, which I don't think qualifies as an appearance. Malvolio80 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't matter if he had appeared in Marvel Age, it still wouldn't be his first appearance. There is a small minority who argue for ads and previews as the "first appearance" (Bleeding Cool does this all the time) - but those are pretty much always based around speculation - they're trying to sell this true first appearance for a profit. But, since it's been disputed, the best course of action would be to find an old Wizard, a new Overstreet, or check CGC's website. All of these sources specify first appearances. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Film appearance?
Marvel Legends lists a Darkhawk "movie version", but no mention of a film appearance is mentioned here. Is that page wrong, or does this one need an update? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 653991. SX1280 QL80 TTD.jpg

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

title: Talk:Darkhawk


text:
GER Class Y14

The Great Eastern Railway (GER) Class Y14 is a class of 0-6-0 steam locomotive. The LNER classified them J15.

The Class Y14 was designed by T.W. Worsdell for both freight and passenger duties - a veritable 'maid of all work'. Introduced in July 1883, they were so successful that all the succeeding Locomotive Superintendents continued to build new batches up until 1913 with little design change, the final total being 289. During World War I, 43 of the engines served in France and Belgium.

Background
On 10–11 December 1891, the Great Eastern Railway's Stratford Works built one of these locomotives and had it in steam with a coat of grey primer in 9 hours 47 minutes; this remains a world record. The locomotive then went off to run 36000 mi on Peterborough to London coal trains before coming back to the works for the final coat of paint. It lasted 40 years and ran a total of 1127750 mi.

Because of their light weight the locomotives were given the Route Availability (RA) number 1, indicating that they could work over nearly all routes.

Accidents and incidents

 * On 25 September 1900, locomotive No. 522 suffered a boiler explosion at Westerfield, Suffolk. Both crew members of the locomotive, driver John Barnard and fireman William MacDonald, were killed.
 * On 20 January 1915, locomotive No. 629 was hauling a freight train that collided with the rear of a passenger train, hauled by GER Class T26 2-4-0 No. 446, at County School railway station, Norfolk.
 * On 7 January 1927, locomotive No. 7613 was hauling a freight train that was in collision with a lorry at Roudham Heath, Norfolk, on the Breckland Line due to errors by the crossing keeper. The lorry driver was killed.
 * On 4 October 1929, locomotive No. 7938 was hauling a freight train that departed against a danger signal at Tottenham, London and was subsequently stopped foul of a junction. Both crew abandoned the locomotive before a northbound mail train, hauled by LNER Class B17 4-6-0 No. 2808 Gunton, collided with the rear of the freight. 18 people were injured.
 * In 1934, LNER No.7902 crashed into the buffer stops at Ongar Station and climbed the wall. No one was killed though the crew received a few minor injuries.
 * In the late 1950s, No. 65475 had to be rerailed by crane due to an unknown cause and location.
 * On 17 November 2018, locomotive No. 564 struck a vehicle on a level crossing near Sheringham in Norfolk. The driver of the Mercedes involved in the collision ignored the warning lights at the crossing and proceeded through into the path of the oncoming locomotive, which was travelling at around 10 mph at the time. The collision reportedly occurred at around 11:30 AM.

Notable features
As built all the locomotives had a stovepipe chimney; this was replaced in LNER days by a cast chimney with a small lip. The original Worsdell and early Holden series had three-ring boilers with the steam dome placed in the middle. Also the Worsdell boilers had a flat grate, however from 1890 Holden developed a boiler with a sloping grate and a two-ring telescopic barrel with the dome located well forward. The advantage of the dome position was a short 5½ inch steam pipe which limited pressure drop between the boiler and the cylinders. This boiler was adopted as standard and persisted on all Great Eastern Locomotives down to 1898; from then on it was perpetuated on the smaller locomotives as long as these remained essentially in their original configuration - which could be down to the 1960s. As with all Great Eastern classes, the Y14 had a cab with a low wooden roof covered with canvas sealed by a coat of lead paint. This was replaced in LNER days by a higher arched sheet metal roof. Some engines had special side window cabs for service on the exposed Brightlingsea and Colne Valley branches.

Allocations
On 1 January 1923 there were 272 J15 locomotives in existence. They were allocated as follows:
 * Cambridge: 48
 * Colchester: 14
 * Ipswich: 32
 * King's Lynn: 5
 * Lincoln: 3
 * Lowestoft: 7
 * March: 17
 * Norwich: 36
 * Parkeston: 2
 * Peterborough East: 19
 * Stratford: 91
 * Yarmouth: 4

In 1942 during World War II, six locomotives were drafted in to assist with coal traffic in South Yorkshire with three allocated to Mexborough engine shed and three to Barnsley engine shed.

On 1 January 1948 when British Railways was formed, there were 127 J15 locomotives in existence.

Unusually, in 1957 a couple of the class were allocated to Aylesbury and worked freight trains on the former Great Western Railway branch from Princes Risborough to Watlington before being withdrawn in 1958.

In film
In September 1936 locomotives 7541 and 7835 were withdrawn by the LNER and sold to London Film Productions for their film Knight Without Armour. The two locomotives were moved to Denham film studios and underwent cosmetic modification to look more Russian as that was where the film was set. The locomotives were then sold to the War Department and worked on the Shropshire and Montgomeryshire Railway as WD221 and WD212. During their war service both were involved in incidents and returned to Stratford in 1944 and subsequently scrapped.

Another member of the class appeared in the 1954 film Happy Ever After disguised as an Irish locomotive.

Preservation

Number 564/7564/65462 is preserved on the North Norfolk Railway and owned by the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway Society. In 2002 the locomotive reached the end of a major overhaul and was painted in LNER (numbered 7564) and BR black numbered 65462) liveries for the duration of its boiler ticket. It originally operated in these liveries when classified as a J15 in LNER and BR days. Following withdrawal from service in 2013, the locomotive received another overhaul (completed 2015) where it was outshopped in GER lined blue and sporting its original number of 564 and representing its days when classified as a Y14.

65469 was originally a candidate for preservation, but it was scrapped.

Models
Hornby produces a ready-to-run model of the J15 in 00 gauge (4 mm) in BR (with the rebuilt high-arched cab roof) and LNER liveries (both as-built and high-arch cab roofs). Also in 00 gauge, there are kits from Alan Gibson and Nu-Cast. Finley and Smith produce a 3 mm kit. A 7mm (O gauge) kit is made by Connoisseur Models.

title: GER Class Y14


text:
User talk:Hymyly

Talkback
Seems to be an erroneous Wikipedia concept, that still exists only as a WP redirect. Please read the Talk page, and weigh in on whether the AfD ought to be proposed now, or wait a bit longer. Cheers. N2e N2e (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hymyly


text:
Manufactured housing

Manufactured housing (commonly known as mobile homes in the United States) is a type of prefabricated housing that is largely assembled in factories and then transported to sites of use. The definition of the term in the United States is regulated by federal law (Code of Federal Regulations, 24 CFR 3280): "Manufactured homes are built as dwelling units of at least 320 sqft in size with a permanent chassis to assure the initial and continued transportability of the home." The requirement to have a wheeled chassis permanently attached differentiates "manufactured housing" from other types of prefabricated homes, such as modular homes.

Definition
According to the Manufactured Housing Institute's National Communities Council (MHINCC), manufactured homes

"are homes built entirely in the factory under a federal building code administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (commonly known as the HUD Code) went into effect June 15, 1976. Manufactured homes may be single- or multi-section and are transported to the site and installed."

The MHINCC distinguishes among several types of factory-built housing: manufactured homes, modular homes, panelized homes, pre-cut homes, and mobile homes.

From the same source, mobile home "is the term used for manufactured homes produced prior to June 15, 1976, when the HUD Code went into effect." Despite the formal definition, mobile home and trailer are still common terms in the United States for this type of housing.

History
The original focus of this form of housing was its ability to relocate easily. Units were initially marketed primarily to people whose lifestyle required mobility. However, beginning in the 1950s, these homes began to be marketed primarily as an inexpensive form of housing designed to be set up and left in a location for long periods of time, or even permanently installed with a masonry foundation. Previously, units had been eight feet or less in width, but in 1956, the 10 ft wide home was introduced. This helped solidify the line between mobile and house/travel trailers, since the smaller units could be moved simply with an automobile, but the larger, wider units required the services of a professional trucking company. In the 1960s and '70s, the homes became even longer and wider, making the mobility of the units more difficult. Today, when a factory-built home is moved to a location, it is usually kept there permanently. The mobility of the units has decreased considerably.

The factory-built homes of the past developed a negative stereotype because of their lower cost and the tendency for their value to depreciate more quickly than site-built homes. The tendency of these homes to rapidly depreciate in resale value made using them as collateral for loans far riskier than traditional home loans. Loan terms were usually limited to less than the 30-year term typical of the general home-loan market, and interest rates were considerably higher. In other words, these home loans resembled motor vehicle loans far more than traditional home mortgages. They have been consistently linked to lower-income families, which has led to prejudice and zoning restrictions, which include limitations on the number and density of homes permitted on any given site, minimum size requirements, limitations on exterior colors and finishes, and foundation mandates.

Many jurisdictions do not allow the placement of any additional factory-built homes, while others have strongly limited or forbidden all single-wide models, which tend to depreciate more rapidly than modern double-wide models. The derogatory concept of a "trailer park" is typically older single-wide homes occupying small, rented lots and remaining on wheels, even if the home stays in place for decades.

Modern manufactured homes

Modern homes, especially modular homes, belie this image and can be identical in appearance to site-built homes. Newer homes, particularly double-wides, tend to be built to much higher standards than their predecessors. This has led to a reduction in the rate of value depreciation of many used units.

Although great strides have been made in terms of quality, manufactured homes do still struggle with construction problems. Author Wes Johnson has pointed out that the HUD code which governs manufactured homes desperately needs to be updated, quality control at manufacturing facilities are often lax, and set-up issues often compromise even a well-made manufactured home. Johnson states buyers need to be exceptionally cautious if they are entertaining the idea of purchasing any manufactured home by carefully checking it for defects before signing the contract and supervising the set-up process closely. These homes in the modern age are built to be beautiful and last longer than the typical old trailers.

When FEMA studied the destruction wrought by Hurricane Andrew in Dade County Florida, they concluded that modular and masonry homes fared best compared to other construction.

High-performance manufactured housing
While manufactured homes are considered to be affordable housing, older models can be some of the most expensive in the nation to heat due to energy inefficiency. High-performance manufactured housing uses less energy and therefore increases life-cycle affordability by decreasing operating costs. High-performance housing is not only energy efficient, but also attractive, functional, water-efficient, resilient to wind, seismic forces, and moisture penetration, and has healthy indoor environmental quality. Achieving high-performance involves integrated, whole building design, involving many components, not one single technology. High–performance manufactured housing should also include energy efficient appliances, such as Energy Star qualified appliances. Energy Star requires ample insulation: 2x6 walls: R21, roof: R40, floor: R33.

Difference from modular homes
Both types of homes - manufactured and modular - are commonly referred to as factory-built housing, but they are not identical. Modular homes are built to International Residential Code (IRC) code. Modular homes can be transported on flatbed trucks rather than being towed, and can lack axles and an automotive-type frame. However, some modular houses are towed behind a semi-truck or toter on a frame similar to that of a trailer. The house is usually in two pieces and is hauled by two separate trucks. Each frame has five or more axles, depending on the size of the house. Once the house has reached its location, the axles and the tongue of the frame are then removed, and the house is set on a concrete foundation by a large crane. Some modern modular homes, once fully assembled, are indistinguishable from site-built homes. In addition, modular homes:

 * must conform to the same local, state and regional building codes as homes built on-site;
 * are treated the same by banks as homes built on-site. They are easily refinanced, for example;
 * must be structurally approved by inspectors;
 * can be of any size, although the block sections from which they are assembled are uniformly sized;

Difference from IRC codes homes (site built)
Manufactured homes have several standard requirements that are more stringent than International Residential Code homes.

Fire Protection

A National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) study from July 2011 shows that occurrence of fires is lower in manufactured housing and the injury rate is lower in manufactured housing. The justification behind the superior fire safety is due to the following higher standard requirements:

 * The HUD standard requires a flame spread of 25 or less in water heater and furnace compartments.
 * The HUD standard requires a flame spread of 50 or less on the wall behind the range.
 * The HUD standard requires a flame spread of 75 or less on the ceilings.
 * The HUD standard requires a flame spread of 25 or less to protect the bottoms and side of kitchen cabinets around the range.
 * The HUD standard requires additional protection of cabinets above the range.
 * The HUD standard requires trim larger than 6" to meet flame spread requirements.
 * The HUD standard requires smoke detectors in the general living area.
 * The HUD standard requires 2 exterior doors.
 * The HUD standard requires bedroom doors to be within 35 feet of an exterior door.

Bay Area
The San Francisco Bay Area, located in Northern California, is known for its high real estate prices, making manufactured housing an increasingly popular alternative to traditional real estate. It is mainly the value of the land that makes real estate in this area so expensive. As of May 2011, the median price of a home in Santa Clara was $498,000, while the most expensive manufactured home with all the premium features was only $249,000. This drastic price difference is due to the fact that manufactured homes are typically placed in communities where individuals do not own the land, but instead pay a monthly site fee. This enables a consumer, who could otherwise not afford to live in the Bay Area, the opportunity to own a new home in this location. There are various communities of manufactured homes in the Bay Area, the largest being Casa de Amigos, located in Sunnyvale, California.

Australia
In Australia these homes are commonly known as transportable homes, relocatable homes or prefabricated homes (not to be confused with the American meaning of the term). They are not as common as in the US, but the industry is expected to grow as this method of construction becomes more accepted.

Manufactured home parks refer to housing estates where the house owner rents the land instead of owning it. This is quite common in Queensland in both the form of tourist parks and over fifty estates. The term transportable homes tends to be used to refer to houses that are built on land that is owned by the house owner.

Typically the homes are built in regional areas where the cost of organizing tradespeople and materials is higher than in the cities. In particular prefabricated homes have been popular in mining towns or other towns experiencing demand for new housing in excess of what can be handled by local builders. This method of construction is governed by state construction legislation and is subject to local council approval and homeowners' warranty or home warranty insurance.

Construction process
A manufactured home is built entirely inside a huge, climate-controlled factory by a team of craftsmen. The first step in the process is the flooring, which is built in sections, each attached to a permanent chassis with its own wheels and secured for transport upon the home's completion. Depending on the size of the house and the floorplan's layout, there may be two, three or even four sections. The flooring sections have heating, electrical and plumbing connections pre-installed before they are finished with laminate, tile or hardwood. Next, the walls are constructed on a flat level surface with insulation and interior Sheetrock before being lifted by crane into position and secured to the floor sections. The interior ceilings and roof struts are next, vapor sealed and secured to each section's wall frame before being shingled. Then, the exterior siding is added, along with the installation of doors and windows. Finally, interior finishing, such as sealing the drywall, is completed, along with fixture installation and finishing the electrical and plumbing connections. The exposed portions of each section, where they will eventually be joined together, are wrapped in plastic to protect them for transport.

With all the building site prep work completed, the building will be delivered by trucks towing the individual sections on their permanent chassis. The sections will be joined together securely, and all final plumbing and electrical connections are made before a decorative skirt or facade is applied to the bottom exterior of the house, hiding the chassis and finishing off the look of the home.

title: Manufactured housing


text: User talk:146.149.18.7

title: User talk:146.149.18.7


text:
User talk:Hsigall

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Hsigall


text: Category:Shot putters

title: Category:Shot putters


text:
User talk:Roberthilley@hotmail.com

Your edits on dialysis have been reverted. If your intention is nothing but to solicit cases for compensatory lawsuits, you are most decidedly not welcome on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk  20:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Roberthilley@hotmail.com


text:
Talk:Cryptocracy/to do

 * Look for historical occurences
 * Look for occurences in fiction

title: Talk:Cryptocracy/to do


text: Category:Christopher O'Riley albums

title: Category:Christopher O'Riley albums


text: Category:Law enforcement in Mexico

title: Category:Law enforcement in Mexico


text:
Kehath

According to the Torah, Kehath (קְהָת, Qəhāṯ) or Kohath was the second of the sons of Levi and the patriarchal founder of the Kehathites, one of the four main divisions of the Levites in biblical times. In some apocryphal texts, such as the Testament of Levi and the Book of Jubilees, Levi's wife, Kehath's mother, is Milkah, a daughter of Aram.

Onomastics
According to biblical scholars, the meaning of Kehath's name is unknown, though it may derive from an Aramaic word meaning obey.

In the Testament of Levi, Kehath's birth when his father Levi was 35 years old was accompanied by a vision of Kehath "on high in the midst of all the congregation"; in the vision, Kehath's name is given as meaning "the beginning of majesty and instruction" and prophesies his being raised above his siblings.

Genealogy
In the Book of Exodus, Kehath has four sons, Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel. Amram marries Jochebed and sires Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Although some Greek and Latin manuscripts of the Septuagint version of the Torah state that Jochebed was Kehath's cousin, the Hebrew Masoretic Text states that she was his sister ---that is, Amram's aunt---and Jochebed's relationship to Levi is otherwise described unambiguously as his daughter in the Book of Numbers 26:59. According to Numbers, Kehath gained 8,600 descendants during the lifetime of his grandson. However these names were prominent clans, and not always direct linear descendants as expected in western genealogies.

Theories
Julius Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis asserts that the Torah was compiled in the fifth century BC from several independent, contradictory, hypothetical (nonextant) documents, including the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and priestly sources and the Book of Generations. Advocates of this hypothesis, such as Richard Elliott Friedman, attribute Levi's biblical genealogy to the "Book of Generations". Others attribute Moses's birth narrative, which also mentions Amram and Jochebed, to the earlier "Elohist source". According to this theory, the Levite genealogy is a myth to explain away the fact that four different groups claimed descent from Levi---the Gershonites, Kehathites, Merarites, and Aaronids. Since Aaron could not have been a brother to Gershon, Kehath, and Merari, he had to belong to the following generation. The hypothetical reconstruction of the "Elohist source" mentions only that both parents were Levites without identifying their names. Some scholars suspect that the "Elohist source" attributes to Moses both matrilineal and patrilineal descent from Levites in order to enhance his religious credentials.

Family tree
According to the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus Kohath's family tree looks like this:

title: Kehath


text:
User talk:Pcjach

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Pcjach


text: User talk:69.19.14.21

title: User talk:69.19.14.21


text: User talk:203.160.169.85

title: User talk:203.160.169.85


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love's Enduring Promise

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Love's Enduring Promise
Obviously this page can't stay as it is because it's simply one person's personal reaction to the film - i.e. not ecyclopaedic. (The current content should be put into IMDB or similar as a review.)

However, I've not nominated this for a speedy delete in case someone thinks the film itself (not someone's POV) can be made into an encyclopaedic entry. Finbarr Saunders 20:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-encyclopedic review. If you want it to be made into an article, drop of a request at the movie wikiproject. - Mgm|(talk) 21:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Clean-up, the movie was nominated for a couple of awards. The article might have some potential. --Bob 21:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was actually going to make this into a useful stub myself, but when I went to IMDB to do the research, I found that this was a 2004 made-for-TV movie starring a bunch of unknowns that was nominated (but did not win) a couple of awards I've never even heard of. Kramer vs. Kramer this ain't. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Fernando. If someone wanted to recreate a useful article about it later, no problem.  But I doubt it would happen. --  Etacar11   03:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above - Tεx  τ  urε  21:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Biles1984

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Your edit to Joe Lieberman
Your recent edit to Joe Lieberman (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 13:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Dan Centinello
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dan Centinello, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dan Centinello seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dan Centinello, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Dan Centinello itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Biles1984


text: User talk:68.112.248.14

title: User talk:68.112.248.14


text:
User talk:Buybooks Marius

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.
 * User:Redwolf24/Bootcamp My own personal summarized Bootcamp.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 20:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like messages :-P

OneSavings restored
Having spent a few hours away from Wikipedia (watching Colditz!), I looked again at the article, and you were correct that I should not have speedily deleted it (as mentioned by another editor on the review).

I have now restored the article/talk page/redirect and closed the review with that message.

I made a mistake here - thanks for letting me know! I occasionally make them, you know - hopefully not too often though!

If there's anything else I can help you with in the future, please feel free to contact me! --  Phantom Steve / talk | contribs \ 06:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about OneSavings Bank
Hello, Buybooks Marius, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Articles for deletion/OneSavings Bank whether the article OneSavings Bank should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving OneSavings Bank, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Elder Scrolls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page N-Gage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Games API for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Games API is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Games API until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of VPAY

A tag has been placed on VPAY requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Light2021 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Armin van Buuren: In the Mix for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Armin van Buuren: In the Mix is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armin van Buuren: In the Mix until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Nomader ( talk ) 03:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Buybooks Marius


text:
Talk:Laser rangefinder

Untitled
This page should either be merged or made more compatible with the LIDAR page.--David Streutker 20:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Against merge: IMHO the LIDAR stuff should be removed from Laser range-finder article. In my eyes LIDAR and Laser range-finders are two different sets of devices even if they share the same principle and a LIDAR can also measure distances. Alureiter 16:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Against merge. Agree with Alureiter: LIDAR stuff should be moved to LIDAR page and this page should be used for laser rangefinders. Mattopia 11:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Against too, I thought of Laser range-finder for gadgets used in construction like Leica Distos (image added) or Bosch DLE. --Marc Lacoste 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So I removed the merge template --Marc Lacoste 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Laser Rangefinders and 3-D Computer Modelling
The Laser Rangefinders and 3-D Computer Modelling section is very generic and not complete. The subject is better discussed in the 3D scanner article. I propose to shorten this section a lot an refer to that article.ALoopingIcon 15:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Approve --Marc Lacoste 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nikon Biased
The article as of today reads "Nikon have a superb product, supplying handheld rangefinders at prices well in line with the rest of sports equipment." This is biased and should not be part of Wikipedia. Maybe Nikon has a very good product, maybe not. Actually I personally believe they have good rangefinders, but they are not the best on the market. I suggest that some important laser range finder companies are listed in the article, but the reader should decide or do his own research, what is "superb". Michilans (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How do they measure?
How do they measure something moving at the speed of light? Dudtz 8/3/06 8:45 PM EST

By measuring phase offset (using an interferometer) between forward and reflected waves, then using the speed of light in m/s to convert the phase offset to distance in m, then displaying meters or converting measured results to yards. Yaf 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also the technique of combining a laser aligned with the optical axis of a digital camera and using a computer to detect the laser dot in the image and calculate the distance based on the relative position of the laser dot to the center of the image. For example https://sites.google.com/site/todddanko/home/webcam_laser_ranger  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.3.58.122 (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Military Application
Does the laser targeting mentioned here actually use a rangefinder, or is it simply laser illumination? 134.50.238.66 21:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That part of the article have to be completly rewriten. You only need laser illumination for targeting. This part of the article talk about the counter measure against laser rangefinding and not about the fact that laser range finding is perhaps THE most important element armored engagement. The laser rangefinder permit a tank to fire at a target about 1-2 second after the bore sight is axed toward it. They just laze it, let the targeting computer do the instant calculation let the bore move a litle to adjust for the distance and fire. Without a laser a gunner have to estimate the distance himself and fire through an optical sight or enter the distance into the targeting computer before firing. -- Esurnir 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The B&S LF2 measured and fed to the gunner's sight the distance to the lazed target at ranges out to 10,000 metres with an accuracy of +/- 10 metres at 10,000 metres.

"Range" section should be "Error"
It seems to me that the section currently labeled s "Range" should be "Error" as all the facts presented relate to distortions that result in a loss of accuracy, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.98.76.131 (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Hyphen in the name?
If no one disagrees, I'll work on renaming the article to "Laser rangefinder" to remove the hyphen. As far as I can tell "rangefinder" is the more commonly used spelling. When I do this I'll make sure to update pages linking to it. Gh5046 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Commercial construction products
There is no reference to commercial products like the Leica Disto, Bosch, Hilti or other lines. Is there a page for these products - a link would be helpful. Do they use the same system of measurement? (I doubt it, as their accuracy (+- 3mm) and short range (30-200m) would make timing difficult.)

 * This has been completed. Gh5046 (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of resolution remains: How does a cheap handheld device resolve time-of-flight to 3mm (which implies a temporal resolution of 20 pico-seconds)? Is this measured directly? I suspect these use gated bursts of amplitude modulated optical output. The gross delay of the burst envelope measured to 1nsec would resolve the distance to about 150 mm = 1 nsec * c / 2. The quaduture phase delay to a few degrees might resolve two more orders of magnitude. If so, clarifying the explanation given in the 'Calculation' section would be appreciated. Stubya (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that they modulate a continuous beam with an RF sinusoid and measure the phase difference. This is described in the Time-of-flight_camera article.  -- David Woolley (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing the method actually used by laser tape measures
Although there is a section on laser tape measures, my understanding is that they actually use the RF modulation technique, described near the beginning of Time-of-flight_camera, but there is no mention, in the current article, of this technique, which gets round the extreme timing requirements noted near the beginning of the current article.

Sorry, but I don't have any primary sources to hand at the moment.

Also there seems to be a lot of overlapping articles in this area.

-- David Woolley (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Laser rangefinder


text: Category:Victoria class submarines

title: Category:Victoria class submarines


text: Template:Al-Andalusian rulers of Zaragoza


text:
File:Star on book.png

Created by  — < T A L K JNDRLINE   T A L K >

title: File:Star on book.png