Talk:Lenticular lens (version 2)

"Dozens" or "thousands"

 * Dozens is correct.

No, "Dozens per inch" might be correct, but an unqualified dozens is plainly wrong. Big lenticulars may have thousands of prismatic ridges.

Atlant 14:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It should say "dozens per inch".  Thousands is just simply wrong.  Lagre format pieces tend to have about 30 lpi.  So unless it is 3 feet high, it will not reach 1,000. For small format which would typically use about 72 dpi, it would have to be 13.8" to reach 1,000.  Both examples represent what I would estimate to be less than 1% of all lenticular produced.


 * "Hundreds" might suffice but dozens per inch is more accurate as most all lenses are between 30-100 lpi. 69.169.102.128

Ahh, but that's 30 per inch in both directions, X and Y. One easily reaches "thousands" of lenses in the entire screen. Regardless, I have no concern whether the value is stated in "Lenses/Inch" or "Lenses/Screen" although you should also include metric values for the first form. ;-)

By the way, it's customary to sign your "talk" pages posts. An easy way to do that is to include four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your posting. Wen you press "Save page", these will be converted into your username (or IP address) in a handy Wikilinked format. A timestamp for your posting will also be automagically included.

Atlant 19:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Tracer Graphix to external links and alphabetized the whole list of commercial external links. Personal opinion is that there's value in listing commerical links, but some non-value judgement based organization, such as alphabetization, should be used. Scottwrites 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've split out pure information links from Commerical, added TracerGraphix, and alphabetized commercial links, which is the fair way to present such things. There's nothing wrong with adding commerical information as long as it's in a unbiased order, such as simply alphabetical. (Obvious disclosure: Tracer is a business partner of my company, hence I added it.) In any case, whomever edits to remove commercial links - mine or others - if that's going to happen then they should ALL go, otherwise leave them and allow others to be added. To edit some and not others IS clearly a questionable bias. As to the editorial integrity of the article itself, that should obviously stay as non-commercial as possible. Though clearly it could be judgement call if a particular company is editorially notable for some major industry breakthrough. Scottwrites 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Distracting image
Interesting animated GIF showing the effect, but wow is it distracting when trying to read the article! --217.161.104.2 16:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't for that image, there would be no example of a lenticular print. If you like I can create a smoother version which moves slowly so it's less distracting? Howie  &#9742;  17:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All someone needs to do is change the GIF frame delays to make it a bit less frenetic.


 * Atlant 18:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Commercial vendors inappropriate
The following comment is from the talk page of User_talk:Archer3 by User:69.118.206.92

Your comment was... (existing ad links is not an excuse to add new ad links.) So why then is it ok to have an external link that's thinly veiled as editorial, but that site in turn only links to a single commercial vendor? Is it any more editorially pure to throw up a small blog or forum with an obvious singlular commercial interest than it is to clearly label a Commercial Links area? What you're up to seems disingenuine best; whether intentional or not. Especially for a more esoteric industry area such as Lenticular, there is value in listing several of the top commercial vendors. Look around; seems acceptable in both "artificial hip" and "dog food" and all manner of places. And clearly listing the links as "Commercial" vs. disingenously listing them as just "External" is the best way to do this. (Which was pretty much the first change I'd made when I first edited this article. Nothing in the Wiki spam Guidelines is violated by clearly labeling one small bottom section as commercial vendors unless you take an overly purist perspective.

It's interesting how looking deeply into the history, some have removed SOME commercial vendors from external links, but not others. Personally, I no longer work for any particular printer or even in this industry so my interest is in just not being jerked around. Perhaps a great future Wiki addition would be - for a fee - for people to have verfied affiliations publicly listed. What's yours?

So, either accept some commercial links without bias over one or the other, or remove any form of what you consider to be spam, which includes 'filler' editorial with little added value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.206.92 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2006


 * I'm not the owner of this article, just a registered user. If you feel those external links are inappropriate ad links, then by all means remove them. I won't object if you remove them. They seemed non-commercial to me, but I didn't look very hard. The ones I removed were blatant sites selling products or services. From the External_links, item #4 says: Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. The links I removed seem to me to be in violation of this. Additionally, in regards to perceived commercial links in other articles, I violations of WP:SPAM in one article does not make it OK to violate it in another article. Also, I have no ties to the lenticular industry and never did. I just came across this article in process of reverting random vandalism. Archer3 04:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

removed www.3dprintblog.com -- it had one paragraph, scant "content" - practically useless.

Removed spiderman poster
The use of the poster on this page violates Fair_use_criteria #1(a free lenticular image can be created) and #10(fair use rationale on the image was for use in the Spider-Man 3 article only). I've removed it. Borisblue 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation?
I'm wondering if "Lenticular" should change from a Redirect page to a Disambiguation page, mentioning Lenticular cloud, in addition to the current redirect-topic of Lenticular lens.

I'm relatively new as an editor, so I'm not sure how to make such a change, or what the criteria should be for making them, so I'm posting to the talk section instead. I'd appreciate someone either making this change, or contacting me and educating me on if/how I should make it.

Lindes 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)