Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B-Roll with 4 shots

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2024 at 00:05:02 (UTC)

Reason: When I first read the B-roll article, the process was described in text but was difficult to understand. I researched the process and created this diagram to illustrate the complex procedure
Articles in which this image appears: B-roll
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator: RoySmith

Support as nominator – RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Visual information not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a really nicely made diagram. I think it relies on familiarity with some concepts that the lay reader won't have, especially if they're more used to digital production. Here are some thoughts on how this might be communicated more clearly:
- "Head" and "tail" have technical meanings that aren't explained in the article and aren't obvious from the diagram.
- The dotted lines aren't explainable from the diagram alone, so if the reader doesn't know what the splices looks like, they see a Shot 2 that's exactly 5 frames long but a label that says it goes past that.
- The difference between A-roll and B-roll isn't clear from the diagram. It maybe would work better if the durations of the shots were different, or if the frames used images that would be understood as primary footage and a cutaway.
- How these strips relate to each other or the final print isn't explained. This maybe connects to the other point, where showing the exposure of the primary shots, with a few frames in between, and then a separate exposure that fills those in with a simple-looking insert to create the full version would work better.

Oppose As a retired filmmaker, I consider the correct term for this image not "B-roll", but "A-B negative cutting/editing". B-roll by itself means extra footage, and the illustration is not about that. Thus, the explanation text and the image are in the wrong article. Would support the image if it were in an A-B cutting article. --Janke | Talk 11:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to withdraw this. Thank you all for your comments, and especially to hinnk for providing some excellent feedback on how this could be improved. RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]