Talk:Video feedback

Images or not

Please do not remove the images that are directly related to description in the article! If there is a good reason for not having them please take the matter up to discussion.

There are certainly many examples of optical feedback, but that calls for more descriptions and illustrations - not less. The last removal by User:Tregoweth also messed up the text itself.

So please contribute by adding and clarifying information. Cleaning up and expanding the article is certainly necessary.

Also see the links in the article: The page video feedback in science provides an overview.

It is quite obvious that the images we are discussing are quite relevant to science, philosophy and art.

But are we as editors here to decide what is most important; science, philosophy or art? Certainly all views should be illustrated. These are good examples of how the three merge into on image. Comments please. --Profero 06:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Example of optical feedback

How is this image as an example of optical feedback? Or do I misunderstand the phenomena? (This is Adam Savage, the Mythbuster, by the way). Porkrind (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an example of it!--Profero (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Harmful?

I have heard that pointing, say, a DV camera at its "own" image on a connected computer screen can to some extent damage the technology involved. (The person I heard this from was more familiar with non-digital video, however). Could this at all the case? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 16:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

what is this?

This article started here, apparently as a promo for a fun hack by Profero Graphics. No source includes "optical feedback" as a topic. An article on video feedback could be made of this, however. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the unsourced promotional lead. The rest is not a bad article on video feedback. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 57 14:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Optical feedback → Video feedback – There is no source that calls this topic "optical feedback"; all the cited sources say "video feedback". Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've seen this informally called optical feedback in blogs, but not in RS. There is a technique of optical feedback used in diode lasers, e.g., [1], so we might consider redirecting Optical feedback to Optical cavity or possibly Distributed feedback laser. --Mark viking (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per MV, this isn't about the optical stimulated emission cascade feedback used in lasers, or other such things -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per the current scope of the article. The "science" section of the article specifically deals with optical feedback effects that aren't related to video. Dekimasuよ! 18:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To the extent that there are few other things called optical feedback mentioned there, they are not really part of the topic of this article. If we move this one to Video feedback, then we can make a new article about Optical feedback to talk about the other things that go by that term. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Dekimasu says, the topic is broader than just video feedback, and it's a good topic and we need to cover all aspects. Perhaps a split, so we can have an overview article here, and a detailed article at video feedback? This leads to the same result as nom proposes above, but by a route which doesn't leave a gap in our coverage during the process. Andrewa (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Requested move 2

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

Moved as requested. bd2412 T 14:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Optical feedback → Video feedback – The topic is uniformly known as video feedback in sources. Optical feedback is a different topic, which we can write an article on if we want. The last RM didn't get much sensible input, so trying again. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP:PRECISE, per the last discussion, this is not about optical feedback, since there's nothing here covering the various kinds of optical feedback found in non-video systems, this is only about video feedback. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Question - It seems that in the last discussion this was opposed because the article covered forms of optical feedback that were not necessarily video. It seems that the current "in science" section still discusses examples of this. In the rest of the article, however it seems that all of the non-video content was removed in this edit. The summary was that it was unsourced and promotional. I'm not going to look right now to find out if sourcing could instead be readily found for the points, but I feel like I'm missing how that removed content could be promotional.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The part that was removed was still video feedback, but it was one guy's odd take on it, without any reliable sourcing. Dicklyon (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The "In Science" section added in this edit acknowledges that the rest of the article is about video feedback. This is the part that could be split off to a separate article on optical feedback. It makes sense to rename this article first, to keep the history of the video feedback topic on one place. Dicklyon (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Requesting clarification on what was "not sensible" about the input last time. Dekimasuよ! 20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are you quoting? I said "didn't get much sensible input", not that the input was "not sensible". But yeah, your comment that there's a section about non-video uses of the term optical feedback should have been taken as a reason to sort out the name and topic, rather than to object to doing so. Hopefully my comment immediately above clarifies that this interjected section is off topic, not a definition of what article topic is. And Andrewa's comment also served to impede fixing the acknowledge problem, by proposing an alternative that would end up splitting the history of the video feedback topic, for no good reason; the idea that moving would lead to a gap in coverage is weird. Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If the topics are purely separate as you say, then it's a reason to sort out the name and topic. However, working under the assumption that video feedback is a subtopic of optical feedback, this was a reason to object to a move that would change the scope of the article. Dekimasuよ! 00:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from studying the article and sources, they are completely separate; but you can look and decide for yourself if you agree. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support, and split the tacked-on, non-video material to another page (preserve main video content editing history, per nom). This article isn't about optic (in the medical sense) feedback, nor about feedback relating to optics in the mechanical lenses sense, either.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support: There other feedback phenomena in optical systems (e.g., in lasers) that are different from the notion of having a video camera aimed at its display monitor, which seems to be what this article is about, so the suggested new name seems more accurate, and the cited sources seem to mostly use the term "video feedback" as well. If there is any off-topic material in the article that's worth preserving, it should go somewhere else. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. If this becomes an overview article as proposed, the best place for the article history is right where it is. Move as proposed and we just run a completely unnecessary risk of reinventing the wheel. I confess I'm a little miffed at the suggestion that there wasn't much sensible input last time. There are clearly better options than the proposed move, and that was clearly put last time. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Video feedback. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110719132859/http://www.videofeedback.dk/vf/ss/model.gif to http://www.videofeedback.dk/vf/ss/model.gif
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091007204011/http://www.videofeedback.dk:80/vf/ss/sspost.html to http://www.videofeedback.dk/vf/ss/sspost.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520070401/http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/play/fractalVideoFeedback/ to http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/play/fractalVideoFeedback/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061017183543/http://www.videofeedback.dk:80/World/ to http://www.videofeedback.dk/World/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"Howl-around" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Howl-around and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 22#Howl-around until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)