From: john porter (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2006 - 22:04:35 PDT
Your criticism is informative, useful and brief.
--- David Tetzlaff <email suppressed> wrote:
> > What do Mitsu's common sense and Michael's
> > mentality say is the commonly-used word referring
> > exclusively to that medium which is always viewed
> > by passing light through a strip of clear acetate
> > (not celluloid)?
> There are very few commonly used words in English
> that refer exclusively
> to any one thing. That's not the way language works.
> Refering to certain
> works created or viewed electronically as 'films' is
> a somewhat different
> sense of the word than 'the medium of projected
> images on celluloid', just
> as 'filmmaking' in that sense is a different usage
> of the word 'film' than
> the celluloid stock that still photographers still
> buy, sometimes. BTW,
> have the still image people gone through a similar
> linguistic crisis over
> the owrd 'photography'?
No, but we're not discussing the word
Still photographers ARE debating the words "film" vs
Same as we're asking, is "digital film" an oxymoron?
> If you want to refer to anything exclusively, you
> will generally need more
> than one word. For example saying one has made a
> '16mm film' is pretty
> specific and only requires typing four more
> characters on the keyboard.
Now we're talking "nuts 'n' bolts"! (We filmmakers
love the machine's insides. You can get your hands on
them, and feel them. Film equipment is more physical
and erotic than video equipment.)
So, what if you work in more than one film format?
"Analog film", "digital film", (analog) "video", and
all of them "movies"?
John Porter, Toronto, Canada
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.