Re: labels/original intent of post

From: k. a.r. (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Jul 01 2006 - 13:19:59 PDT

****I first posted this because of the differences in what we call OURSELVES
in our making of different mediums. Myself, I put 16mm in my bolex, shoot
it, and later project it. I am a filmmaker.
When I shoot on video, (which I do almost daily compared to hardly ever with
the bolex, cuz the video camera is just there, and there is always something
interesting going on outside my window to shoot) When I show it to other
people I say, "I made a video piece." or " I'm a filmmaker, but this is some
work I made on video" etc.
this thread has gotten very interesting, if different than my original post.
I like it, it's like playing that kid game of telephone....meaning changed a
little by those who are writing.....anyway, here on my comments on what has
been written......*******

John Porter wrote:
....... what word we use to refer exclusively to that
medium which is always viewed by passing light through
a strip of clear acetate.

*****Film is the medium in which light passes through the plastic.
Video is an electronic representation of what has been recorded to some
other format that is not a transparent plastic strip on a reel.*******

Mitsu Hadeish wrote: friend
Miranda July for example released her film to theaters, but in some venues
was projected digitally (including at IFC and at Sundance), and just because
in those cases it was produced and projected digitally, it would have
ridiculous to call it a "video".

******WHY ? At that point, it WAS a video. BTW, if sundance projects film
on video with digital projection, that is just another proof that they are
such a poser festival. I hope they don't still call themselves a film

Mitsu Hadeish also wrote:
...the general public and common sense usage seem to agree that the word
"film" can be used for all-digital productions that are projected digitally
as long as it is
reasonably high resolution and decent contrast, etc.

*****I don't think so. "reasonably high resolution" haha that's funny.
What is "reasonably high resolution"? that's so vague. but seriously, I'm
really interested to know what is "reasonably high resolution". *******

"....and decent contrast."
*******I work in entertainment support; conventions,conferences, concerts,
etc....everyday using some of the most high end digital projectors
available, and I have seen plenty of people present their digitally
formatted work as film regardless of how well the projectionist has dialed
in the projector to make it look good. Sometimes some very uncontrasty
things get presented as "films". *********

****Also: the recent star wars films were presented as Digital Projection. I
don't think anybody would say Lucas makes films anymore. What I saw in the
theatre was 100% digital, and it was not a film. I'm pretty sure it wasnt
shot on plastic film either, but rather digitally captured somehow.*****

Anna Biller wrote:"Whether it's pedantic or not depends on the context. In
mainstream media, for a mindless public, perhaps it doesn't matter too
much. But in a more specialized context it can make a great deal of
difference. And it's unfair to insist that the people who care about they
forms they are working in (and whose work often engages directly with the
form) should not care about the differences, and should not engage in those
differences through language and discussion.'
*****she's right, you know.....*******

John Porter wrote: "But what's the difference between digital film and
digital video?"

******* Digital film is a physical impossiblity.*******

(man this frameworks stuff takes a lot of time, how do you all do this all
the time????)
ok then,signing off, and in closing, I'd like to use the words of the great
ozzy osbourne...."I LOVE YOU ALL!!!!"

thanks for the discussion.

Kristie Reinders, B.F.A.
Director of Cinematography, Electric Visions
Curator and Head Projectionist, Electric Mural Project
The Mission, San Francisco, CA

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.