From: john porter (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jul 02 2006 - 22:08:08 PDT
--- David Tetzlaff <email suppressed> wrote:
> I think Sam is poking gentle fun at the lack of
> knowledge some of the
> film-film purists seem to have about (historical)
> video formats.
His fun is wasted on me because I'm the first to admit
I lack knowledge.
> Standard professional videotape recorders circa 200
> Motels used two-inch tape (thus "50.8mm").
> I have never heard of a 16mm video format.
My interest is not in the video width, but that these
were theatrical films shot on video.
> Sometimes people who write
> entries for IMDB don't
> know what they're talking about.
Like "common usage" on Google?
> ... and almost all the references to 200 Motels on
> the web, authored by Zappa fans,
> refer to the work as a 'film' not a 'movie.'
That's how I'd refer to 200 Motels and T.A.M.I.,
because they were shown on film. They were films shot
on video. They're also movies (moving pictures).
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>.