From: Mitsu Hadeishi (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jul 03 2006 - 06:06:28 PDT
On Monday 03 July 2006 00:46, john porter wrote:
> I feel that you've been refuting that we should even
> bother discussing it.
What I've been arguing is that the meaning of words is established primarily
by their use --- they don't have a "real" meaning in some Platonic space of
pure meaning, and that general usage is already established. While one could
argue for some sort of technical use of the in "film" to mean "movie shot on
film", I think that would simply be confusing, as the word is used
differently even among professionals and filmmakers to mean something more
> OK, so what is your "common usage" term for that
> medium which is not digital or video but which is
> publicly viewed by passing light through a strip of
> clear acetate? Obviously, even you can't say, so it's
> a worthy discussion.
> Do you, or anyone, think that any term ("analog film",
> "non-digital", "real film", "celluloid film", etc.) is
> MORE commonly used than "film" for that purpose? I
> don't see anybody, including you, using any
> alternative term. But I do see many people using the
> word "film" in the way that you say is wrong.
I personally don't think there's a problem. It's almost always perfectly
obvious what people mean by the word "film" depending on the context. To
say "a film" doesn't necessarily mean "movie shot on film", but obviously to
say "Film has better dynamic range" --- in this case it's clear you're clearly
talking about the film medium. I mean, the English language is filled with
these sorts of ambiguities and humans are capable of figuring out the meaning
without much difficulty.
If you absolutely have to be specific, you can just say "it was shot on film".
Is there really a crisis of language here? I don't happen to think so.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.