From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jul 03 2006 - 07:15:44 PDT
> But to say that this usage is merely a "lay" usage I believe is also
> wrongheaded. Many of the people using this language are also
> in the field, people who make films for a living, or write about
> it, etc. To
> say that only we on the Frameworks list live in the privileged
> ivory tower
> and we're going to adhere to a usage that is at variance with
> common usage
> (even among filmmakers --- sorry, I mean "movie-makers") is I think
> counter-productive and confusing.
Oh geez Mitsu - "variance with common usage" is why we're here ;-)
And really, I know plenty of professionals (of which I am one, on and
off) who do have real issues over sandpapering these terms...
Not only that, but - read the "Technology" sections of major
newspapers, other press - and there os a miasma of misinformation
regarding the materials and practices of cinema on all levels. I
understand why this happens, but is it a good thing ?
If I had time I could give you dozens of links..
I meet people, intelligent culturally aware people on a regular basis
who say things like "I didn't know they still made 16mm film" (in
truth, 'they' will make more of it in 2006 than any year in history)
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.