From: john porter (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jul 03 2006 - 10:52:13 PDT
--- Mitsu Hadeishi <email suppressed> wrote:
> 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.
No, because there's often NO context!
> If you absolutely have to be specific, you can just
> say "it was shot on film".
> Is there really a crisis of language here?
Yes, because "film shot on film" is not "common
usage", here or anywhere!
I'm constantly frustrated by listings on Frameworks
announcing "Films by..." or "Films about...". They
don't say anywhere what THEY mean by "film". They
DON'T say "Films on film by..." or "Films on video
by...", or even avoid the issue by saying "Movies
Mitsu, you're not answering my question. What term are
YOU, in your wisdom, using regularly, consistently, to
refer clearly to that medium?
In your posts on this issue you use "film" in
quotations often. Is that your term for it? No,
because you also often use film without quotations to
refer to "film on film". What do you mean on those
occassions? What did you mean by film when you said
"shot on HD or film", "HD is inferior to film", "HD
films", "film is superior to HD"? Aren't you also
saying that film without quotations can be HD? You
don't have a "common usage" term for "film on film",
so you're helping to cause confusion as much as
More importantly, we can't agree, which makes it not
only important but interesting.
You said "Simply saying it is a 'film' by itself no
longer seems to be adequately specific." OK, so help
us out here! Start using a BETTER term consistently!
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>.