From: john porter (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jun 27 2006 - 15:30:15 PDT
--- Lundgren <email suppressed> wrote:
> This is a very interesting discussion. :)
> I think that the term "film" is far beyond the
> material context.
> Otherwise we would have a really complex situation
> when a DVD-version (or
> VHS, LD, HD...) of a film wouldn't be a film.
That's right, a DVD of a film wouldn't be a film. It'd
be a video (digital VIDEO disc). It's not at all
complex. What's so difficult about calling a video a
"video"?
I've been discussing this issue for years, and in the
end I have one question that nobody can answer.
If the word "film" refers to video as well, then what
word do we all commonly use to refer specifically to
light passing through a strip of clear acetate (it
hasn't been celluloid for 80 years)? We have no other
word to serve that purpose.
And we don't need to appropriate the word "film" to
refer to both film and video. We already use "movie"
and "cinema" for that.
John Porter, Toronto, Canada
http://www.super8porter.ca/
email suppressed
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.