From: john porter (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jul 02 2006 - 21:46:07 PDT
--- Mitsu Hadeishi <email suppressed> wrote:
> I don't see why it's necessary to ridicule my post
> --- the question I was
> addressing was simply whether or not the general
> public used the term "film"
> to refer also to HD films, and the answer is clearly
> yes. There were a
> number of people claiming otherwise, which I just
> thought was silly enough to
> be worth refuting.
I feel that you've been refuting that we should even
bother discussing it.
> 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 professionals
> 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.
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.
John.
> On Sunday 02 July 2006 20:23, john porter wrote:
> > --- Ken Bawcom <email suppressed> wrote:
> > > For purposes of discussion it is therefore more
> >
> > accurate,
> >
> > > and easier, to use the word "movie" as the
> general
> >
> > term,
> >
> > > and the word "film" when we really mean film,
> rather
> >
> > than
> >
> > > have to say something like 'a film shot on real
> >
> > film, not video.'
> >
> > Yes. Regardless of lay usage, for purposes of
> > discussion HERE, we need a term referring to works
> > shown by passing light through a strip of clear
> > acetate. Sadly, it may end up being "real film".
> For
> > decades now I've had to endure hearing people
> > (including "avant-garde" filmmakers) refer to
> super 8
> > films as "not real film"!
> > Mitsu seems to accept Google is all-knowing, the
> last
> > word for everyone. But obviously, on Frameworks we
> > need this debate. Mitsu is the one saying "It's a
> > fact. No discussion." (to paraphrase).
> >
> > 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>.
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> <email suppressed>.
>
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>.