mattias wrote:film for example. it refers to the thin sheet of celluloid that holds the emulsion, and the word itself has nothing to do with photo sensitivity or storytelling. this means tape is also a film based medium by the way. need i go on?
/matt
Actually the word "film" refers to the emulsion, not the celluloid. One of the definitions for "film" that you will find in the dictionary is "A thin covering or coating." Early photographers put their own film on glass plates.
BTW it is no accident that 3M makes tape (audio, video and adhesive), fly paper and sandpaper, all products which have a coating on a substrate. They no longer make photographic film.
Actor wrote:Actually the word "film" refers to the emulsion, not the celluloid. One of the definitions for "film" that you will find in the dictionary is "A thin covering or coating." Early photographers put their own film on glass plates.
i knwo that's one of the definitions, but i'm not convinced since by another definition it could just as well mean the celluloid. try "a celluloid film coated with a photo sensitive emulsion" and "a sheet of celluloid covered with a photo sensitive film". bith are correct i guess but the former is how i'd use it, as would most i'm sure. in either case it doesn't matter though. the point is that the word existed long before photographic film and that it continues to evolve.
What annoys me most is, when people notice I'm shooting actual film (both still and movie) they ask me why I'm using it instead of digital. I then go to the lengths of explaining why I, from my very own, personal point of view, prefer silver halide film. They then proceed and try to "convert" me, telling me I'm wrong to stick to that obsolete technique!
On the other hand, I was shooting in downtown Washington with the Nikon R8 this weekend and people walked up to me saying, "Why is your camcorder clicking?" I told them it was Super 8 and they said "That is so cool! I thought that's what it was."
I think these names are more appropriate now "digital cinema", "digital filmmaking"...but sometimes it just easier to say film...
Check the DVD's I'm selling at http://www.graffitivideos.com/grafcore2000trailer.htm
Tools
DVX100A, TRV8, TRV315, DCR-HC20, Nizo S80, Beaulieu 4008MZ, Beaulieu 4008MZII, Bauer C107XL, EUMIG 65 XL
I Hope I'm Not Turning Into a Camera Collector.
Serioulsy, i see what the intent of this thread is , and it's a good question which i myself have given some thought. I guess it could be disscused forever.
Yep think I'll build up a head of steam and put my shoulder to the wheel, my nose to the grindstone and my eye on the ball. Then I'll try to work in that position.
wahiba wrote:It is the power of language that what gets their first, gets to name it.
First movies - film - so film it is for movies.
First mass produced vacumn cleaners - hoover - so hoover it is.
There are plenty of examples in all languages.
Only pedants woryy about it.
Actually film is really the flicks, becasue it flickers! When I was a kid I went to the flicks.
And at one time all cameras were "Kodaks."
And there is the story about the policeman who responded to a call to an accident involving "a kid on a Honda." When he arrived on the scene he found that the "kid" was 40 years old and the "Honda" was a 500cc Triumph.
This at a time when most Hondas were 50cc.
When I was a kid the movies were simply called "the show."
