Using outdated film language on digital seems odd somehow.

zuiko85 said:
I would prefer to have conventional film type controls on a digital camera. A shutter speed dial/aperture ring/focus ring (that is truly manual, not fly by wire)and a DOF scale. I would want these control dials and rings to do that one function only. The current state of digital camera design and function layout is probably the reason I hold onto and use my film cameras. ...
Click to expand...

You want a Leica M-D typ 262. It's lovely this way. It works exactly the same way a Leica M7 works but without having to load and unload film every 36 frames... :)

G
 
Hi,

And then there's knots and fathoms and I'm certain that the Air Navigation Order still says "flying machines" and I still hear people say it's five and twenty to ten for 9:35 am...

Regards, David
 
I think the only one that amuses me, is now that more movies are being shot digitally, people still refer to them as "films". They should be "videos", no?
 
Horsepower for me isn't the same thing. It's not suggesting there are actual horses inside the engine or anything. It is a unit of measure. It has not really changed meaning.
 
Until the USA converts to metric and says goodbye to inches, feet, miles, square feet, onces and gallons and Fahrenheit, I will stick with shutter speed and aperture on my FF Leicas.:D
 
tunalegs said:
I think the only one that amuses me, is now that more movies are being shot digitally, people still refer to them as "films". They should be "videos", no?
Click to expand...

I think movies is actually a better term than videos. Video acquired its current denotation in 1937 as "that which is displayed on a television screen", see http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Video , where movie is derived from "moving picture" a bit earlier than that, see http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Movie .

But all such debates are somewhat academic. Words fall in and out of usage freely by popular usage, not by someone issuing a rule (unless you're an editor adhering to the Chicago Manual of Style, that is...:).
 
Godfrey said:
I think movies is actually a better term than videos. Video acquired its current denotation in 1937 as "that which is displayed on a television screen", see http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Video , where movie is derived from "moving picture" a bit earlier than that, see http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Movie .

But all such debates are somewhat academic. Words fall in and out of usage freely by popular usage, not by someone issuing a rule (unless you're an editor adhering to the Chicago Manual of Style, that is...:).
Click to expand...

Of course words are only symbols with agreed meanings, but I was talking about calling movies "films" which were not shot on, nor projected from film. The word video generally refers to electronic recording and reproduction of motion pictures - so technically a movie shot and projected digitally would be a video in the generally accepted sense of the term. But should it be a "film"? :angel:
 
Strictly speaking ISO as used in photography is not an acronym or a siglum. It's an abbreviation for isos, Greek for the same. ISO is the same in all languages. For instance AIDS is SIDA in French, and cerebrospinal fluid is abbreviated CSF in English but is LCR in French (liquide céphalorachidien).
 
I think the crucial aspect that the OP got slightly off ...
The terms in question are not fixed on the use of film as a medium,
they are simply descriptors for optics / photographic priciples in general.

Therefore they are perfectly valid also for any other type of capturing medium, incl. digital.
Photography started out on glass plates and then came back to sensors;)
 
Richard G said:
Strictly speaking ISO as used in photography is not an acronym or a siglum. It's an abbreviation for isos, Greek for the same. ISO is the same in all languages. For instance AIDS is SIDA in French, and cerebrospinal fluid is abbreviated CSF in English but is LCR in French (liquide céphalorachidien).
Click to expand...
Dear Richard,

Um... It IS an acronym. ISO = International Standards Organization. You don't have to use the same acronym in every language, after all. See also http://www.iso.org/iso/fr/home/about.htm

Cheers,

R.
 
icebear said:
I think the crucial aspect that the OP got slightly off ...
The terms in question are not fixed on the use of film as a medium,
they are simply descriptors for optics / photographic priciples in general.

Therefore they are perfectly valid also for any other type of capturing medium, incl. digital.
Photography started out on glass plates and then came back to sensors;)
Click to expand...

Exactly what I tried to say, but stated more eloquently. The crux of it is that Shutter Speed, ISO and Aperture are NOT endemic to film. They have the same exact meaning on film, paper, glass plates, tintypes or sensors.
 
tunalegs said:
Of course words are only symbols with agreed meanings, but I was talking about calling movies "films" which were not shot on, nor projected from film. The word video generally refers to electronic recording and reproduction of motion pictures - so technically a movie shot and projected digitally would be a video in the generally accepted sense of the term. But should it be a "film"? :angel:
Click to expand...

All three terms have become mostly synonymous in popular usage, with "films" being the most diverged from its original meaning. But its often a little hard to tell which movie was captured on film and which was captured on a sensor, the pro-grade digital cameras and related film cameras being so well matched and so distinct from typical 'video' capture.

Typically these days, what I hear is film used when going to see a motion picture projected in a theater, and video used when a motion picture is presented in any other way. so the usage of the words seems to have shifted somewhat from indicating the type of capture medium to indicating the presentation mechanism.

G
 
Godfrey said:
All three terms have become mostly synonymous in popular usage, with "films" being the most diverged from its original meaning. But its often a little hard to tell which movie was captured on film and which was captured on a sensor, the pro-grade digital cameras and related film cameras being so well matched and so distinct from typical 'video' capture.

Typically these days, what I hear is film used when going to see a motion picture projected in a theater, and video used when a motion picture is presented in any other way. so the usage of the words seems to have shifted somewhat from indicating the type of capture medium to indicating the presentation mechanism.

G
Click to expand...

In my experience, people say something is "A Film" if it's an artistically shot and presented narrative. "A Video" seems indicative of a shift in intent or subjective quality and almost never has anything to do with capture or presentation.

Or it could just be people trying to be pretentious.
 
unixrevolution said:
In my experience, people say something is "A Film" if it's an artistically shot and presented narrative. "A Video" seems indicative of a shift in intent or subjective quality and almost never has anything to do with capture or presentation.

Or it could just be people trying to be pretentious.
Click to expand...

Brings to mind the old Saturday Night Live routine. "Some people call them movies..." How tacky!
 
unixrevolution said:
In my experience, people say something is "A Film" if it's an artistically shot and presented narrative. "A Video" seems indicative of a shift in intent or subjective quality and almost never has anything to do with capture or presentation.

Or it could just be people trying to be pretentious.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I've a lot of those on DVD's...

Regards, David

PS Another for the list "sand paper" thanks Roger that's two of us...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom