Interesting rumor...

OK well guys I think we've gone just a tad bit off topic.

Since the term "films" is not universally agreed upon, and "motion picture" is really too formal and long, why don't we just say... wait for it... "movie"
 
i make films on video all the time. tell my 35mm reels on the shelf that they are not films and they will get pissed off, i promise. again if you really feel the need to make the distinction a video made on film is much less a film than my films made on video. i can spot the difference between a can and a digibeta box from quite far away.

kodak and fuji make film stock, they do not make films, except for the occasional test and maybe a commercial or two i guess.

As usual, Mattias gets it right to begin with.

The only funny part is that the point was made "I don't shoot videos, I shoot films" then when someone corrects on a technical level, it's funny; go figure.
 
It can be an album. But you wouldn't call it vinyl now would you? Cause it isn't.

well actually I did a test pressing on vinyl

If I'm sitting in the back row of a cinema making out with a girl munching on popcorn I'm watching a film whether it was shot on 35mm a DSLR or VHS. I acknowledge there are 2 definitions of film one relating to motion pictures or movies the other relating to film stock.

When the credits roll on my "film" it's going to say "A film by squig" and you guys can debate whether it is or isn't a film all you like but I'll know I made a film just like I know I made an album, the recording format doesn't change the generally accepted definition of the delivered product.
 
Nobody arguing. It is what is. If the delusion of saying film is what drives someone the by all means: shoot a film. Just make sure you've actually written it firs.
 
Also, this rumour zim is about a video only firmware for a sensor....Which implies that it will be a dedicated VIDEO camera. Something Nikon has yet to release but maybe want to get into the market....
 
Zim, I don't understand. You blast me (and others) for wanting gr8 HD video out of a "still" camera, then say that you want gr8 HD video out of a "still" camera. Zup?


I'm not blasting anyone. I do want great video out of a still camera. I want a camera that takes good pictures too.

But if I only wanted great video and don't care about pictures I'd get a video camera.
 
Seems this "rumor" has really made people question the fabric of their medium, and media.

Personally I like motion capture, as in, "today I produced a jello motion capture (as usual)". Although that's not right either, really, since no camera 'captures' movement - every frame is still. I've tried to explain this to my D90 and talk it out of the jello on playback, but it will not listen.
 
seriously, why do you use the term motion capture when that really means something else? an aussie thing or just stubbornness? you do know what it "really" means, right?
 
I recorded an album digitally does that not make it an album?
album doesn't really refer to the medium, does it? i guess it varies between countries too. vinyl hardly either since that's the material, like celluloid, but i'd say it's a *record* even if it's on itunes, right? i don't have a problem arguing semantics, in fact i think it's the reason behind most misunderstandings and the more we learn how to communicate the better we'll understand each other. what a lot of people don't understand is that words are simply defined by how we use them, there's no right and wrong, only what others understand and not (even in france where they try to have laws to control it). if people call a film a film that's what it is, it stopped referring to celluloid strips a long time ago, even though it still means that too, because go figure, words can mean different things, at the same time. shocking, huh? ;-)

/matt
 
...Which makes it pointless to argue semantics. "Film" to squig is whatever "film" is to squig and there's no sense in trying to force whatever "film" is to you onto squig. He's Aussie and they are as hard headed as we Texans. :-)
 
...Which makes it pointless to argue semantics. "Film" to squig is whatever "film" is to squig
no, words are defined collectively, and using them and discussing them will change people's idea of what they mean. the force of language is unstoppable by individuals, societies, and everything else except maybe a massive nuclear blast.
 
But what is the relationship between a subject's use of language - speech and writing - and language? What is the relationship between the 'idea" of the meaning of a word, and it's behavioural use? What is the 'collective' to which you refer? A neighbourhood? A city? A nation-state? Where can we find the 'collective' 'definition'? A dictionary? A conversation? And if that definition changes, how can you ever identify such a thing at all? If "the force of language is unstoppable" who speaks or writes it, given as you say people can change their idea of what words mean, does this not affect language? Or does "language" endure beyond anyone's ability to live within its definitions (wherever they are and whatever that might mean)? Sounds like a half-baked and profoundly contradictory version of structuralism.

Again, I find the Panasonic brochure thorough.
 
Back
Top