Anything Goes : Question of the day by Luis R. Quintero

The term "film", at least in the mainstream, is the same as a "feature" (running time 90min+), in either the physical or wholly digital state. Whether this becomes the standard operating definition, time will tell.

Filming is a verb. Whether it's on film, tape, or digital media, I would assume. It will probably leap to something else years from now..

Film is technically a medium. The word has become analogous with feature length moving pictures, and is something of a double entendre since the pictures were, until recently, all shot on film. However, I don't think we can discredit newer films simply because they were shot on digital as a result of the evolving technology. Yes, film does contain a certain look to it, and has a high sense of nostalgia... But if we start saying that a picture is not a film because of the medium, then we could argue that photographs aren't necessarily photographs, in a sense, if they were shot with a digital camera vs. a film camera, which I personally do not believe. I think that the term can live on even if film is no longer used since it has come to mean more than the medium itself. If one feels extremely opposed to separating the medium from the method, I think it would be appropriate to add "digital" in front of the word film. We already do this with short films and it has worked well. It all comes down to the fact that words have multiple meanings though, and I personally don't think we can ignore that.

Film is a permanent medium; digital video is temporary. If you're exploring and have unlimited financial resources, shoot digital. If you're disciplined and have limited resources, shoot film -- at least you'll have something to show for it, after all is said and done. A film will remain in your library of films; digital media need to be constantly remastered -- every few years. How long can you afford to do that?

chemical vs. electronic image that Brad talks about is also a visual differance. light goes through film giving true shades where a electronic image is still not 100 percent true

While I agree with all of the comments on here, I think the point is being missed. Yes, there are technical difference between film and video, and we all understand this. But if the medium itself is the only classification for determining whether or not a digitally produced movie can be called a film, then clearly the answer is, and always will be, no.

Mark, and also how it's projected. The projector in film needs no special character other than the lamp. In video it's the time it takes to go from black to white, and the darkness of the black. But then, I rarely see films at theaters where the black on screen turns the theater dark.

Statements like "facts are facts" do not lend well to a friendly debate. Also, your points, while 100% true, are technology driven and focused. I'm not debating the differences between chemical and electronic processes here. Everyone knows and understands them. I'm talking about the nunances of language and defining oneself by them. I am a photographer, and I only shoot digital, mostly because medium format film cameras have all but gone the way of the water buffalo, but also because I can't afford to shoot film. However, this doesn't mean I'm unable to call myself a photographer just because I don't shoot film. By your logic, I shouldn't be able to though.

ERICK PEACE I TELL YOU WITH NO DEBATE. SHOOT FILM LOTS OF IT AND AN OLD STYLE " LOOK THROUGH THE SQUARE" CAMERA NO DIDITAL. LEARN HOW TO USE A LIGHT METER. LEARN HOW TO PROCESS FILM. READ ABOUT THE GREATS, YOUR A PHOTOGRAPHER BE A BETTER ONE,

I'm with you Brad 100%!!

Every one of you is thinking too hard on this one. I think (I know I just made a thought), film has acquired a broader definition since it's inception. It's a verb as well as a noun. Now it's merely a word for all things motion picture. I've worked several productions in TV and every time, somebody talks about filming the show even when it's reality TV (by nature on video). Closing remark: Film is merely a word to describe it all. Cola of all kinds has always been Coke.

Mark, I have shot film in both areas (including a 16mm Bolex), know how to use a light meter, have read countless articles and theories, studied it quite a bit (I did go to school for it afterall), totally agree with the points here, and fully appreciate and respect the medium. The only point I was trying to make is what Michael summed up so articulately. That's all. I'm actually speaking without any of the bias that is so evident in this thread. I merely wanted to address a linguistic anomaly that has become an indisputable fact of the culture... That being said, if I could afford to shoot film 24/7, I'd love to. However, I can't, so I'm working with what I can as money allows.

Fair enough, sir. Same to you!