Thank you André for mentioning the French term “argentique” which could roughly translate as “silver-based.”
This is a very common term in France and really does the trick. It distinguishes the medium by the chemical component that actually forms the image (whereas celluloid is the imageless base). It also is all-inclusive of every gauge from 8mm to Imax, while excluding all forms of electronic imagery from VHS to 4K, analog and digital combined. “Argentique” neatly solves the problem without confusing any issues. Social issues are often transformed into linguistic ones. I am not defending the term “film" as a politically correct speech form such as gender-neutral pronouns. Even the word “experimental” does not bother me. I simply greatly respect the words “analog" and “digital" as regarding a signal. For audio and video signals there is a significant difference between analog and digital that describes the architecture of sound or image data, a difference that can be seen or heard. But film is not a signal. Mark mentions that “film is an analog process” - however when looking deeply into the nature of the silver halide crystal we see that a grain is “exposed” when hit by photons and ionized, or it is left unexposed. It is a 0/1 phenomenon hence a digital process too. Grains can be larger or smaller and they are distributed randomly and organically across the image, but they cannot be half-exposed. When scanned at a very high resolution, all the detail and patternlessness of the film image can be captured and represented, but then this image will become a digital image and not argentique. For a long time I have thought that a great revolution to our current computer technology will come when a bit of information is no longer simply on (5 volts) or off (0 volts) but can contain different voltages. If a bit could hold 1.5V or 3V within our current hardware architecture, then they could represent 0/1/2/3. Suddenly we would have a four-dimensional memory and the data structures would more represent analog curves then digital bitmaps. And if a bit could represent values of 0-10 or higher, we would end up with more and more analog bitmaps, not just for images but for all computer processing, expanding exponentially our capacity for data storage and the speed of calculations, especially for neural networks. Rather than “reducing” data to zeros and ones, data would be represented analogically. Then what will we call it? - Pip > On Jun 12, 2022, at 9:26 AM, Colinet andré <[email protected]> wrote: > > Celluloid, argentique, pellicule, 8mm - 16 mm - 35 mm … film, they all do the > job as well. > > Envoyé à partir de Courrier <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> > pour Windows > > De : Scott Hammen <mailto:[email protected]> > Envoyé le :samedi 11 juin 2022 20:21 > À : Experimental Film Discussion List <mailto:[email protected]> > Objet :Re: [Frameworks] Celluloid Now Call for Entries > > It seems like "analog" has come to mean simply NOT digital and, as Fred says, > usage has now made this meaning correct. > > In a way it recalls the use of the expression "silent movies" for pre-1929 > films - a term which was also technically wrong but universally understood to > mean films that did NOT feature recorded speech. > > Scott > > On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 19:25, Luke Aspell <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > "Photochemical film" and filmmaking seems to be the most precise way of > saying what's meant here. > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 6:07 PM Fred Camper <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Mark, and CFS, are right about something here. "Analog film" may be > redundant, but it may also be the best solution to a problem, and as it > becomes used more often it becomes, linguistically speaking, correct. > > Years ago, as "disrespected" began to be used commonly as a verb, it was > objected that it was not a word. But it turns out to have been the best > way of saying something, so now it is a word. If "analog film" is the > best solution, fine, let's all use it. I don't have a strong opinion on > how to solve this. > > Fred Camper > Chicago > > On 6/11/2022 12:49 PM, mrktosc wrote: > > Yeah, Pip I think you’re definitely taking this too literally, particularly > > for an event which is clearly meant to positively celebrate the love for a > > medium (and congrats CFS for the effort!). > > > > And if we want to be strict, “celluloid” is also not accurate, and pertains > > only to the nitrate era - but we still use it casually and gladly in > > referring to film. So, like “celluloid”, the word “film” has for a while > > now come to be fairly medium-agnostic, and it has made sense in recent > > years to add the adjective “analog” to clarify, especially for younger > > enthusiasts for whom the material was never an everyday presence. In their > > contemporary usage in this kind of context, at least in my view, both > > “analog” and “film” have implications that extend quite a bit beyond their > > historical and now more conservative uses. > > > > And film as a process is analog - film hasn’t just rigidly meant the > > physical material in like 100 years… As a term it means much more than the > > flexible plastic material called film, and it’s this inclusive and complex > > sense of culture/medium/engagement that this festival is clearly meant to > > highlight. > > > > Mark > > > > > >> On Jun 11, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Fred Camper <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> I agree that "analog" is redundant, and that electronically recorded > >> video can be analog, but unfortunately just using "film" is now > >> problematic, since an overwhelming shift in usage has it applying to > >> digital video. Shooting digital video is now called "filming," and a video > >> can be called a "film" We may not like this, but usage has made it correct. > >> > >> My solution is to write "celluloid." One might write, "films printed on > >> celluoloid," or, to be more restrictive, "films shot and printed on > >> celluloid." It would be interesting to know if the festival will accept > >> works shot on video but printed on celluloid, and designed that way, for > >> the look of, for example, Pixelvision on celluloid. Such things exist. > >> > >> I am all ears as to a better terminology solution. > >> > >> Fred Camper > >> Chicago > >> > >>> On 6/11/2022 12:01 PM, FrameWorks Admin wrote: > >>> Just a comment here: film is not analog. Film is a material. Whereas an > >>> audio or a video signal can be either analog or digital, it is a misnomer > >>> to say “analog film” or “digital film” - please just say film. > >>> - Pip Chodorov > >>> > >>> > >>>>> On Jun 11, 2022, at 1:33 PM, Julian Antos > >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>> We're very pleased to announce our call for entries for CELLULOID NOW, a > >>>> four day showcase of recent work and archival rediscoveries presented on > >>>> analog film. More info below! > >> -- > >> Frameworks mailing list > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org > >> <https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org> > > -- > Frameworks mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org > <https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org> > -- > Frameworks mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org > <https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org> > > > -- > 06.88.08.50.61 > > -- > Frameworks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
-- Frameworks mailing list [email protected] https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
