Yes, most people who use the term have adopted it in exactly this way.
And this view of language is widely accepted as well, as never fixed in time.
However there is also the traditionalist view of
language and respecting etymology, and it can be
instructive to educate the critical mass,
particular at a time when the film medium needs
awareness and sustainability.
Using the term analog reduces film to a signal.
If film is only a signal then there is no reason
to resuscitate acetate or polyester film material.
A signal can be received in many ways including
analog and digital reproductions, as long as the
resoution and the bit depth of such reproductions
surpass the visual acuity of the human retina.
Since film is not only about what it looks like,
but also about what it is, and in light of the
fact that you are hosting an event about film as
a material and as a practice and to promote the
film advocacy task force, I think it worthwhile
to avoid the analog/digital debate by referring
to film simply as its own material.
This also evades a stickier neologism as "film"
as come to mean any moving picture production on
any medium. Any "film" student working digitally
claims to make "film." I believe they are making
"digital" but I am very alone in that strict use
of the term to mean only film based production.
At least the term analog is still precise enough
that we can use it to raise awareness that film
To Sherman George:
No, "analog" used as an adjective relates only to signals
At 19:27 -0500 11/11/14, Matt Whitman wrote:
Right. But couldn't this be a very specific
reading of the term 'analog'? In reference only
to signal? I think our language around media has
evolved enough at this point where we don't have
to necessarily exclude other forms from this
analog vs. digital binary which has been set up.
Looking at it somewhat algebraically, if we use
the term analog to merely describe "signal" and
digital signal is the opposite of analog signal
- we then simplify by eliminating signal from
the equation, leaving us with analog digital.
It is a simplification - in every sense of the
word - and this is for better or worse.
The word 'analog', with its contemporary
application to (sometimes to the point of
absurdity) a variety of phenomena and
situations, has gone past the point of critical
mass (another analogy, this time to a process
associated with nuclear fission) where it seems
it can now be applied simply to that which is
not digital. And this is at a moment in time
when so many aspects of human life are now
influenced to some extent by various digital
processes and systems.
I think it is a matter of language, which is
never fixed at specific point in its own
history, but is provisional. It adapts to the
current moment - much like a city or a body or
any organism for that matter.
On Nov 11, 2014, at 6:42 PM, Pip Chodorov
The term was used widely throughout the 20th
century to describe continuous recording
processes on physical or magnetic medium (audio
tape, video tape, vinyl disk) and especially in
relation to digital processes when they became
popular (remastered recordings, CDs, laserdiscs
and DVDs) when the debate between analog and
digital became fervent.
But not until the past ten years was the term
ever applied to motion picture film.
I think film should not be confused with signal media.
The term "digital film" has been applied
wrongly to using digital intermediates to
finish on film print stock.
This wikipedia article described analog processes best:
FrameWorks mailing list