7 ms·

I dont even know what you are trying to say.

by sneeds 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vanusa 5y ago
The commenter thinks the Zapruder film was a "video" is what I'm saying.
- jstanley 5y ago
  In what way is it not a video?
  - shard 5y ago
    As a generalization: Video, going back to before the digital era, refers to images recorded on magnetic videotapes, such as VHS or Betamax. This is in contrast with film, which is images recorded using light sensitive silver halide crystals. Video tapes are viewed by scanning the magnetic strips and displaying on a monitor with scan lines. Films are viewed by shining a light through the developed film and displaying the whole image on a reflective screen.
    - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
      Not quite. Video is generally an electronic medium for moving pictures and can be sent over cables or radio waves from the camera to the TV, without touching a tape. A video signal can be recorded on a tape, but isn't necessarily.
      - shard 5y ago
        Yes, you are right. Looks like you squeezed in your comment before I was able to put the "as a generalization" disclaimer on it! :) I was thinking more of the situation where some people might be confused with the Zapruder recording, that it could be on videotape instead of film, which is why I didn't try to cover all the corner cases.
  - mongol 5y ago
    It was film. Video is an electronic signal stored on tape (originally)
- wavefunction 5y ago
  I assume all the times I've watched it, it's been from video format. I really doubt they were playing the 8mm every time live and broadcasting. So... I guess it's now a video and not film.
- sneeds 5y ago
  Yeah, the commenter is me and that is what I am saying. Video can refer to non-digital media, see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video And even if it didn't, what did you think I meant? Do you think I believe that someone shot that on a smartphone? And how is that even relevant to the question? The question was if the OP thinks, that what we see was edited. Are you mentally disabled or something? Then please keep out of my responses until you have taken your meds.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Video can refer to non-digital media, see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video It still doesn't say that video includes "film". You can make a video recording of a film of course, but that's different. And even if it didn't, what did you think I meant? And how is that even relevant to the question? It seems you were confused about something that used to be a very obvious distinction, that not too long ago no one would trip up on (the difference between "video" and "film"). It's not especially relevant of course, it was just weird.
    - floor2 5y ago
      Your stance on this is intriguing to me. I'm treating this thread as a neat little obscure, pedantic fact that I learned today- that historically the word "video" had a distinct meaning from "film". Because never once in my 40-some years as an English speaking American have I ever seen this distinction. The two words are functionally synonyms in common usage, or perhaps the common usage would be something like "film" is a subset of "video". Perhaps it varies with geography or industry? Maybe Americans use the terms interchangeably but Brits don't? Or maybe within the entertainment or photography industries experts use the terms with more precision than the average citizen?
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        I think you're just not old enough. Back in the 1960s, film and video were distinct mediums. For one thing, film had a lot higher resolution. For another, they ran at different frame rates. There were tricks to convert film to video (3:2 pulldown), but nobody went from video to film - the resolution was so limited, it would look terrible.

I dont even know what you are trying to say.

by sneeds 5y ago

I dont even know what you are trying to say.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vanusa 5y ago

The commenter thinks the Zapruder film was a "video" is what I'm saying.

jstanley 5y ago
In what way is it not a video?
- shard 5y ago
  As a generalization: Video, going back to before the digital era, refers to images recorded on magnetic videotapes, such as VHS or Betamax. This is in contrast with film, which is images recorded using light sensitive silver halide crystals. Video tapes are viewed by scanning the magnetic strips and displaying on a monitor with scan lines. Films are viewed by shining a light through the developed film and displaying the whole image on a reflective screen.
  - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
    Not quite. Video is generally an electronic medium for moving pictures and can be sent over cables or radio waves from the camera to the TV, without touching a tape. A video signal can be recorded on a tape, but isn't necessarily.
    - shard 5y ago
      Yes, you are right. Looks like you squeezed in your comment before I was able to put the "as a generalization" disclaimer on it! :) I was thinking more of the situation where some people might be confused with the Zapruder recording, that it could be on videotape instead of film, which is why I didn't try to cover all the corner cases.
- mongol 5y ago
  It was film. Video is an electronic signal stored on tape (originally)
wavefunction 5y ago
I assume all the times I've watched it, it's been from video format. I really doubt they were playing the 8mm every time live and broadcasting. So... I guess it's now a video and not film.
sneeds 5y ago
Yeah, the commenter is me and that is what I am saying. Video can refer to non-digital media, see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video And even if it didn't, what did you think I meant? Do you think I believe that someone shot that on a smartphone? And how is that even relevant to the question? The question was if the OP thinks, that what we see was edited. Are you mentally disabled or something? Then please keep out of my responses until you have taken your meds.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Video can refer to non-digital media, see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video It still doesn't say that video includes "film". You can make a video recording of a film of course, but that's different. And even if it didn't, what did you think I meant? And how is that even relevant to the question? It seems you were confused about something that used to be a very obvious distinction, that not too long ago no one would trip up on (the difference between "video" and "film"). It's not especially relevant of course, it was just weird.
  - floor2 5y ago
    Your stance on this is intriguing to me. I'm treating this thread as a neat little obscure, pedantic fact that I learned today- that historically the word "video" had a distinct meaning from "film". Because never once in my 40-some years as an English speaking American have I ever seen this distinction. The two words are functionally synonyms in common usage, or perhaps the common usage would be something like "film" is a subset of "video". Perhaps it varies with geography or industry? Maybe Americans use the terms interchangeably but Brits don't? Or maybe within the entertainment or photography industries experts use the terms with more precision than the average citizen?
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      I think you're just not old enough. Back in the 1960s, film and video were distinct mediums. For one thing, film had a lot higher resolution. For another, they ran at different frame rates. There were tricks to convert film to video (3:2 pulldown), but nobody went from video to film - the resolution was so limited, it would look terrible.