4 ms·
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 "vide
by 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 agoI 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.
- TigeriusKirk 5y agoI'm American and I've always heard them used as distinct terms. I think your experience may be unusual in this regard.