Re: documentary films vs. documentary video

At 06:40 PM 4/4/2007, Hal Cain wrote:
>But, a further question: is this a useful distinction (films vs. video) to 
>users?  And doesn't the use of these terms conflate medium (moving image) 
>with carrier (transparent vs. electronic -- digital or analog)? (Oughtn't 
>we also distinguish technical attributes, digital or analog?)

I would argue that the distinction is becoming less useful day by day.  The 
majority of documentaries today seem to be shot in video (analog or 
digital).  There are some produced by/for television production entities 
but exhibited initially in theaters to make them eligible for Academy Award 
nomination.  Digital cinema is still considered as "film" (for the purposes 
of defining "documentary film") by AMPAS (see their rules for documentaries 
at http://ampas.org/80academyawards/rules/rule12.html ).

Digital vs. analog may be useful in subject headings having to do 
specifically with those attributes (e.g., resources about editing video, 
preservation of video, etc.).  But I can't see what relevance they would 
have in a subject heading for a documentary.  There are other elements in 
the record to handle such attributes.

I'm looking forward to the day that the world finally settles on simple, 
common terms to cover both film and video.  Many mass media writers don't 
understand, or aren't even aware of, the difference between the two.  (It 
always irks me when I see an article talking about an actor having just 
finished "taping" an episode of some television series that is actually 
shot on film.)  I have a feeling that "film" may well end up being the 
term.  Even for video, "taping" is no longer accurate in those cases where 
the signals are captured as computer-readable files on disks or solid state 
media.