Why is the old term "Footage" used in this day and age.

handinpalm

handinpalm

Getting comfortable
Sep 21, 2016
679
1,436
Tampa Bay FL
I always wondered why people use the term Footage, when discussing digital video cameras in the 21st century. This term is from where plastic film was used to record frames of pictures to make a motion picture. We have graduated from this recording to magnetic tape, then to the digital age with IP cameras. Maybe too many people are listening to the most ignorant people on earth (News Media), who Always use the term Footage, because the Media does not know any difference. I think people should get with the times, since we are well into the 21st Century and use the term "Video" for describing their new digital motion pictures. What does everyone think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jessie.slimer
Once a name gets associated with something it sticks. A DSL modem isn't a modem. Bryce Canyon isn't a canyon. A 1/2" image sensor isn't 1/2" in size. We drive on parkways and park on driveways. The grounded conductor of a 2-wire AC circuit isn't a neutral, yet it's widely called that. What may have started as a functional description often becomes just a name.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sebastiantombs, Jessie.slimer, Frankenscript and 1 other person
saltwater said:
The same can be said for the word, mileage, it is so common we still use it. For my US friends, you are probably wondering, what are you going on about.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct, the USA is still tied to the antiquated English system. We tried to slowly convert to the world metric system years ago, but failed miserably. There were road signs in miles and Km a while back, but all of them have disappeared. Evidently people here were too stupid to to convert to the world standard that makes things so much easier. I personally hate the English system. A lot of it is in fractions, and No one can understand that either. But, for technical terms, "Footage", there is no excuse. Get with the times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jessie.slimer
In filmmaking and video production, footage is raw, unedited material as originally filmed by a movie camera or recorded by a (often special) video camera, which typically must be edited to create a motion picture, video clip, television show or similar completed work.

Footage may also refer to sequences used in film and video editing, such as special effects and archive material (for special cases of this, see stock footage and B roll).

Since the term originates in film, footage is only used for recorded images, such as film stock, videotapes or digitized clips – on live television, the signals from video cameras are instead called sources.

The origin of the term "footage" is that early 35 mm silent film has traditionally been measured in feet and frames; the fact that film was measured by length in cutting rooms, and that there are 16 frames (4-perf film format) in a foot of 35 mm film which roughly represented 1 second of screen time (frame rate) in some early silent films, made footage a natural unit of measure for film.[1] The term then became used figuratively to describe moving image material of any kind.

Source: Wikipedia.

Of all the things going on, this is what you are concerned with? ;)
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: drew_m, NoloC, Frankenscript and 8 others
The term that bugs me is "bandwidth" when what is meant is "data capacity". Bandwidth has a specific meaning, and it is NOT directly related to data rate or data capacity at all. (More efficient encoding methods and modulation techniques can squeeze more data into the same bandwidth, while inefficient encoding and modulation methods may use far more bandwidth to carry a lower data rate).

But I've gotten used to hearing that term used to mean data rate, and I guess it really doesn't matter except that it can become misleading, and really confuse people when you DO try to discuss data transmission methods, radio work, optics, filters, etc. Then it sucks to end up with one term that has more than one possible meaning. So effectively, a once-valuable word has been made less useful, or even ambiguous.

Still, that's just how language tends to evolve.

It's like the word "momentarily". When I was a kid, that word meant "for a moment", and you'd have points taken off if you mistakenly used it to mean "in a moment". But now, it's been misused so much that it's common practice to hear show hosts say "We'll be back momentarily." even though they really mean they'll be back "in a moment", not "for a moment". And I believe at least some dictionaries acknowledge that this is now considered "common usage". But again, while it seems inconsequential, the fact is that we've lost a formerly valuable word because it can now have two meanings. And if we want to say "for a moment", we have to write it out or say it that way, because "momentarily" no longer has that unique meaning. So in my opinion, the language has been "damaged" by accepting an improper definition.

I don't think that same issue exists for "footage", though. I am not aware of any common cases where a person has to go to extra care, and purposely avoid using "footage" because of some ambiguity that it has taken on. So it still seems to be a valuable word.

If you look into many words, you'll find that they have their origins in some meaning that they no longer have. Some of this evolution is good, and some is bad, in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samplenhold and tigerwillow1
When I was a kid people had common sense. Now they don't! So now it should be called uncommon sense. :idk: :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Ssayer and samplenhold
Haven't you ever used a Kleenex? or a Band-aid?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ssayer and bigredfish
Or PowerPoint, Frisbee, hula-hoop, slip-n-slide, sharpie, x-acto knife, Formica, tupperware....the list goes on and on LOL

Some people use to say "Google it"...but that phrase is now no longer being used by many since Wednesday (cross-threading LOL)...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ssayer
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom