Yes, video is video because it is an electronic signal. But "digital film" sounds more expensive, doesn't it? Then when someone says, "wow, what's that" you could re-hash what you know about HD, replacing "HD" with "digital film" and impress the heck out of them...it does have a nice ring to it...

The definition of video as "any moving image that was recorded electronically" is exactly what I think is outdated. There's two things that can happen to a definition when people start to see it as dated: The word stays the same but the meaning changes, or the word keeps it's old meaning, and a new word is created to embody the new meaning.

Right now, the term video by the above definition means both something shot on a consumer VHSC camera AND on Genisis. I'm sorry, but that to me means the definition is outdated.

Thank you Mathieu and Benjamin! I definately agree that "digital cinema" is an all around good name, but how smooth does it sound to say "I'm going to go shoot some digital cinema"? As long as "video" has less syllables, that's the word people will use... we need a shorter word IMHO.

Whereas "film" means 8mm shot on a consumer home movie camera and IMAX (70 mm moving sideways)....

Not digital cinema; digital film. Or how about "digifilm", that's three syllables.

"Cinema", to me, has too much baggage; it is too immediately associated with feature films- "movies"- and academic film studies. Esp. narrative driven stuff. "The Bicycle Thief". To establish a new format it needs to be a blank slate, I think...

I can't see why the word film should be involved, so how about "digema"? Better yet, "videma".

A.J.... while that's true, you also just proved my point. Film has a descriptive set of 'sub-words'. You can say "I'm shooting 35" or "I'm shooting super 8" easily in conversation, and people know what those are and what they look like. But video has no such way of distinguishing it's look. The only 'sub-words' video has are HD and SD, and they don't distinguish between video-look and cinema-look. News channels might be using HD and indie "film"makers might be using SD.

Hehe, that's exactly what I was saying in the first post; words like that sound... awkward.

So, where was I going with this topic, anyway? I don't know!

Interesting discussion ! However, I would suggest that the differences between "digital photo" and "video" are becoming increasingly small. As many of you know, there are high-resolution digital cameras today that shoot individual photographs at rates exceeding 30,000 frames per second. These are not video cameras as we know them, and in fact are much closer to point and shoot cameras in their evolution. Many such cameras could be easily set to shoot 24 or 60 FPS at a resolution equivalent to either 720p or 1080p. Are they then HD video cameras ? I think the definition is artificial at best, and is probably better related to the use of the camera rather than to the camera itself.

I read here all the time things like "I shot it in 1080i and want to know if I can convert it to 720p." In fact each of the SD and HD formats is fully described in terms of its parameters. The difference between 1080i and 720p is as fully descriptive and as easily understood as the difference between 16mm and 35. I guess I am missing the point.

In any case the engineers will always call it "video" if for no other reason than to distinguish that part of the signal or data set from the part that conveys the "audio".

There are various ways of describing different kinds of video; if anything the problem is that there are so many variations now. Maybe it's time to stop worrying about that and simply describe the type of content you're creating: e.g. "I'm making a documentary."

I haven't heard of any mainstream digital cameras yet which can record HD video at 24+ fps continuously, but we're getting closer. Once they can then they would be video cameras in their video mode, just as some video cameras can be still cameras in their photo mode.