Shooting video -- with bullets


28 Responses to “Shooting video -- with bullets”

  1. neurolux says:

    When you film a cop, that’s what he sees.

  2. inkfumes says:

    The truth hurts.

  3. chellberty says:

    Violent porn.

  4. Paul Renault says:

     You’ll end up with a black eye, if you hold it up to your face and pull the trigger.

  5. Keith Tyler says:

    Didn’t Jack Ruby have one of these?

  6. Brainspore says:

    I’m especially fond of this visual commentary on shooting video.

    Technically a Super 8 camera doesn’t shoot “video.”

    • David Carroll says:

      “Oxford Dictionary:

      1) The recording, reproducing, or broadcasting of moving visual images:”
      No mention of any device or media used to do this. I would quote other sources but a lot of then don’t support my point! ;)

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        NOOOOOOO!!!!  Audio only refers to cassettes!  Or maybe 8-tracks.

        I don’t get why people keep making this silly quibble when video simply refers to a visual recording.

        • kmoser says:

          Huh? “Video” is short for “videotape” which implies a magnetic medium that generally contains tracks for audio (sound) and video (visual) data.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Video precedes videotape. The visual portion of television was called video while it was still broadcasting film. The idea that video is an abbreviation for videotape is incorrect.

          • nixiebunny says:

            Video refers to the electrical signal that represents a picture, as from a video camera. But it can also mean something by Huey Lewis and the News.

        • Tim Drage says:

          It’s not a silly quibble this way around. Referring to shooting something on video as “filming” is common enough that it can seem a bit pedantic to argue against it but nobody commonly calls use of a cine film camera ‘videoing’

        • Tim Drage says:

           In Soviet Boingboing, moderator trolls you!

        • Brainspore says:

          You call it whatever you want, but my family actually had one of those Super 8 cameras and nobody we knew referred to our home movies as “videos.”

    • Jellodyne says:

      Technically, the camera pictured doesn’t appear to shoot video or film, it appears to shoot 5.56 mm belted bullets.

  7. K-9 says:

    Video? Video??? Boing Boing, I am disappoint.

  8. Russell Letson says:

    Antinous, I’m going to risk this with only a quick rummage through my American Heritage Dictionary to back me up, but while “video” does originate in the television field (in mid-1930s), I have never seen it applied to film images. I started using 8mm film cameras around 1965, and we never used “video” in relation to what we were doing. When consumer-level videotape cameras and decks became available, we called them “video cameras” “video recorders” and understood them to be distinct from film. I would say that “video” refers to electronically captured and recorded visual data, and while some future form of English might conflate the two technologies, history nerds will understand the difference and distinguish between them, just as competent military historians distinguish between the musket and the rifle.

    BTW, I spotted the camera in the image as a Super-8 camera immediately.

  9. Tim Drage says:

    Can never figure out if Cory is trolling or not. Calling an 8mm camera ‘video’ is for people on ebay clearing out a deceased relative’s loft, not for media-savvy retro-loving hipsters also old enough to remember super-8 home movies as a living media.

  10. Listener43 says:

    I have an 8mm video camera, as well as an 8mm movie camera (not that Super version, the real thing, made from 16mm film sliced lengthwise).
    I don’t think I’ve really added anything to the discussion.
    You’re welcome.

  11. Russell Letson says:

    NateXT: No, since almost nobody* shoots film any more–I’m only interested in the notion that one would call doing so “shooting video” with equipment that uses film, especially given the probability that a person doing the shooting would be quite aware of the distinction. Youngsters, of course, often apply current language to technologies and devices that passed out of use before they were born, which gives the geezer generation something to smile about as they explain reel-to-reel tape recorders or buggy whips or road maps.

    *Outside of pro or deliberately retro hobbyist/hipster-artist circles–in fact, I don’t even know where I’d find stock for my Super 8 cameras, let alone my old Bolex H8. Or a lab to process it. Or a replacement lamp for my projector. (I went to video around 1989.)

  12. eldueno says:

    How to encourage the subject of of the video to look puzzled.

  13. timquinn says:

    Apparently the newbs around here don’t know that when you stick bullets in your film camera it’s called “shootin’ video.”

    Catch up already!

  14. Photomonkey says:

    It was my understanding that the analogy of cameras as guns and subsequent phrasing of “shooting film” (or shooting video, shooting plates, shootings stills, etc) originates from the late 19th century and the work of frenchman  Etienne-Jules Marey.  He used cameras to study locomotion, helping to pioneer motion pictures and inspire the Futurism aesthetic, but along the way he also designed a camera that was shaped like a rifle.  This rifle-shaped camera recorded several frames of a moving subject on to a rotating photo-sensitive disc.  I completely forget why it was shaped like a gun but I can look it up after I take a nap.

    But does anyone else know of an earlier precedent for the camera as gun analogy?  I believe this was in the 1880′s-90′s?  Perhaps Matthew Brady and the American Civil War?

    Perhaps this more questions than answers … to a question no one asked.

Leave a Reply