Talk:Videography

Untitled

The original article "Videography. What Does It All Mean? has been submitted to Wikimedia Commons. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s).

We believe that it should be linked to the article. Bobkiger (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Bob Kiger[reply]

Should http://videographyblog.com be deleted? It appears to have been added by its author. --Jeremy Butler 12:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, When did we decide that it was bad to have the author of any work be allowed to contribute to its defining and nurturing. Book burnings and other attempts to cover intellectual property were prominent during the Inquisition and in Nazi Germany. I do not believe that they are supported in the digital domain.

Any scholar that reviews http://videographyblog.com will hardly find it a vanity link, but rather the only definitive source on the web for the root definition of the videography. It is backed by scholarly reviews, from the University of Hawaii, George Washington University, Latin scholars from the Benedictine Order and has been reviewed by leading lexicographers and videographers around the world. See: http://videographyblog.com/Background/Websters%20&%20Oxford%20Letters.pdf

As the author of the word, videography, and a student of the word for 35 years, I challenge you to explain in real words what is "vanity" about relating the root meanings of a word that was clearly and unquestionably coined into the lexicon on a known date, and has been freely used by others to profit, while the world gets no guidance as to the question posed by the very name of the originating article . . . "Videography, What Does It All Mean?"

Show your credits and authorities for proposing any changes to the definition outlined currently on Wikipedia and at Videography Blog. This definition, as it stands, allows for all current fields of endeavor to grow without limitation, but also gives the primal and contemporary history of the word.

Bob Kiger, author of the word videography.

The changes I proposed and the edits I made were attempts to bring this article in line with Wikipedia policies. If other Wikipedia editors feel they're in error, then I'll withdraw them. The answers to your questions may be found on the following policy pages. --Jeremy Butler 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines (Incidentally, I did not use the word "vanity" in my comments.)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles_2 (explaining, for example, why "AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER" should be italicized and not capitalized)
My credentials

For the record, I am citing the definition which was "purged" by Wikipedia:

Videography (vid'ee og'ruh fee) n. 1. the science dealing with organic, electronic, or mechanical recording and playback of information. 2. the technology, process or art of producing information in analog or digital form. [1972 < L vide (re) to see + -o -,- Gk. -graphia. to write]

The word "videography" was first used as the descriptive title for an article in AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER MAGAZINE, October, 1972 edition entitled "Videography! What Does It All Mean?"

Videography is a discipline related to cinematography, except focused on the capture of moving images on electronic media (e.g., videotape, hard disk, or solid state storage) instead of film stock.

One may segment the videography market based on the application: event video, corporate video, broadcast video, etc. The advent of the digital domain has created an environment where videography covers a lot more fields than just shooting video with a camera. Digital animation, gaming, underwater videography, web streaming, video blogging, video music cataloging and many more fields are all carving a niche in the videography realm.

The essential philosophical question is whether we (human beings) need hardware "to see-to write" or whether we are capable of videography naturally?

It is self evident that we are capable of seeing to write. That's what our neural network is designed to do . . . so cameras and other production technologies are really OUTPUT devices, used by videographers, to share their "vid" (knowing) with others in this high technology age.

Put simply, "if it can be displayed on a high definition flat screen monitor, than it is videography!"

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Neast024. Peer reviewers: Kplou.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links

http://videographyblog.com https://www.islandcinemacom.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.40.151 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Vanity Website

(paraphrasing) which I removed.  I question his veracity on this point.

From what I can read of his credits he has written little about videography but more about television. I am also aware of TV history and the "vid" of Philo T. Farnsworth who (at age 11) saw the rows of corn on his farm as akin to the scan lines of a proposed electronic TV system and then converted his vid into mathematics and presented them to his school math teacher.

Farnsworth's 165 TV patents were interferred for years by RCA until they just lapsed. He made very little money out of his ground breaking work in the algorithms and science from which modern TV evolved. His competitors used bureacracy and the courts to stifle his contribution. I feel much the same is going on today at Wikipedia.

In a personal note I have been told from Wikipedia to go play in the "sandbox". To me Wikipedia Is the sandbox. The roots definition of vid and videography will prevail and the public is already "getting it".

I also note that according to Wikipedia's Vanity rules, Sir Isaac Newton would not have been allowed to refer to his "The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". Lucky that the rules of print vanity (in the early days of printing technology) were not so restrictive as Wikipedia's Vanity laws in these digital days.

The conflict before us is whether the definition should be provincial or providential . . . that's with a small P.

Bob Kiger 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Bob Kiger[reply]

I forgot about that "vanity" heading

Oh yeah, Bob is right. I did use the word "vanity" before on this discussion page. I'd forgotten I had and my comment was edited by Bob so it wasn't apparent here. --Jeremy Butler 19:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jeremy, for that admission. Perhaps we could work together to find a defining point that would capture the essence of the digital age. Just today I noticed that a highly popular video blog www.warradionew.com, is being compiled from journalists and troops in Iraq who are cobbling together information about how the Arab streets feel in the midst of all the conflict.

This is a high level use of videography IMO. There are so many more coming at us, (e.g. http://www.creativecow.net/newsletters/dvb-h_mini-media/index.html) that we only have to open our eyes to see the confluence of personal vid, multiple and evolving streams of videography and their effect on the public "vid" aka public opinion. I want to be a helpful member of the Wikipedia team and I am hopeful that others, more understanding of the rules, can jump in and convert petty misunderstandings into giant leaps forward. Bob Kiger 20:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Bob Kiger[reply]

Requested merge

I've requested videographer be merged into this page because both pages are small articles with additional sources required. This page has no sources at all. I think having these articles split is not helpful to readers and "videographer" should be merged and redirected here. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook kaylee adams

Kaylee adams 2603:6011:380C:1300:81E1:4B80:FCCD:C2F2 (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]