Re: APOLOGIES (and metaphysics)

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

Eric,

> Does a film format exist without the "camera implementations" of them? After all, 

To me, yes.

> without the camera implementations, there is no half frame, 5 perf, 7 perf, full frame, 
> 645, 66, 67, 69, or some of the unusual formats a couple of stereo cameras produce on 
> 120 film. They are all artifacts of the camera, or as you would say, "camera 
> implemented."

Consider.  What if all 120 film using cameras were somehow destroyed.  Would the formats
used with 120 film still exist?  Yes, certainly.  They would exist, and still have 
various pluses and minuses.  They would still have property values. Conceptually.   What
if there *really* was an implementation still in existance, secretly by a 120-film
secret cult (on their secret altar).  Would the existance of the *format* be determined
by the actual existance or not?  Does it matter if that single implementation is actually
used or not?  If it's not permitted to be used,  does that affect existance of the format?
I can "invent" a new format even if I don't actually build one.  And in my view,
that "invention" still *is* a format.  Not a popular format, but it still is one.

I see implementations as examples of a format, and indeed the fact that different 
implementations of a single format are different from one another shows that
the format is something that exists outside of the implementation.  If I buy one of
those $25 120-film using Russian cameras, can I conclude that 120-film format is
really bad?  No, the problem isn't with the format, it's with that implementation.
One can tentatively infer characteristics of a format from its implementations, so
there *is* that connection, but there is that caveat that it's the implementation's
characteristics being seen, not necessarily one of the format.  Those characteristics
inherent to all implementations of the format are characteristics of the format.  So there
is a connection, but conceptually, it isn't an equivalence.
  
Now, that said, I will apologize if my viewpoint seems metaphysical.  My background
is as both a system architect and lead design engineer (Asynchrounous Transfer Mode data 
telecommuncations equipment).  I think first in terms of concept and then map those 
concepts into implementations.  I design the concept before the implementation, so if
the "format" doesn't exist without the implementation, then I'm doing a *lot* of work
and spending a LOT of time on something that doesn't exist. 

I don't know if there is a "correct" or "wrong" viewpoint on this subject, but
there certainly are different ones.    Somewhat metaphysical perhaps.  :-)

> Eric Goldstein, Boston, Massachusetts
> egoldste@xxxxxx  (Good suggestion, Shab!)


Mike K.

Michael Kersenbrock, Portland, Oregon, USA


P.S. - Both my full name and most others are in the email headers "anyway" (one can
       look), but our locations aren't.  I think the locations are interesting, 
       but aren't important.  I see us as all being in a single virtual-room
       as evidenced by our physical location making no substantial difference in
       our participation.  I could move thousands of miles away, and there'd be
       no difference to me other than perhaps my email address.  There I go again,
       conceptualizing.... now back to your regularly scheduled program.   :-)





------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1205
***************************