on Sun, 11 Jul 2004
19:37:15 PDT7
> Rocky, I think you have added some good detail to the discussion.
>
> > Videotape looks cleaner mostly because of its improved characteristics in color
> > fidelity and
> > linearity relative to film but most don't find it acceptable for movies because
> > the film going public has been conditioned to expect film and its
> > characteristics, that is, the softness and relative warmness (opposite of
> > harshness) relative to videotape. That is to say, factors associated with
> > category (1). Flickeryness and smoothness of motion are related to category (2)
> > stuff, namely video capture rate and image capture (shutter) speed.
>
> The way I've always thought of it (non-technically, of course) is that video (live
> broadcast, or well shot on videotape) looks more literally real. Well-shot film is
> a lot prettier (or dark, gritty, stylized, emotional -- whatever the director, his
> D.P., and Production Designer were aiming for); that is, it's less literal, more
> interpretive, more of a dreamscape. Video has a hard time being something other
> than "mere" TV. It is great for documentaries, generally lacking for a lot of other
> purposes. Film can have a power for the audience that video can never touch, just
> as it is extremely difficult for film to ever seem as "real" as video. I think
> McCluhan's most famous book covered this effectively, though in fairly vague
> academic terms.
'The medium is the message' or it that a different McCluhan? Thanks for
helping me make my point - this is exactly the point I was trying to make.
Video is higher in objective quality - it looks more "real" and yet "real" is
not
exactly what moviemakers are going for.
> > This has led to the process of filmmakers using video first (for the added
> > convenience as
> > well) and then transferring to film to cater to the film going public.
>
> There is usually one of two reasons at work in most cases: serious budgetary
> limitations (the indie filmmakers who are determined to proceed -- somehow -- with
> whatever tools they can afford, no matter how modest), or, as you say, practical
> convenience. There are many places you just can't go with elaborate film camera,
> lighting, sound, and grip packages. You woudn't want to, even if you could. That
> covers most documentaries. What you need for shooting decent video, in terms of
> equipment and crew, is comparatively negligible.
Exactly right. There's no doubt that the convenience and economy that video
permits but if cost were the objective and the quality were the same or even
close, they wouldn't bother with the film at all. As you said, "Film can have a
power for the audience that video can never touch". If there were no
difference, it couldn't do that.
> Jordan
-Rocky
Re: OT: Video argumentRe: OT: Video argument
=====================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-help".
For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".
=====================================================
<< Previous Message <<
>> Next Message >>
Return to [ 07 |
August |
2004 ]
The Southern California OS/2 User Group
P.O. Box 26904
Santa Ana, CA 92799-6904, USA
Copyright 2001 the Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED.
SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group.
OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International
Business Machines Corporation.
All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.
