SCOUG-HELP Mailing List Archives

<< Previous Message << >> Next Message >>

Date:	Sun, 11 Jul 2004 19:37:15 PDT7
From:	"J. R. Fox" <jr_fox@pacbell.net >
Reply-To:	scoug-help@scoug.com
To:	scoug-help@scoug.com
Subject:	SCOUG-Help: OT: Supposed OS/2 Port of FFMPEG (?)

Content Type: text/plain

=====================================================
If you are responding to someone asking for help who
may not be a member of this list, be sure to use the
REPLY TO ALL feature of your email program.
=====================================================

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.

> 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.

Jordan

=====================================================

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".

=====================================================

Return to [ 11 | July | 2004 ]

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.