On 2011-08-29, at 13:28 , Francisco Torres wrote: > Film emulsion was never electronic.
Francisco, It's a bit smart-alecky, but I'd still argue that exposing film particles to light, then later projecting light through those same grains in order to create an image on a reflective screen... it's an electrochemical process, i.e. electronic. Repelling electrons from a cathode to cause a TV screen to glow isn't too different, really, nor is running current through a head to record magnetic waves on tape, then later reading those waves and using them to vibrate a speaker membrane. Film has a more primitive feeling because there are so many moving mechanical parts, and the process is risky and delicate, plus television and radio were quickly associated with nation-state network broadcast rather than localized playback of recordings; however as video tape etc has improved, and the cinema is now a digital network receptor as well, those distinctions seem less important. (Not to mention that early television broadcasts were filmed off-the-air on celluloid, by shooting a monitor in the studio, before videotape became viable). I think the elimination of flaws has been the end goal of electronic media designers and commercial producers from day one, which is why they are taking away our favourite tools at a rapid pace, including the whole category of film itself which is troublesome and expensive to produce, develop and distribute compared to video. (PS Meesoo Lee's early videos are great examples of simple homemade VHS-to-VHS editing where the minor degradation of generation-loss form an important aesthetic element. In digital land, that doesn't happen. You get perfect copies or blanks, or maybe the odd glitch, but no smooth degradation.) -Flick -- * WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison * FLICK's WEBSITE & BLOG: http://www.flickharrison.com
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
