i am late to the discussion here... just a quick note to add my few cents.
A) when I think analog and digital, the first thing that comes to mind is that analog = analagous ... and that an analog process is like a straight or curved line whereas a digital process is like a series of steps. (imagine a fantastic drawing or diagram of each here). I won't explain anymore , because others have done so much more eloquently already in the preceding discussion. B). FLICK! FLICK HARRISON! what an amazing reply... I love it! I read the whole thread and I think your response sums it up nicely. I know that in "frameworks-digital-e-communication-land" sometimes our exchanges have been on the more contentious side... but you often post great things, and I usually only reply to the things that incite contestation... and I want to make sure to reply to the things that make me go "YEAH!" as well. so ... "YEAH!" and I always enjoyed our in-person discussions back in Vancouver... and yeah... I just wanted to quickly post and say that I enjoy your frameworks posts too... even though often my responses only get typed in moments of "HEY WAIT A MINUTE!" rather than in moments of "YEAH!" ... so needless to say... this is a moment of "YEAH!" which seems to relate to many other threads I read tonight (I had over 400 emails to catch up on).... that seems to be a trend among many of us on the list... C) (on frameworks listserv itself... notsomuch on digital vs analog) I assume (and probably I shouldn't assume anything) that many of us have lots on the go, and read what we can, when we can, from the list.... and occasionally something strikes us and we write "HEY WAIT A MINUTE!!!!" and often it comes late at night after marking too many essays or drinking too much whiskey... and it seems good and coherent at the time.... then someone else on the list reads it a few hours later in a different state of mind and then they write... "HEY WAIT A MINUTE" .... to something we didn't even intend after grading all those papers and drinking all that whiskey... and before we know it, there is a whole new thread on feminist films shot on discontinued kodak stocks processed in coffee and transferred to video and projected on 3D DLP projectors with 3 blade shutters and it goes on for days... and oh my god! (wait... where was I?).... oh yes.... this listserv. I think it is amazing! I think we sometimes take it for granted. We get annoyed with threads that we aren't interested in. We sometimes respond flippantly or perhaps carelessly to things that excite our passions in certain states of mind. And amazing discussions result from the places we least expect. (when I say "We" I don't necessarily mean "ALL" of us... but I know that "I" do this... and I think can I safely say that I have observed some of you do it too.). And I think it is wonderful, in the fact that incredible discussions wind up resulting from the most unlikely places (this thread is not one of them... but I am on a tangent here... and it feels like a good one... so I'm gonna run with it).... (where was I?) oh yes! Frameworks... the listserv... the other thing... the archive.... many of us write these comments and responses in various states of mind... knee jerk reactions and passionate replies... sometimes forgetting... that it all gets archived.... every one liner sarcastic response... every snippy come-back... every jab... every dig... every deep philosophical question... every technical chemical formula... every list of films and authors to look into... it gets archived.... so on one hand... we (c)should perhaps be more cautions and conscientious before putting keystroke to screen (i am writing this as much for myself as for anyone else)... but at the same time... i think it is a marvelous and wonderful thing that all of these spontaneous emotional reactions and replies get archived for however long the harddrives will store these digital (non-analog) bits of data... for the researchers and historians to come. it is simultaneously frightening and incredibly beautiful! (i am on a train right now, and have had a bit to drink while reading through 400 frameworks messages... so it's a bit of an overload... hence that last bit... but yeah... i mean... YEAH!) adc Amanda Dawn Christie -------------------------------- 506-871-2062 www.amandadawnchristie.ca [email protected] _______________________________ On 27-Aug-11, at 10:12 PM, Flick Harrison wrote: > As for the retroactivity of defining film as analog, I'd say, if the > word "digital" is a late arrival to film theory, you might consider > that counting on your hands (the original digital system) is pretty > old, even by the standards of the oldies around frameworks... > > I'd call film analog because each grain is exposed to a light of > varying colour and brightness, for any amount of time, focused by > any amount, then processed with more or less chemicals and time, all > of which are analog variables. The placement of grain on a frame is > also random and analog. > > [I'd also say exposure to light is an electronic process ;-) . > Marshal McLuhan called the light bulb the simplest electronic medium.] > > In digital imaging, by contrast, each pixel is given a numeric value > (like 0-255 in red, 0-255 in green, and 0-255 in blue) and assigned > a place on a set grid. > > Some people might call film digital anyway, because each frame is > discrete, that is, they are consistent units which are assembled to > make the movie. > > I've had long discussions with digital theorists who insist the > alphabet is a digital medium, in that it's the set range of discrete > values which are assembled in a sequential pattern in order to > transmit information. > > > ;-) > _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
