On 11/18/11 2:38 PM, Aaron F. Ross wrote: > So, the flicker of analog celluloid projection is a desirable > feature? Get real.
> Likewise, the idea that a good print guarantees a good projection is > equally ridiculous. Aaron, I believe that there is a difference in the experience of watching film projected as opposed to electronic projection. I believe that part of that difference is that you sit in the dark for half the time, and in that "space between the frames" it is where Cinema lives. Yes there are 2 and three bladed shutters that break the 24 fps into 48 and 72 flicks per second, there is still black moments in there which are not noticed, but make a difference as compared to not having ANY moments without images bombarding your retina and brain. You don't have to believe that, it doesn't shake my view of the universe if others do not agree with me. Some people find Gate weave to be desirable, I'm not really one of them, as long as it isn't heinious or distracting, it doesn't really bother me (except for credits - uggggh.) As far as the prints, the point to make is that with a print - if it is a good print, you have eliminated many variables that exist in electronic projection. The potential Bulb problems exist for both. However there are far more adjustments available to an electronic cinema projector that will affect the image than a film projector. Which was my point. I don't expect film projection to survive as the mainstream form of distribution, there are too many other factors that favor electronic distribution. There are positives and negatives to both. -- Steven Gladstone New York Based Cinematographer Gladstone films Blog - http://indiekicker.reelgrok.com/ http://www.blakehousemovie.com http://www.gladstonefilms.com 917-886-5858 _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
