Re: [Frameworks] Affect

[Alistair Stray]

Gene & Dave,

D's work is addressing the same problems, (and isn't that difficult to
understand, honest) but puts affect outside the subject as a kind of follow
on from the start point of getting rid of the signifier (a terrible,
terrible, over-simplification, sorry but it's late and this is email). The
first volume of Capitalism & Schizophrenia 'Anti-Oedipus' is in most part
their definition of the problem with psychoanalysis, which they frame in a
more parseable discussion in Liberation (Oct 80) (that's now in the book
'Negotiations'). The problem with Psychoanalysis being similar to what Marx
saw in the economic theory of Smith and Ricardo, 'Adam Smith and Ricardo
discovered the essence of wealth in productive labour but constantly forced
it back into representations of ownership. Its the way it projects desire
back onto the domestic stage that accounts for the failure of
pyschoanalysis to understand psychosis, for it's coming to feel at home
only with neurosis, and understanding neurosis itself in a way that
misrepresents unconscious forces'.

The (partial) and mostly political solution within the book is
schizoanalysis, a militant libidino-economic libidino-political analysis. A
tool which can hopefully create a revolutionary machine that 'can harness
desire and the phenomenon of desire to prevent it being manipulated by the
forces of oppression, of repression, and so threaten, even from within, any
revolutionary machine'. I wish the whole text was online, because its so
clear and feeds into the D definition/usage of 'affect', and how 'A
Thousand Plateaus' was produced with the tools of 'Schizoanalysis.
'Schizoanalysis has one single aim -- to get revolutionary, artistic, and
analytical machines working as parts, cogs, of one another.' 'Anti-Oedipus'
is considering the links between Capitalism and Psychoanalysis and
revolutionary movements and Schizoanalysis on the other. 'Revolutionary
schisis as opposed to the despotic signifer'

Post-Structuralism is a very different toolbox, and it's a toolbox that
constantly mutates on you. Definitions themselves change. which isn't that
surprising an event when you kill off the signifier . Aspects like that are
hard to grasp at first, but I believe are natural, and liberating thought
patterns for an artist. I'm a Post-Structuralist though, so I tend to read
papers where the use and definition of the word 'affect' is as it appears
in the Simon O'Sullivans paper that I linked in this thread (and it's
usually closely linked to 'percepts' and 'sensations'). So 'Gestures of
affect and intervention' strikes me as a very D term (because I'm me,
univocal, but still me), in that affect sits outside of the subject and
could be creating an intervention by generating a deterritorialising flow.
Which, of course, is another word that could be unpacked by a Deleuzian in
many possible ways.

I tried a fair few years ago to expand on the ideas in Simons paper, while
framing my own work (it was primarily produced as part of my Masters) by
using Post-Structuralist assemblage theory to describe a metaphysical
machinery underneath the 'affects' Simon describes
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6eC4MskmoLib2NlQ1hNQmRWdjA It's a bit
scattergun as it originally started life as a dialogue, or ideas piece,
with some fellow anarchists I was working with at the time on defining
creative freedom.

Gene, I would be very, very interested in reading the work you are
describing when it's available . I feel very indebted to you as your work
and ideas have had a profound impact on how I think. I can say the same for
many other contributors, past and present, I've mostly lurked on over
several decades.

- Stray.


On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:49 PM Dave Tetzlaff  wrote:

> Gene:
>
> The common words closest to the typical academic use of “affect” would be
> “feeling” or “emotion”.
>
> It’s a common term in psychology. The APA defines it:
>
> > n. any experience of feeling or emotion, ranging from suffering to
> elation, from the simplest to the most complex sensations of feeling, and
> from the most normal to the most pathological emotional reactions. Often
> described in terms of positive affect or negative affect, both mood and
> emotion are considered affective states. Along with cognition and conation,
> affect is one of the three traditionally identified components of the mind.
>
> For example, you may hear depressives described as having “flat affect”:
> "characterized by a lack of reaction to emotional stimuli, and can include
> a monotone voice or lack of expression in the face.”
>
> However, the typical use in academia is a bit more specific, if not in
> overt definition then in it having become jargon associated with certain
> theoretical/critical positions.
>
> These uses of “affect” are mostly tracable to 80’s 90’s Cultural Studies,
> especially to Larry Grossberg, and reflect ideas drawn from British
> Cultural Studies (Stuart Hall) way more than Deleuze and Guatteri (in part
> because 

Re: [Frameworks] Affect

[Alistair Stray]

I think its increasing use, and framed definition, comes from it's use by
Deleuze & Guattari ,..  Simon O'sullivans paper is the best example I can
think of  https://simonosullivan.net/articles/aesthetics-of-affect.pdf But
the original texts, Logic of Sensation,  Cinema 1 & 2 and Mille Plateau are
better sources. Its a major concept in their philosophy, and isn't easy to
explain as the concepts all weave within each other but the WIki page on
their use of the word has a nice precis..

*The terms "affect" and "affection" came to prominence in Gilles Deleuze
 and Félix Guattari
's A Thousand Plateaus
, the second volume
of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. In his notes on the terminology employed,
the translator Brian Massumi gives the following definitions of the terms
as used in the volume:*
*AFFECT/AFFECTION. Neither word denotes a personal feeling (sentiment in
Deleuze and Guattari). L'affect (Spinoza's affectus) is an ability to
affect and be affected. It is a prepersonal intensity corresponding to the
passage from one experiential state of the body to another and implying an
augmentation or diminution in that body's capacity to
act. L'affection (Spinoza's affectio) is each such state considered as an
encounter between the affected body and a second, affecting, body (with
body taken in its broadest possible sense to include "mental" or ideal
bodies).[10]
*

*Affects, according to Deleuze, are not simple affections
, as they are independent from
their subject . Artists
create affects and percepts ,
"blocks of space-time", whereas science works with functions, according to
Deleuze, and philosophy creates concepts.*

- Stray

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 3:07 AM Fred Camper  wrote:

> I'd bve interested if someone up on the latest in academicese weighs in
> with something different, but to me this looks like a standard use of the
> word "affect" as a noun. Here is what I take the be the relevant definition
> from the OED:
>
> "the outward display of emotion or mood, as manifested by facial
> expression, posture, gestures, tone of voice, etc."
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
>
> On 2/15/2020 8:37 PM, Gene Youngblood wrote:
>
> Academic Frameworkers: I like to keep abreast of trends in academic
> language, and I've noticed an increased use of the word “affect” in
> scholarly papers. It has become fashionable, but the spin being put on it
> isn’t clear to me. Could someone please tell me what “affect” means here
> for example: "gestures of affect and intervention.” It seems different
> from something like “that doesn’t affect me.” Respond off list if you wish
> ato...@comcast.net. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing 
> listFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comhttps://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] resolution comparison

[Alistair Stray]

Mediainfo http://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo can read most video formats and
will tell you the information I think your asking about. Resolution, bit
rate etc. If you want more detailed analysis of a video stream and how it's
compressed you'll need to look to something else as well, like Elecard. I'm
not aware of a proper steam analyzer that's free though.

- Stray

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Gene Youngblood ato...@comcast.net wrote:

  I want to compare image quality between a clip from my satellite DVR and
 the same clip screen-captured online. Neither one is HD, and there is no
 “properties” option. Is there a way to technically determine the different
 resolutions (even if they subjectively look the same) other than just
 eyeballing them? The end target is FCP. Can it tell me?

 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Silence

[Alistair Stray]

Also, Susan Sontags 'The aesthetics of silence'. Can I ask what
philosophical framework(s) you're using ?

- Stray.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Antonio in.an.autumn.gar...@gmail.comwrote:

 hi

 this
 Indirect Language and the Voices of Silence - Maurice Merleau-Ponty
 (essay on painting)
 https://cdn.anonfiles.com/1349073532590.pdf

 and Silence/ Lectures and Writings by Cage

 if you look for more references and ebooks online check this out
 http://arg.org/login

 cheers

 a.

 2013/3/5 jaime cleeland ethnom...@yahoo.co.uk:
  I am doing a philosophy paper and was thinking of how the question of
  silence is dealt within Art.  Any pointers ?
 
  Jaime
 
 
  ___
  FrameWorks mailing list
  FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
  https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
 
 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Silence

[Alistair Stray]

yes its wishy washy, just thought of mentioning it as a paper that's 'out
there' on the subject so to speak.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM, jaime cleeland ethnom...@yahoo.co.ukwrote:

 thank you to all who replied.  I am looking within the framework of Muthos
 Logos. The Susan Sontag paper I have already read but that is actually a
 bit wishy-washy.


   --
 *From:* Alistair Stray alistair.st...@gmail.com
 *To:* Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 16:00
 *Subject:* Re: [Frameworks] Silence

 Also, Susan Sontags 'The aesthetics of silence'. Can I ask what
 philosophical framework(s) you're using ?

 - Stray.

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Antonio in.an.autumn.gar...@gmail.comwrote:

 hi

 this
 Indirect Language and the Voices of Silence - Maurice Merleau-Ponty
 (essay on painting)
 https://cdn.anonfiles.com/1349073532590.pdf

 and Silence/ Lectures and Writings by Cage

 if you look for more references and ebooks online check this out
 http://arg.org/login

 cheers

 a.

 2013/3/5 jaime cleeland ethnom...@yahoo.co.uk:
  I am doing a philosophy paper and was thinking of how the question of
  silence is dealt within Art.  Any pointers ?
 
  Jaime
 
 
  ___
  FrameWorks mailing list
  FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
  https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
 
 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks



 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks



 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] single frames online?

[Alistair Stray]

The only way to do it with really good results with H264 I guess is to set
the Keyframes to 1 so basically you just get a stream of I-Frames (as in
fully encoded stills). Basically an Intra file, a file with a GOP of 1
(group-of-pictures). Wherever you host it though is going to reencode it
with a longer GOP, but vimeo will at least allow you to make the original
file downloadable. The file will have to be very large though compared to a
normal H264 encoded file, as you'll need to set a high bitrate to make sure
you're not starving the I-Frames. For example the AVC-Intra flavour of H264
has a fixed bitrate (CBR) of 100Mbps. I shoot an Intra format with my
camera that tends to be around 120-140Mbps, but I'm not making single frame
films so I can re-encode with a much longer GOP.


On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Jon Perez jonmpe...@gmail.com wrote:

 I've never had much luck with this same issue and I've tried many many
 ways. It's more of a problem with the compression algorithm of the h.264
 codec itself rather than some specific parameter you can tinker with

 Try adjusting the number of key frames used in compression.

 What program are you using to compress to the h.264(.mp4)? What (digital)
 format are you starting from?

 -Jon Perez



 On Sep 16, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Pip Chodorov framewo...@re-voir.com wrote:

  You could ask Jeff Scher - he posts mostly single-frame films on the
  NYTimes website.
  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/jeff-scher/
 
  At 18:08 -0700 16/09/12, ev petrol wrote:
  hey folks
  has anyone found a good way to compress a film with a lot of single
  frames for the web?
  had a go here, followed the specific vimeo compression suggestions:
  vimeo.com/moiratierney/are-we-there-yet
  ___
  FrameWorks mailing list
  FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
  https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] single frames online?

[Alistair Stray]

Actually, a good H264 encoder should cope with what you're doing. The
mainconcept encoder (which is very tweakable) would use scene change
detection to automatically start a new GOP where the frame changes
dramatically. What would happen to it on vimeo when it streams though is
out of your control. Also, you could try giving vimeo a file with a much
higher bitrate (say 30-40Mbps or so), it'll encode it down to a lower rate
but at least it has a better start point.

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Alistair Stray alistair.st...@gmail.comwrote:

 The only way to do it with really good results with H264 I guess is to set
 the Keyframes to 1 so basically you just get a stream of I-Frames (as in
 fully encoded stills). Basically an Intra file, a file with a GOP of 1
 (group-of-pictures). Wherever you host it though is going to reencode it
 with a longer GOP, but vimeo will at least allow you to make the original
 file downloadable. The file will have to be very large though compared to a
 normal H264 encoded file, as you'll need to set a high bitrate to make sure
 you're not starving the I-Frames. For example the AVC-Intra flavour of H264
 has a fixed bitrate (CBR) of 100Mbps. I shoot an Intra format with my
 camera that tends to be around 120-140Mbps, but I'm not making single frame
 films so I can re-encode with a much longer GOP.



 On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Jon Perez jonmpe...@gmail.com wrote:

 I've never had much luck with this same issue and I've tried many many
 ways. It's more of a problem with the compression algorithm of the h.264
 codec itself rather than some specific parameter you can tinker with

 Try adjusting the number of key frames used in compression.

 What program are you using to compress to the h.264(.mp4)? What (digital)
 format are you starting from?

 -Jon Perez



 On Sep 16, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Pip Chodorov framewo...@re-voir.com wrote:

  You could ask Jeff Scher - he posts mostly single-frame films on the
  NYTimes website.
  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/jeff-scher/
 
  At 18:08 -0700 16/09/12, ev petrol wrote:
  hey folks
  has anyone found a good way to compress a film with a lot of single
  frames for the web?
  had a go here, followed the specific vimeo compression suggestions:
  vimeo.com/moiratierney/are-we-there-yet
  ___
  FrameWorks mailing list
  FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
  https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks



___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Film and Digital for beginners

[Alistair Stray]

From: David Tetzlaff djte...@gmail.com

 The typical student today doesn't get that some things just shouldn't be 
 watched on an iPhone, or even a 48 flat-panel because they need a much 
 bigger canvas and the viewer's undivided attention. Beat THAT difference into 
 their head, get them to appreciate CINEMA regardless of how it is projected, 
 and you do the work of the angels.



My favourite commentary on this very point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcNLEwf2pOw
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] digital Bolex - Well, there isnt one.

[Alistair Stray]

In the behind the scenes video for shooting  'one small step', which they claim 
to have shot with the prototype, you can see that their shooting with a 
Prosilica GX2300 machine vision camera.

http://www.alliedvisiontec.com/uploads/pics/Prosilica-GX.jpg

and from their BTS video, though there are other shots of it in there.

http://img162.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=33483_BTS_onesmallstep_122_388lo.jpg___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] digital Bolex

[Alistair Stray]

Yep thats true. The sensor is actually a CCD rather than a CMOS, so it will 
have a far better signal to noise ratio and a wider dynamic range. Also, CCD 
means no rolling shutter problems. Apparently that particular Kodak CCD gives 
11 stops. The workflow will be as painful as any raw workflow really, and if 
you want to shoot anamorphic you'll have to rescale/unsqueeze (sensor is 4:3). 
We need to see some raw, un CC'd stills in various light conditions.

- Stray






 From: Carrie Schreck carriemakesmov...@gmail.com
To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
Sent: Tuesday, 13 March 2012, 20:32
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] digital Bolex
 

It's the file-handling that scares me, working with Indiecams a year ago that 
also produced DNGs was difficult to say the least. Looks like there's a 
proprietary software that transcodes but I'd be wary. The real question is not 
the ISO (SI-2Ks only have around 200 and they are fantastic cameras) it's the 
question of Dynamic Range.  Alexa is 13.5 stops (really 11) and the RED is 
supposidly 14-18 stops (really 9.5) it will be intersting to see how this 
camera handles low-light.

-Carrie Schreck
carrieschreck.com


On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com 
wrote:

Wow, that looks fantastic. Thanks for sharing.

Aaron




At 3/13/2012, you wrote:
Someone just sent this to me, and I was curious if anyone has seen it too.
The Digital Bolex.
www.kickstarter.com/projects/joedp/the-digital-bolex-the-1st-affordable-digital-cinem?ref=card


and if anyone has some thoughts on it.

best
Christian


___ FrameWorks mailing
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks





___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Alistair Stray]

 From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com
 Definitely good points. However, don't forget that any film stock can 
 now be emulated, given good enough digital source material. 
 
No it cannot, not remotely. I work in post, and have done for some time, with 
both film and digital source and this is not true. The mediums have a wholly 
different look, you can make digital look a lot like film, but you'll not get a 
true and accurate emulation. 
 
As I said before, the moment that HDR sensors become affordable, then 
celluloid 
will be irrelevant. If you start with 20 stops of latitude in a 
32-bit floating point color space, you can push or pull it wherever 
you want and the end result will be indistinguishable from footage 
shot on the stock of your choice. --
 
Did you not read my post when you first started overstating the impact of HDR, 
and misrepresenting its purpose ? Yes the latitude of HDR will give you much 
more control in post but also you have to think about compression artifacts 
limiting what you can do. Yes you can work with uncompressed footage on the 
most expensive cameras, but as I said earlier in reply to another post of yours 
(also containing gross overstatements and misinterpretation) the switch to HDR 
sensors is a waaay off still. Surely as someone who works in Maya you can 
appreciate the difference in file size, and the difference in time that it 
takes to apply any processing at all working in a 32bit space,(assuming you've 
used a linear workflow and actually done some post other than tonemapping). Its 
a huge increase in production cost, even when the sensors become 
available large hollywood productions will not jump on a completely HDR 
workflow for quite a while (and when they do it'll
 probably be at 16bit, being as that is good enough). You're also kind of 
asking all filmmakers to shoot 'flat' to give the post guys all of that 
latitude too, HDR does have a start and end point you know, reality still has a 
wider dynamic range. One of the main advantages of digital film making is not 
really having to guess the final look with a video assist, but to be able to 
take the footage to a laptop on set and push and pull it there. With HDR 
that'll be a bit of a time sink without a considerably cash cost. Its not just 
the sensors that have to become affordable its the whole pipeline that has to 
become affordable, and also HDR has to be really advantageous at all stages in 
the pipeline too. Film is actually a much cheaper way to get a high dynamic 
range when you think about these issues. Most filmmakers here, if they do 
switch to digital will not be working with HDR footage or processes, their 
costs would actually increase dramatically.
 They'll be shooting on VDSLRs or P2s, or FS100s or equivalents thereof.
 
More importantly your final remark that it will be 'indistinguishable from 
footage shot on the stock of your choice' is completely wrong, it won't.  
 
Also, the end delivery point of film is not, and will not be for a very long 
time, HDR projectors. You are still going to bring it down to a smaller dynamic 
range to ship and show it, so why not start working closer to the end 
result (as we do in DPX and Cineon formats at 16, 12 or 10 bit) to start with. 
HDR footage will mostly be used for VFX footage, to give compositors more 
latitude and control in post first with complex shots, its general use is some 
way off. Basically, even though HDR sensors/footage is coming, the audience are 
not going to be watching full dynamic range films for a very long time. 
 
Another point, motion, this is very important. The look of movement on film is 
wholly different (and much better) to digitally shot footage. Maybe you should 
look at the rolling shutter tests in the Zacuto great camera shootout someone 
posted a link to here. Shooting with very high speed cameras such as the 
Phantom solve this problem (but you're not seriously going to be shooting a 
feature on one of those). Even the most expensive digital cameras suffer from 
the rolling shutter problem. Yeah, alternative approaches are on the way to 
solve this, but they aren't here yet. 
 
I love shooting and working in digital. The flexibility it gives me is way 
beyond anything film could ever provide me. I know my medium very well and it 
will not, ever, look the same as film does and nor should it ever try to. It 
will replace film eventually, but it won't ever look, or respond, the same way 
that film can. Go talk to a good DP Aaron who works in both mediums. Shooting 
in digital requires a different way of lighting, a different way of thinking, 
and a different set of technical limits to film. These differences 
will actually be more easily understood, and adapted to, by someone from a 
video background. In that fact you'll get a hint as to how wholly different the 
two mediums actually are and why digital ultimately has its own look and will 
never accurately emulate film.
 
From: Mark Longolucco 

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Alistair Stray]

'Indistinguishable' is a very subjective call so maybe you're right there to 
most peoples eyes. But unless its escaped your notice this is an experimental 
film discussion list, and HDR is not something that even experimental digital 
filmmakers will have access to for more than a few years for the reasons I've 
described. SInging its virtues here is completely irrelevant. 
 
Also to underline it again, everyone here knows the score. Some of us too 
actually know more about the digital medium than you do judging from your 
commentary and predictions. 



From: Alistair Stray alistair.st...@yahoo.com
To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011, 9:40
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak


 From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com
 Definitely good points. However, don't forget that any film stock can 
 now be emulated, given good enough digital source material. 
 
No it cannot, not remotely. I work in post, and have done for some time, with 
both film and digital source and this is not true. The mediums have a wholly 
different look, you can make digital look a lot like film, but you'll not get 
a true and accurate emulation. 
 
As I said before, the moment that HDR sensors become affordable, then 
celluloid 
will be irrelevant. If you start with 20 stops of latitude in a 
32-bit floating point color space,
 you can push or pull it wherever 
you want and the end result will be indistinguishable from footage 
shot on the stock of your choice. --
 
Did you not read my post when you first started overstating the impact of HDR, 
and misrepresenting its purpose ? Yes the latitude of HDR will give you much 
more control in post but also you have to think about compression artifacts 
limiting what you can do. Yes you can work with uncompressed footage on the 
most expensive cameras, but as I said earlier in reply to another post of 
yours (also containing gross overstatements and misinterpretation) the switch 
to HDR sensors is a waaay off still. Surely as someone who works in Maya you 
can appreciate the difference in file size, and the difference in time that it 
takes to apply any processing at all working in a 32bit space,(assuming you've 
used a linear workflow and actually done some post other than tonemapping). 
Its a huge increase in production cost, even when the sensors become 
available large hollywood productions will not jump on a completely HDR 
workflow for quite a while (and when they do it'll
 probably be at 16bit, being as that is good enough). You're also kind of 
asking all filmmakers to shoot 'flat' to give the post guys all of that 
latitude too, HDR does have a start and end point you know, reality still has a 
wider dynamic range. One of the main advantages of digital film making is not 
really having to guess the final look with a video assist, but to be able to 
take the footage to a laptop on set and push and pull it there. With HDR 
that'll be a bit of a time sink without a considerably cash cost. Its not just 
the sensors that have to become affordable its the whole pipeline that has to 
become affordable, and also HDR has to be really advantageous at all stages in 
the pipeline too. Film is actually a much cheaper way to get a high dynamic 
range when you think about these issues. Most filmmakers here, if they do 
switch to digital will not be working with HDR footage or processes, their 
costs would actually increase dramatically.
 They'll be shooting on VDSLRs or P2s, or FS100s or equivalents thereof.
 
More importantly your final remark that it will be 'indistinguishable from 
footage shot on the stock of your choice' is completely wrong, it won't.  
 
Also, the end delivery point of film is not, and will not be for a very long 
time, HDR projectors. You are still going to bring it down to a smaller 
dynamic range to ship and show it, so why not start working closer to the end 
result (as we do in DPX and Cineon formats at 16, 12 or 10 bit) to start with. 
HDR footage will mostly be used for VFX footage, to give compositors more 
latitude and control in post first with complex shots, its general use is some 
way off. Basically, even though HDR sensors/footage is coming, the audience 
are not going to be watching full dynamic range films for a very long time. 
 
Another point, motion, this is very important. The look of movement on film is 
wholly different (and much better) to digitally shot footage. Maybe you should 
look at the rolling shutter tests in the Zacuto great camera shootout someone 
posted a link to here. Shooting with very high speed cameras such as the 
Phantom solve this problem (but you're not seriously going to be shooting a 
feature on one of those). Even the most expensive digital cameras suffer from 
the rolling shutter problem. Yeah, alternative approaches are on the way to 
solve this, but they aren't here yet. 
 
I love shooting and working

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Alistair Stray]

.

Thinking critically about technology is a necessary condition for 
success in this postmodern world.

Aaron



At 10/4/2011, Alistair Stray alistair.st...@yahoo.com wrote:
wow, speaking as a digital artist that is quite an uneducated and 
illinformed post I've read arguing the benefits of the digital 
medium over film.

where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in 
*POST* with no loss of quality. Thats just bollocks isn't it ? Or 
do you really believe that there is no loss of quality altering 
exposure in post ? You're not very technically savvy in relation to 
concepts such as dynamic range if you do. Do you also believe DOF 
alterations in post accurately mirror the look of lenses ? Also, 
building a Zdepth channel to perform DOF changes is hardly a simple, 
and rarely a completely accurate, or indeed a fast procedure. Out of 
interest are you also one of these people who use the term 'film 
look' when talking about digital cameras, lenses etc ?

As others have said Kodak were extremely important in driving a lot 
of the changes towards digital.Also, artists choose their medium for 
the aesthetics and the control they want among other things. Digital 
does not look like or respond like film does, and vice versa (just 
keep adding more stops of sensitivity to those sensors, HDR Sensors 
? haha.. you're missing the point), both mediums have their place 
and role to artists.

- Stray.

From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 1:41
Subject: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crumbled/http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crumbled/


Once again, the old guard clings to obsolete business models and is
ultimately swept away by inevitable shifts in technology. The party's
winding down, folks. CDs, newspapers, and now analog film are going
the way of the wax cylinder. The canary in the coal mine dropped dead
about ten years ago, now the roof is about to collapse.

35mm motion picture film will still keep hanging on for a few more
years, despite the fact that high-end digital cameras have now
surpassed the imaging quality of most 35mm film stocks. Anyone who is
unwilling to adapt to digital imaging had better start hoarding film
stock in their walk-in freezers. The day that HDR sensors become
affordable is the day that analog film unequivocably becomes more
trouble than it's worth. Sprocket holes seem increasingly quaint in a
world where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in
*POST* with no loss of quality.

I'm not a hater, I'm just pointing out a reality that may be painful
for many on this list. Don't look to Fuji to save you, they're
ultimately headed for the dumpster as well. Starting up another
Impossible Project is a noble idea, but from what I've seen, these
handmade stocks can't compete with the real deal.

Aaron
---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

___
FrameWorks mailing list
mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


___ FrameWorks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Alistair Stray]

 inaccurate--

Altering exposure in post with no loss in quality is possible High
Dynamic Range imaging. This type of sensor captures the entire range
of brightness values visible to the human eye-- much greater latitude
than any conventional camera, analog or digital. Exposure can
literally be set in post. HDR sensors are not affordable yet, but
they will be in a few years. Meanwhile, HDR still photos can be
constructed from multiple bracketed conventional exposures.

As for depth of field in post, that is also coming soon to a digital
camera near you. Light field cameras work by capturing not just the
wavelength and intensity of light, but also its direction vectors.
Images can be focused after they are shot with no loss in quality.

http://www.lytro.com/http://www.lytro.com/

So actually, I do know what I'm talking about. I try to stay abreast
of the latest technologies in image-making. Anyone who has a
sentimental attachment to a particular technology is bound to be left
twisting in the wind when technology inevitably changes. Likewise,
anyone who buys into the myth of progress will find him or herself
saddled with a lot of useless gadgets.

Thinking critically about technology is a necessary condition for
success in this postmodern world.

Aaron



At 10/4/2011, Alistair Stray 
mailto:alistair.st...@yahoo.comalistair.st...@yahoo.com wrote:
 wow, speaking as a digital artist that is quite an uneducated and
 illinformed post I've read arguing the benefits of the digital
 medium over film.
 
 where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in
 *POST* with no loss of quality. Thats just bollocks isn't it ? Or
 do you really believe that there is no loss of quality altering
 exposure in post ? You're not very technically savvy in relation to
 concepts such as dynamic range if you do. Do you also believe DOF
 alterations in post accurately mirror the look of lenses ? Also,
 building a Zdepth channel to perform DOF changes is hardly a simple,
 and rarely a completely accurate, or indeed a fast procedure. Out of
 interest are you also one of these people who use the term 'film
 look' when talking about digital cameras, lenses etc ?
 
 As others have said Kodak were extremely important in driving a lot
 of the changes towards digital.Also, artists choose their medium for
 the aesthetics and the control they want among other things. Digital
 does not look like or respond like film does, and vice versa (just
 keep adding more stops of sensitivity to those sensors, HDR Sensors
 ? haha.. you're missing the point), both mediums have their place
 and role to artists.
 
 - Stray.
 
 From: Aaron F. Ross 
 mailto:aa...@digitalartsguild.comaa...@digitalartsguild.com
 To: mailto:frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.comframeworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 1:41
 Subject: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
 
 http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as 
 -kodak-crumbled/http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crumbled/http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crumbled/
 
 
 Once again, the old guard clings to obsolete business models and is
 ultimately swept away by inevitable shifts in technology. The party's
 winding down, folks. CDs, newspapers, and now analog film are going
 the way of the wax cylinder. The canary in the coal mine dropped dead
 about ten years ago, now the roof is about to collapse.
 
 35mm motion picture film will still keep hanging on for a few more
 years, despite the fact that high-end digital cameras have now
 surpassed the imaging quality of most 35mm film stocks. Anyone who is
 unwilling to adapt to digital imaging had better start hoarding film
 stock in their walk-in freezers. The day that HDR sensors become
 affordable is the day that analog film unequivocably becomes more
 trouble than it's worth. Sprocket holes seem increasingly quaint in a
 world where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in
 *POST* with no loss of quality.
 
 I'm not a hater, I'm just pointing out a reality that may be painful
 for many on this list. Don't look to Fuji to save you, they're
 ultimately headed for the dumpster as well. Starting up another
 Impossible Project is a noble idea, but from what I've seen, these
 handmade stocks can't compete with the real deal.
 
 Aaron
 ---
 
 Aaron F. Ross
 Digital Arts Guild
 
 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.commailto:FrameWorks@jonasmeka 
 sfilms.comFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
 
 
 ___ FrameWorks mailing
 list mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Alistair Stray]

wow, speaking as a digital artist that is quite an uneducated and illinformed 
post I've read arguing the benefits of the digital medium over film.
 
where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in *POST* with no 
loss of quality. Thats just bollocks isn't it ? Or do you really believe that 
there is no loss of quality altering exposure in post ? You're not very 
technically savvy in relation to concepts such as dynamic range if you do. Do 
you also believe DOF alterations in post accurately mirror the look of 
lenses ? Also, building a Zdepth channel to perform DOF changes is hardly a 
simple, and rarely a completely accurate, or indeed a fast procedure. Out of 
interest are you also one of these people who use the term 'film look' when 
talking about digital cameras, lenses etc ? 
 
As others have said Kodak were extremely important in driving a lot of the 
changes towards digital.Also, artists choose their medium for the aesthetics 
and the control they want among other things. Digital does not look like or 
respond like film does, and vice versa (just keep adding more stops of 
sensitivity to those sensors, HDR Sensors ? haha.. you're missing the point), 
both mediums have their place and role to artists. 

- Stray.



From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 1:41
Subject: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crumbled/


Once again, the old guard clings to obsolete business models and is 
ultimately swept away by inevitable shifts in technology. The party's 
winding down, folks. CDs, newspapers, and now analog film are going 
the way of the wax cylinder. The canary in the coal mine dropped dead 
about ten years ago, now the roof is about to collapse.

35mm motion picture film will still keep hanging on for a few more 
years, despite the fact that high-end digital cameras have now 
surpassed the imaging quality of most 35mm film stocks. Anyone who is 
unwilling to adapt to digital imaging had better start hoarding film 
stock in their walk-in freezers. The day that HDR sensors become 
affordable is the day that analog film unequivocably becomes more 
trouble than it's worth. Sprocket holes seem increasingly quaint in a 
world where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in 
*POST* with no loss of quality.

I'm not a hater, I'm just pointing out a reality that may be painful 
for many on this list. Don't look to Fuji to save you, they're 
ultimately headed for the dumpster as well. Starting up another 
Impossible Project is a noble idea, but from what I've seen, these 
handmade stocks can't compete with the real deal.

Aaron
---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks