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 step
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 00:23:09 -0400
> > From: ste...@gladstonefilms.com
> > To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Analog and digital
> >
> > On 8/27/11 9:12 PM, Flick Harrison wrote:
> >
> > > I'd call film analog bec
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
-0400
> From: ste...@gladstonefilms.com
> To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Analog and digital
>
> On 8/27/11 9:12 PM, Flick Harrison wrote:
>
> > I'd call film analog because each grain is exposed to a light of
varying
> > colour and brigh
ork in this area?
I think this has been a fascinating and inspiring thread. The voices of film
lovers should be heard. Play loud!
Kim
> Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 00:23:09 -0400
> From: ste...@gladstonefilms.com
> To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Analog
On 8/29/11 4:28 PM, Francisco Torres wrote:
> Film emulsion was never electronic.
Yes, and contact prints are wonderful things, but the discussion (I
thought) was about Shooting on film or Digital and transferring to
digital for post or storage. That was what I was referring to. I
apologize fo
. All imagers are ANALOG. In the process of converting the light
striking the imager (film or electronic sensor) to an electronic version
(um analog) for storage and later display it is "sampled" and converted
to numerical values. The more samples per second, the smoother the
resulting waveforms wi
On 8/27/11 9:12 PM, Flick Harrison wrote:
> 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_photography
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Francisco Torres wrote:
>
>
> The problem about calling film analog is that film is not an electronic
> process. The Analog/Digial dichotomy being used to differintiate/compare two
> electronis proccesess.
> Film is
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
The problem about calling film analog is that film is not an electronic
process. The Analog/Digial dichotomy being used to differintiate/compare two
electronis proccesess.
Film is a photochemical/mechanical process.
As far as I know. before the advent of digital imaging in the 1980s film (or
photog
11 matches
Mail list logo
