|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Things are getting tough for calendar/rep houses
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-18-2008 10:06 AM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
This is a very interesting post. Nevertheless, I think there is an important difference between audio and image. With audio, technology has always tried to get as close as possible to the real world, the idea is that the recorded element should reproduce the original sounds as they were when recorded. With images, the photographer does not necessarily want to replicate reality exactly...
That is not necessarily true at all. While it is true that the mechanics of recording audio have not afforded as many varients to creating new art as the visual mediums, audio recording has not always tried to reproduce the world naturally. Flanging would be a prime example where the mechanics of the recording medium were used to alter the real-world sound. There have been MANY studio tricks used to alter the sound from its natural state. For motion pictures...the sound is often no more real than the sets that make up the image. Just what does a Dinosaur sound like? Ever recorded a jet plane landing and compared it to what is in a movie? Try it...they don't sound the same.
Movies are the art of suspended disbelief. What is happening on screen (picture and sound) is true because the person putting it on screen says it is. If you are conscience of being tricked, the illusion is lost...picture or sound. One of my biggest problems with cinema sound is the locked center-dialog...my brain constantly is telling me there is a displacement between the sound and the image. Panned dialog is an art form that is almost entirely lost and misunderstood my modern film sound engineers.
B/W and aspect ratio is not part of the medium though...you can alter those in the digital era. Likewise with grain...if that is the look the film maker is going for, they can be added to the image to create whatever effect they want...it does not require film.
As to Mark's light integrator...I don't think you will find that the driving force behind it is to get a flatter field of light but allow the design to create the light system with a fixed and predictable aperture. One can then use the integrator to move that focal plane forward to the the the bandpass filters and finally to the images. Film systems don't need that since the image filtration is done by the film itself, which has a single aperture. It is pretty much a fixed target, regardless of projector. The designer of the reflector comes up with a working distance for optimal light transfer and you set the reflector to that distance. Try and do that with digital light engines and all of the gook that is in that light path to get the right color light to the three imagers. It is much more complicated.
While I don't doubt that a light integrated in film use would change the look of the film image...I'm not sure how that look would be perceived and if it would be better...maybe. I'll bet it would reduce the appearance of scratches as the light rays would be rather parallel. I also think it might have an adverse result on the perception of contrast. In your darkroom work, have you ever experimented with diffusion light sources versus condensor types? They have a huge effect on contrast (diffusion having less).
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-18-2008 02:11 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
That is not necessarily true at all. While it is true that the mechanics of recording audio have not afforded as many varients to creating new art as the visual mediums, audio recording has not always tried to reproduce the world naturally. Flanging would be a prime example where the mechanics of the recording medium were used to alter the real-world sound. There have been MANY studio tricks used to alter the sound from its natural state. For motion pictures...the sound is often no more real than the sets that make up the image. Just what does a Dinosaur sound like? Ever recorded a jet plane landing and compared it to what is in a movie? Try it...they don't sound the same.
I thought you would mention this and I was going to clarify my position, although it is a tricky subject. Yes, I am aware of flanging, reverbs, delays, vocoders, distortion, gate, compression, the list is endless. All the different sound processors, like the flanging you mention are not media. As you know, you can record sounds analogically or you can record sounds digitally, for example analog tape or a hard drive, which are media for sound recording. The sound processors are not media and are either analog devices that process the sound or digital software that also alters the sound but they do not “capture” or record the sound. Once the sound is altered is then recorded onto media.
What I was trying to say is that in audio, media’s main purpose has always been to try and keep the sound as faithful as possible to the original one, be it a sound found in real life or a sound altered or created by any means. On the other hand, with images, media has had a very important role in altering the original image, for instance black and white or different emulsions. Therefore, media in audio has had the paramount task of being faithful to the original sound source (being a real or an artificial sound) whereas media in visual arts has played a role in altering the original source.
This may look like a Byzantine discussion, but the point I was trying to get across, maybe unsuccessfully because English is my third language, is that with audio-related arts media has always been there to try and reproduce as faithfully as possible the sounds (either real sounds or artificial sounds) whereas with visual arts media has been essential in the way reality is captured and portrayed. This is why audio recording people have mainly been considered as technical people and photographers have been regarded as artists.
This is not a clear-cut subject and I hope you will get the gist. For instance, to appreciate Rachmaninov's 3rd piano concerto you either go and listen to it live played by a good orchestra, good conductor and soloist or listen to a good quality recording with a good orchestra, conductor and soloist. The media in this case just serves the purpose to reflect exactly the original work whereas with film, the media becomes part of the creative work.
If you want to appreciate the work of James Wong Howe in any of his black and white films ideally you would want a good 35mm print (which has never entered the digital domain!). A videotape, a DVD, a Blue-Ray disc or even a 2K digital screening would not really represent James Wong Howe’s work as originally created and therefore media in films forms part of the creative aspect and the end result.
Of course, this applies to old films that were never meant to enter the digital domain, films which are very important in the repertoire cinemas discussed in this thread.
As I said, movies integrate many art expressions, film photography being one of them, if repertoire cinemas stop showing those old films in 35mm or 70mm they are depriving us of part of the original experience, albeit to some people this is not important.
quote: Steve Guttag
B/W and aspect ratio is not part of the medium though...you can alter those in the digital era. Likewise with grain...if that is the look the film maker is going for, they can be added to the image to create whatever effect they want...it does not require film.
I agree with your with regards to aspect ratio, since this depends mainly on the lenses, although the width of the film can also determine the ratio. Lenses would be to images what sound processors (like the flanger you mentioned) are to sound, they are not the media but can alter the original image or the original sound. However, before digital, black and white and colour negatives were different and so we could say it was different media.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Ramon,
Don't think that Chicago, New York, or LA were not also great Cinema going experiences back in those days. I definately know exactly what you're talking about there...seeing Sound Of Music, Mad Mad World, Ben Hur and others as a kid left a lasting impression on me.
I can imagine there were many great experiences there as well. I like buying books about cinemas to remember how great they used to be.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-18-2008 02:20 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
I thought you would mention this and I was going to clarify my position, although it is a tricky subject. Yes, I am aware of flanging, reverbs, delays, vocoders, distortion, gate, compression, the list is endless. All the different sound processors, like the flanging you mention are not media. As you know, you can record sounds analogically or you can record sounds digitally, for example analog tape or a hard drive, which are media for sound recording. The sound processors are not media and are either analog devices that process the sound or digital software that also alters the sound but they do not “capture” or record the sound. Once the sound is altered is then recorded onto media.
Ramon,
Thats one aspect of D-Cinema that you should appreciate... there is no data compression.
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-19-2008 04:18 AM
wow jim, that's dreadful. i'm very curious as to what exactly happened there.
ramon, i like your thinking on these matters.
steve, you are as ever very perceptive on the technical side of things, but i don't share your opinions of how the art is delineated. for example, the grain of film is very different from grain that is added digitally. they don't look the same, for starters. but equally importantly, film grain is a natural part of working with film. it shows us the means by which the work was created, and colors how we interpret it. digital grain is a counterfeit, a pretense.
to me, the process is important and the finished product is a reflection of the process. i think you regard the process itself as insignificant except to the extent that it leaves its unwelcome mark on the product.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(How many theatres had 200-300 people for their 9PM Tuesday show of Nim's Island? Leatherheads?)
Printer-friendly view of this topic