From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Mar 31 2007 - 13:31:40 PDT
On 3/30/07, db <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> Hoping not to start "the old format war"...
>
> This says little about content. Only about not understanding the tools
> being used. If that is important to what you are trying to articulate, well,
> the same could be said of someone who used film stock and equipment without
> understanding the technology, or even a framer who doesn't know how to use a
> square and a hammer correctly.
> Understand your tools/experiment with the technology/discover
> characteristics unique to the medium you are using.
> db
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Robert Schaller wrote:
>
> One of the clearest reminders to me, though, that the format does matter,
>
> came, paradoxically from digital editing. I was working on my first
> 720p24
>
> project in Final Cut, and had original footage in a wide variety of
> formats
>
> that I was working with, in DVCProHD60p, PAL anamorphic, PAL 4X3, and NTSC
>
> 29.97. I edited away and got a fine cut, only to realize that I didn't
> have
>
> anything at all: because I had used all these different formats, I
> couldn't
>
> output the piece, and the visual quality of what I had was a mess. I had
> to
>
> go back and transform the source material to a common format, and redo the
>
> edit. Which was an object lesson that format matters very much, and that
>
> programs like Final Cut are not doing us a favor by letting us think that
>
> they are all interchangeable and somehow equivalent.
>
>
what are u talking about???
ur position is that of religious sheepdom
the purposefulness of fcp ingesting different formats
and accessing codecs of different formats...
isn't going to change the plane of different formats outside of the program
(logic please!!)
maybe look to our government in complaint
they mandate our airwaves - and initial crappy ntsc implementation - and
really screwed up
the whole hd conversion as far as i am concerned
besides all of the other misteps they make in support of corporate welfare
quicktime is a genius program u cannot blame it for user intelligence or
lack thereof
They are not. How
>
> many of us have endured almost unwatchably bad interlaced video
> projections
>
> at film festivals?
>
>
i like trash - trash is high art
yay! lo-fi
I remember going to IDFA a few years ago, and feeling
>
> crucified by work that was sometimes very interesting from the point of
> view
>
> of "content" but was visually hideous, as if the filmmakers had no idea
> that
>
> they were creating a visual work, and didn't care about visuality at all.
>
> And then, for the last screening, I saw a film shot and projected on film,
>
> by Frederick Wiseman, and it was like being reborn.
>
>
ahhh yes religious ideology
as i suspected
It's not my purpose
>
> here to single Mr. Wiseman out for specific praise, but it was so clear
> that
>
> he was thinking about how what he was making would LOOK, in addition to
>
> attending to documentary "content" -- in fact, the visuality of the work
> and
>
> its content were one: he was making a FILM, and it was a pleasure to
> watch.
>
> The difference was clear.
>
>
clear?
c
__________________________________________________________________ For info
> on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.