I don't think you understood my point. It wasn't about what you can recreate down to each pixel in the studio, it's about what gets made on different media. The processes involved in that film are specific to film. If you want to be cute and clever you can replicate such things as film flares and what the end of a film spool looks like as a "simulacra" of a film, but then conceptual meaning of a piece of course changes. That film (Cat's Cradle) has an immediacy which is part of its charm. One could argue then that even if you could reproduce all of the pixels just as they are, which I think would be much harder than you imagine, then you would lose the charm, the process, the immediacy. And you would also add pixels. And you would not have flicker. And you would have 30 frames per second. And you would not have a strip that you could hold up to the light that would be subject to changes each time it's projected, and that itself would change through time. And on and on.
On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Raymond Salvatore Harmon wrote:
>
> The idea that an image can be created using film that could not be created using digital/computers is hilarious. You can decided what each individual pixel is going to be and in fact create every single variable of film in the digital realm, down to using computer model simulation to recreate the entire chemical process involved in making, shooting and developing film. (I am not saying anyone does this, just that it can conceivably be done, as it is done in architecture.)
>
> As an example, the world is currently being littered with pictures that look very much like the Lomo pics they are emulating. My partner has done side by side shots with film and her iphone and I have to say its hard to tell the difference. The reality is that with computers there are no limitations, only limitations on variables like personal time and finance.
>
> Certainly Cat Cradle would look different if it was shot on video, but to say that the visual effects of Cat's Cradle can't be recreated in the digital realm is ridiculous.
>
> Yours
> RSH
>
>
>
> --Forwarded Message Attachment--
> From: pbutterfly_at_earthlink.net
> To: frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:46:12 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
>
>
>
> The more relevant question would be, how would CAT'S CRADLE look if SHOT on video? It seems clear to me that no such picture could ever be created on video, no many how many filters and special effects and film grain and what-not you added to it. Such a thing would be TECHNICALLY impossible. All of the effects that are achieved belong exclusively to film. Anyone who doubts this need only take a look at the film itself. Anyone who wants to can try to make an argument about how a similar effect could be achieved on video. But as others have pointed out, such effects are not organic to video, so it would be sort of a pointless experiment. When film disappears, images such as the ones we see in that film will also disappear. DIfferent people may have different levels of sadness or indifference or happiness or whatever about that. I personally consider it a HUGE loss. The fact that many or most won't even notice doesn't make it any less of a loss.
>
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 2:37 PM, matt's frameworks address wrote:
>
> "the difference between 1) watching a Brakhage film shot on regular 8 and
> projected in regular 8 from a beat-up print in a basement cinemateque,
> and 2) watching a freshly-struck 70mm print of "The Longest Day" in a
> 'picture palace' equipped with carbon-arc projection... is greater than
> the difference between 1) watching a clean 16mm print of "Cat's Cradle"
> projected on an Eiki SSL-OL and 2) watching a BluRay of "Cat's Cradle"
> projected on a 3-chip DLP Panasonic at the same image size in the same
> auditorium."
>
> i think this is a very strong point, as are others in David's post. the one thing I believe needs to be interjected, however, is the rapid evolution of the HD technologies, and how vastly it has improved in just the past few years. the "goats milk vs buttermilk" analogy doesn't hold up because we are comparing two subjects here that are in constant flux. "car or horse?" is a vastly different conversation today than it was in 1920, and "film or video" is not the same conversation today that it was even ten years ago, let alone what it will be ten years from now.
>
>
> buttermilk will never be goats milk, but buttermilk will surely evolve and improve in the coming years, and may even become preferable to many palates.
>
> -matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Received on Mon Aug 22 2011 - 17:33:06 CDT
