From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Aug 22 2005 - 09:10:00 PDT
> The thing is that this whole system becomes more
> complicated and more nasty (from an archival point of
> view) than 16mm prints are at present although in time
> we are sure to need this system.
This is quite true, as is the point I could make that my Eiki SSL is as
much a "High Def" projector as a $ 23,000 JVC D-ILA etc.
But "this whole [digital] system" IS a system supported by an
infrastructure.
In fact the efficacy of my Eiki or your Bell& Howell Filmosound (or the
Walter Reade's Elmo XL 2200) is as dependent on a whole structure
itself including Kodak, labs, and all the distribution issues we've
been discussing.
In point of fact my Mac is a far more complicated device (system) on a
superficial level than the JK printer I once owned. But in the current
stream of things is perhaps more fluid, and it's replacement (which
will no doubt resemble it) AND it is replicated so to speak (pace
Walter Benjamin I guess) everywhere I go.
>
>> You'd scan films at a resolution of 1200 x 1600 (vs.
>> the 1080 x 1440
>
> Would this really be enough to capture all the
> resolution in a standard 16mm film?
I'm not sure; I don't think we've seen much scanning at the potential
quality level the technology can give us. I'd say "I want to see it
then I'll say what I think"
> You might argue from the point of view of the medium
> being part of the film, that the grain is part of the
> information too and that it would be nicer to capture
> it better! ;)
I would absolutely argue this, but then like the fascist reactionary I
am ;-) I make films not subcomponents for critical theory.
-Sam
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.