From: Mitsu Hadeishi (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2006 - 10:46:39 PST
But this is really the point I am making. I mean, to talk about film as
though it were akin to hand-crocheted fabric or whatever --- film is just a
technology, it's just a medium, like anything else. Like I said before, it
seems to me there's just this huge nerd quotient to me behind some of these
arguments (this is what I meant by talking about 8mm vs. HD --- the logical
outcome of "analog vs. digital" is that even 8mm is more "natural" and thus
superior to HD simply because it is analog...) Now, sure, I'm a nerd, too,
but at some point I think a lot of the analog vs. digital thing comes down to
a sort of strange obsession with the intricate details of technology rather
than something that is really connected to art. I mean, VHS is certainly
analog --- but is it really better than digital HD just because it is analog?
I just can't get all that excited about the analog/digital thing. Analog
noise is no "better", in my mind, in any real sense, from digital noise.
Noise is noise, less noise is obviously better, but it's all noise.
On Thursday 02 March 2006 13:28, Philip Hood wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Cari Machet wrote:
> > let me be more specific
> > i was referencing picture quality ...
> > i remember and was referencing in my mind
> > when hd first came out
> > and the little (panasonic) display they had at NAB
> > the screens footage was compared to film -
> hi cari,
> to me - and I have spent a little time thinking
> about this, but I claim nothing other than
> being able to kinda feel my way blindly
> though it and somewhat be able to express
> what I feel, an analog medium is never
> quite going to ever be the same as a digital
> thing. however, at some point, our senses
> become dulled out, and then we don't know
> the difference anymore, but thats not to mean
> that they don't don't exist.
> at the same time, its important to remember
> that the emulsion in film merely contains
> very small silver halides, which are atomic
> in nature, and its possible to get a
> pretty good electronic representation of
> what you're seeing on say a 35mm film frame.
> most discussions I've seen of, say, film
> recording, suggest that a 8k scan, which
> equates to about 8192 x 5461 pixels, is
> pretty much past the point where people can
> distinguish whether or not the image is
> at all pixelated, at about the rate of
> size of projection of "conventially" taken
> images on celluloid.
> now, when you compare the resoluttion size of
> 8192 x 5461 pixels,
> with say, DVD, which is merely:
> 720 x 480, or even the maxium of HD, which is
> 1920 x 1080, you see that that falls pretty
> short of 8192 x 5461, about 4 & 1/4 along the
> horizontal axis ...
> but, if this is "all" we are talking about,
> image quality, between video and film, then
> I really feel that we're talking about something
> that is not going to last too long. I think
> humans will figure out how to digitally
> create images of the same or a surpassing
> "quality" as celluloid filming can ...
> ... but the process will _always_ be different.
> Its just a different way of doing things.
> I mean, sure, I can go shopping, for a bar
> of bread, a stick of butter, and a bottle of
> milk, but the _way_ this happens, I think
> is very different ... and I think, for
> film, its all in the process. Theres something
> about a beautifully hand crocheted scarf
> that I can make my girlfriend that no machine
> will ever be able to recreate - even if
> it "looks" exactly the same, theres always
> going to be something different ...
> ... and are we really
> talking about the "cheapening"
> of film ... ... I feel that this is primarily
> whats behind so many of these discussion,
> which doesn't quite amount to too much
> of substance, to me.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
-- http://www.syntheticzero.com/ __________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.