From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jun 28 2006 - 10:38:20 PDT
Well traditionally film was _projection_ and video was transmission,
but this has changed; you are now transmitting film and projecting
(I mean literally you can scan a film send it by satellite to the
other side of the world, take the data and make a film print if you
Done right this is no less transparent - in fact could be more
transparent - than traditional printing methods etc.
(As Pip points out since I wrote this)
> One day the digital reproductions will be so close to the filmic
> original elements that we can't see a difference (if both are
> That day, will there still be a difference?
I don't see this as impossible, although I worry the economics will
inhibit it even if the science doesn't...
In a best case scenario, the digitally projected image could be
_more_ faithful; in theory working with more-or-less pure RGB of
sufficient resolution/quality it could for instance be much easier to
reproduce the colors of Technicolor IB or Kodachrome 7387 than to do
it with a film material limited to Kodak or Fuji dye coupler flavor-
of-the-year subject to cross color issues... (that said I suspect a
certain amount of cross color error is in fact a part of what we
call "the look of film" (Sony, Panavision et al have not figured
this out yet...))
How to get the rhythm right could be an issue - but I don't think
that new work need follow every aspect of an older model, though...
> Film is almost always projected, whether in the home,
> gallery or cinema.
> Video is easily and commonly viewed without
> projection. It can even be broadcast, and more easily
> copied. It's a completely different medium.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.