From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jul 06 2006 - 13:27:28 PDT
After promising to put the lid on, I can't quite shut up, but
hopefully - in brief - I do want to mention that I think it's really
important, in this age of images migrating from one medium / format
to another, to really use language that clearly describes intent and
acknowledges the mechanics of how something was made.
This should be of equal if not even _more_ concern to those working
in digital & electronic media, as the original or originating object
won't exist except as signal or data.
An experimental film shot on Kodachrome, we may have the strip of
Kodachrome. A digital artist working in video but in non legal NTSC
or PAL/601colorspace, then we have some other concerns. And when
every aspect of the image from color gamut to gamma to black level is
or will be defined by a newly formed standard, or shifting ones then
we can see it won't be too easy for those in the trenches to employ
popular definitions and get anywhere.
(It dawned on me today - driving home from the lawyer's office so
that's why I'm thinking this way :) - that, for instance - I know
what a Technicolor IB print can look like; I know what The Conformist
or Red Desert looks like in Tech IB; or Inauguration Of The Pleasure
Dome on Kodachrome 7387; but eventually that kind of historical
memory won't exist. I saw part of Swiss Effects restoration work on
Lola Montes, and it looked really good, but those guys aren't much
younger than I am either. Even Nam Jun Paik's distressed TVs - how
would CRT translate to LCD or whatever future display comes down the
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.