From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2007 - 08:07:27 PST
> For example, non-linear editing systems
> allow us to automate the random or pattern-based arrangement of
> frames. Is
> this the same as using a structural technique of cutting up film and
> splicing it back together? Is it just a faster optical printer? I
> say no
> to both.
I also say yes to both. FCP (+/or AE, Shake etc - one of which I'll
purchase this year) & the Macintosh are in some ways the optical
printer I've wanted for 30 years...
What's different ? - say from the JK I owned once ? - for one thing
it is that double exposure and bipacking can be done at the same
time, and proportionally, using opacities. For another - and this is
where it does diverge from optical printing, strictly - one now has
the ability to think in layers of image streams which can be moved in
relation to each other (shrunk / expanded in time, defined with
unique temporal scaling) in ways which the fixed index of physical
don't easily allow. The unique individual frame (think Brakhage and
handpainting) doesn't have to decide to appear, so to speak - only
once - or appear in step printing - with the famous Phil Solomon
dictum that "more than three frames is a slide show" -- now the
individual frame can swim like a fish in an aquarium, appear and
disappear, camouflage with it's environment and emerge again in it's
own light...
-Sam
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.