From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jul 22 2010 - 17:47:25 PDT
Without getting too crazy about the physics I should say that neither film
nor solid state imagers ('digital' cameras are analog devices)
properly speaking "capture" light,
poetic as the phrase might be.
(I think Lene Hau might be able to claim to have captured light - and
even teleported it !)
To expand on texture yes the scattering in colloidal suspension of
film does something very nice digital systems haven't equaled yet
(perhaps they will, or perhaps there's something else needs to be
FWIW Doug, I'm coming from having shot film for over 30 years, mostly
16 but some 35mm (I have lots of 35mm TV commercials as AC and
Operator in my CV) and I've shot what used to be called broadcast
level video since ~ 1980 (1"; Betacam SP; HDCam etc formats) So this
is not idle thinking...
I guess what puzzles and kinda bothers me is your insistence on trying
to cordon off *an entire history of photochemical movie-making,
**including my own** like you're trying to
kick me off my own land because I've switched crops ;-)
So as much as I agree on the 'digital should do new and different'
generalization, I believe I am still working within the ontology of
cinema regardless - and I can do the same things as well as different
things with tools I'm using now..
....I only delve into the science here - I'd have to write a paper on
perception of space and movement, theory of I am still studying,
thinking about, begining to theorize - because I really do think this
nascent form given the rubric "Digital cinema" as, again, a kind of
state descriptio within an ontology of Cinema will have the potential
to be as deep and beautiful as anything film's first century has been,
if not more exciting, deeper....
(I'm not sure what the point would be of my response to your posts
item by item...)
No one, I believe, can define what it will be; it's like more like
1910 than 2010 in that regard:
"who knew" "who knows" .. just got to do it...
FrameWorks mailing list