SCREEN-L Archives

July 1995, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Molly Olsen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 13 Jul 1995 11:35:51 ES
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
Dave.Trautman @ UAlberta.CA (Dave Trautman) wrote:
 
>Where I believe the least understood impact of viewing videotape to the
>process of studying film lay is in the processing of information by the
>individual experiencing the transmission.  Seen in the context of
>milliseconds of conscious thought, film is a momentary flash of image which
>requires the brain to dwell on the "impression" long enough to maintain
>closure between frames and establish the illusion of a continuous moving
>image.  In that same time frame video asks the brain to trace an electron
>beam across the surface of the display and construct the image out of a
>mosaic of dots, allowing less time to dwell on the "impression" that the
>image forms.  <stuff deleted> ...the person
>experiencing the environment created by the interlaced scanning electron tube
>will understand a film differently than a person experiencing the rapid slide
>show environment created by motion picture projection.  Both will agree on
>the content but will never share the context of the intended viewing
>experience.
 
Thanks for sharing this with SCREEN-L.  You refer to this idea later as a
"psycho-neural difference" between film and video experiences, and to me this
has always seemed like a weak argument for film over video.  Is there any
empirical evidence that people watching a video in a cinematic way (darkened
room, not playing with the controls, etc.) have "less time to dwell on the
'impression' that the image forms" than someone watching a film in a similar
situation?  What difference do the extra nanoseconds between images truly
make?  In viewing both film and video our brains are tricked into seeing
continuous motion; when I was in film school, we learned that film and video
frame rates are nearly indistinguishable in the brain.  The frame rate that
began to show a difference in studies of perception was 60 fps -- subjects felt
the faster rate playback makes the motion more "real."  I have heard rumors of
films being created to run at 60 or 80 fps, and HDTV to do something similar.
 
>With videotape the
>freeze, replay, and scanning through sections are where the editorial control
>of the filmmaker is passed on to the viewer and the effect of this on the
>viewer has been to trivialize the importance of the editorial decisions being
>made by the storytellers.  Pekinpah's (sp?) use of slow motion to emphasize
>the moment of death has been a subject of solemn debate in film study since I
>was young.  Would a slow motion analysis of any battle scene in Star Wars
>give proper emphasis to the original intent of the scenes or would it
>completely trivialize what is going on there?
 
I think other posters have acknowledged that the ability to use video pause and
rewind to look closely at key scenes is valuable in cinema study; I'm not sure
if you're trying to refute that point here.  Video controls are usually only
used for analysis in film classes; the film or videotape is almost always
watched all the way through the first time, and it's in those cinematic
viewings that the student gets an idea of the temporal decisions made by the
filmmaker.  But there's more to film than pacing and other temporal decisions,
and that's where video controls become invaluable.  Their use for close
analysis doesn't "trivialize the importance of the editorial decisions being
made by the filmmakers" -- just the opposite -- it can allow a more in-depth
appreciation of the mechanisms that created the viewing effect.  I don't see
how watching a Star Wars battle scene normally the first time and then slowing
it down to see precisely how it was cut together, how the mise-en-scene was
arranged, etc., would trivialize that scene or the filmmakers' intent.
 
Molly Olsen
Discovery Channel Multimedia
[log in to unmask]
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2