I've been away so please excuse me if this is already a dead horse issue. [From June 5 Screen-L] >There may be some technological biases >in these directions, but they are hardly determinate. I would think the heavy emphasis on close up photography in video to overcome the limitations of interlaced scanning displays is determinate enough to qualify as a meaningful technological bias. Until it became common practice to transfer movies to television (the small screen) the extensive use of close ups in theatrical release was uncommon. >Moving image-making has evolved into different conceptual camps based on >different purposes and strategies of the members of the diverging groups. The strategies developed for video must always be viewed with respect to the differences between "light through" and "light on" when viewing the images. Video is "light through" and is projected toward the viewer as a flying spot which is "constructed" into an image by the brain's active participation. It also interlaced between scanning fields to reduce the "stroboscopic" horizontal movement of objects as well as camera. By contrast the "light on" a theatre screen is instantaneously percieved for its entire duration and "taken in" as a full image which different centers of the brain operate on to determine it's meaning. I would also argue these "camps" are not 'diverging groups'. The use of close ups, steadycam, digital effects, and a number of other visual techniques originally developed to advance video production have been embraced by more recent producers and directors as part of today's style. Natural Born Killers may be the best example in recent years of the blending of technical style to support the "media" influence on the message or story. >If these cultural purposes and strategies are not PEFECTLY >translatable across different technolgies, they are at least largely >so. To declare oneself to be 'video' or 'film' is a matter of >choosing a camp, a particular outlook, even more than a matter of >choosing a technology. A very good filmmaker friend of mine (who has passed on) once described the process of film as a more physical and tactile process and video more as image processing. I've adopted this as a valid distinction between the two ever since. I also go with Mike Frank on this one. >. . . perhaps we can salvage that >wonderful word "movie" from the grips of film, and use it >to refer to any story told by means of the moving image >regardless of the specific technology involved Most of the digital work I'm involved with is referred to as "movies" no matter what original format they arrived in. Once they become clips in the bin they are then 'movies'. Fortunately the software folks who have written the menus for digital editing retained many of the terms used in film editing (and lab work) to reference the "post-processing" their programs will do. Sincerely, Dave Trautman Edmonton, AB Canada "If I look confused it's because I'm thinking." -- Samuel Goldwyn (1882-1974) ---- For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html