SCREEN-L Archives

July 1995, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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

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

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 19 Jul 1995 15:16:40 -0400
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
the following communication appeared on 7/19--from Barbara Bader, i think,
but the message was unsigned:
 
" There should not be a "video vs. film" controversy. Both media are useful in
> the study of the art form. And circumstances have evolved to the point at
> which film is inconvenient and expensive compared to electronic reproduction.
> But, to imply, indeed to say, that there is no practical difference between
> the two, is incomprehensible to me."
 
i think this formulation might be slightly misleading, and since the matter
remains important, it bears reformulating:
 
 . . . so far as i can tell no one has argued that there is no difference,
not even that there is no appreciable difference between the two . . . and i
suspect we could agree that there are "practical" differences between the
two, though i'm not at all sure what the word "practical" means in this
context . . . but given the fact that there ARE differences [in aspect ratio,
color saturation, source of image, resolution, sociology of the medium, each
viewer's own inevitably relevant history with the two media, flicker effect,
and so on into the night] between the two media, what difference do these
differences make? . . . or, to put the question less coyly, what exactly are
the implications for the viewing experience of the specific material,
cultural, and historical characteristics that distinguish the two modes of
delivery from each other?
 
. . . i myself have no interest in defending video . . . merely in finding a
reasoned account of exactly what gets lost when the translation to video
takes place, and how this loss bears upon the retrieval of information from
the filmic text (which is inevitably the process we engage in when we watch
images moving on a screen, wehther the "information" we want is about the
configuration of figures in deep space, the unverablizable expression on the
face in a Dreyer close up, or--more commonly--what happens next to the hero)
 
mike frank
 
----
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