SCREEN-L Archives

April 1991

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:
Date:
Mon, 8 Apr 91 01:10:00 EDT
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
Steve:
        When you were mentioning sound quality, you forgot to mention
the new digital optical sound for film.  You can now have CD quality
on an optical track on film.  Granted, it's only on 70mm prints right
now, but 35mm is not far behind.
        I also think that video can and should be used instead of film
when situations warrent it.  The only time I feel that video is "inferior"
(god, what an awful word -;) is when it comes to viewing.  When video
images can be as big as theatre images (without any loss of clarity like
the projection TVs) then I will say that video can challange film.  You
simply cannot get the same effect on the small screen as you do on the
big screen.  That's a big point with me...and I'm sure that one day
some sort of video decendant will be able to do this, but until then,
I'll stick to film production.
eyes

ATOM RSS1 RSS2