As filmmaker, film student, and once teacher, I've just got to add on the
discussion that's been going on about the use of video as a tool for
teaching (or simply viewing) cinema. My whole point being that Film and
Video are different media, that "conversions" and "reproductions" are
possible, but that they will never be equal. Productions made in each
should be seen in the respective medium, while the other is there for
conservation or study.
The filmic image is thought up according to, and when shown depends on
certain conditions:
1- A certain quality of resolution (between 3500 and 4000 lines of resolution).
2- An extended range of colors and contrast.
3- To be shown projected on a large screen, in the dark, uninterrupted.
4- A certain aspect ratio.
When transferred to video, the filmic image loses 85% of its resolution
(from 3500 down to 525 lines of resolution), and when seen in VHS loses an
additional 5% (350 lines of resolution. Laser disc: 425 lines of
resolution).
This causes a noticeable degradation of the image. I have recently seen
Blade Runner in a 35mm filmprint. After years of watching it on video (both
cuts, letterboxed and not) I was surprised to discover the enormous ammout
of detail that is in the film, the incredible illusion of depth that this
creates. If some of the shots seem terribly long on video, on filmprint
there is barely enough time to absorbe all the data.
When referring to color, video only reproduces a limited palette and that
it often does inneficiently (reds are particularly bad). Another bad point
for video is that it has a limited contrast range, which united to the
color limitations produces a "flattening" effect on the image. It further
causes the loss of detail.
Then comes the screen size and the environment. Films are made to be shown
on a LARGE screen in the dark.It is an integral part of the filmic
experience. Our eyes lose the ability to distiguish the flatness of the
image when viewing it from a certain distance, thus the larger the screen,
the further away (within reason) we can be and the more "real" the image
becomes. The darkness is also important, not only for the viewer's
concentration, but to the image's quality. Any leaking light will
illuminate areas of darkness and decrease contrast. The film is made to run
uninterrupted, from start to end. Does not allow for reviewing or fast
forwarding.
In video, we are confronted with a small screen, which to attain maximum
quality must be seen also from a certain distance (so the pixel's "blend").
Thus we are left with an image that loses much of its impact power. Just
think of any epic, or simply Star Wars. Also, video can be interrupted
rewound or fast forwarded, destroying a mood, a rhythm, and prehaps losing
crucial information. The environment is not always constant in video. It
could be a fantastic screening room or a 12 inch TV in a noisy, well
illuminated place.
Moreover, the film is shot in a certain aspect ratio, nowadays it is
usually 1.85 to 1 or 2.35 to 1. Video is in television format which is 1.33
to 1. This causes for a loss of up to 43% of the image, at the mercy of
some techician, BEFORE overscanning. Overscanning is the process in which
a television image is projected larger than it should be onto a television
tube, to allow for shrinkage due to changes in voltage.
Thus, another part of the image is lost to the sides of our TV screens
(this is often not the case in video projectors). The alternative is
Letterboxing. Unfortunately video resolution is so poor that reducing the
size of the image when letterboxing often makes it even more difficult to
read the image.
Finally, another note on the case against video: video rentals have either
enormously elevated the prices of film print rentals (for educational or
other uses) or made it uncostly for the rental companies to even have a
print to rent.
BUT....
1- Video allows for the study of CINEMA (not film).
If we consider cinema as the language of the moving picture, and film as a
medium, then video is another medium in which cinema can be viewed. The
economy, ease of handling, and flexibility of video make it an
INDISPENSABLE tool in the study of cinema. We can't stop the projector, we
can't go back and forth, review a sequence a number of times. We can do
all this on video.
2- Video makes films accesible.
I am perfectly happy with my video "conversion" of Blade Runner. I love
being able to posess it. I love to be able to walk down to the video store
and rent the whole of Tarkowski's opus to watch at my convenience. But I
understand that what I am getting is a LIMITED version of the film.
Besides, this way Tarkowski can get to the smallest town in the smallest
country (as long as they have a TV and a VCR)
3- Video makes CINEMA accessible.
Shooting cinema on video is enormously cheaper than film, and this makes
experimentation in CINEMA possible. Students, filmmakers and amateurs
alike can afford to waste a $3.00 Videocassette and get some interesting
footage.
SO...
A filmmaker, film student, film teacher (and I would love to say the public
in general) cannot survive and attempt to be what they are without atually
watching FILM. But they must also use video. If you've just seen Blade
Runner on film, it's the most useful thing to have a video copy to be able
to go over the most interesting sequences. Video is a learning tool.
One last thing... In "Ways of Seeing" John Berger discusses the
relationship of the reproduced images (the copy of La Gioconda in your
encyclopedia) to THE ORIGINAL (the one hanging in the Louvre). Film is an
art where every copy is the original and as long as you go to a theater you
get to see it (provided it's a legit copy with adequate sound and all the
trimmings). It is only when you get to video that the "reproduction"
concept becomes relevant. I think that this is an important idea to keep in
mind. You might have seen the video, might know the story, structure and
whatever other textual info that can be read. But you haven't seen the film
until you've seen the film. (I hate to write this, because it cuts my own
"I've seen it" list practically in half, but I guess I think it's true).
Juan M. Gonzalez
[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]
|
