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:
Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 10 Jul 1995 08:50:49 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
Juan M. Gonzalez writes:
" . . . 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. . . . "
 
 
The further points Juan makes about the distinction between FILM and CINEMA
are worthwhile (though I might want to quibble about the exact terms to be
used).  One point that seems to have escaped discuss on this topic so far,
though, is how the knowledge that their work will appear on video eventually
has affected contemporary filmmakers.  What allowances, if any, do they
make in setting mise-en-scene, choosing film stock and lighting, and so on
with the knowledge that many, if not most, viewers will eventually see the
film in a format that does degrade the overall quality of the image?
 
A point of comparison is wide-screen (which was discussed--if not to death,
then extensively--here not too long ago).  Where are the contemporary
Premingers, Nicholas Rays, Kurosawas and Leones who make use of the
dimension of width for visual effects when it is known that television and
most video formats (barring letterboxing) are going to crop the image?
 
 
Conversely, how do directors who have moved into film from tv and video
production regard the image?  The music video image, for example, can often
be quite complex in spite of the degraded image--and sometimes exploits that
degradation for its own purposes.
 
 
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
 
----
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