Not that I want to get into a heated debate about this -- knowing that the
first responses to come in have proposed video caps, rather that
photographic means (and I'm terrifically sympathetic to the issue of cost,
which can be punitive if one has to have photos made by an archive or other
such facility, and cannot do the job oneself), but in my first post on this
issue I neglected to mention one other case that recently drew my attention.

Cameron Crowe's new book, Conversations with Wilder, includes both
photographic and video images.  Even though the video captures are probably
high-quality (and goodness knows, for what I paid for the book they oughta
be), what struck me was how inferior they looked next to the conventional
photographs.  (I don't have the book with me right now, so I can't check,
but I can't remember whether there are any obviously photographic frame
enlargements, or whether the photos of scenes from Billy Wilder's films in
the book are exclusively production stills and the frames are all video.)
At any rate, I couldn't help but think how this decision to go digital --
perhaps likely to become the standard when it comes to reproducing images
from films -- diminished the book as a production of the book trade,
particularly by comparison with the publication it clearly emulates in
conceptual and physical design, François Truffaut's book, Hitchcock.

Blaine Allan.

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]