On the issue of using video for film SJ Fore writes: > Well, this is pretty much an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin question for > many of us, I think. Certainly, I'd prefer to use film, and I'd prefer > to use 35mm rather than 16mm. However, I teach classes such as "Third > World" Film and Chinese Film, and the celluloid resources here have been and > continue to be slim indeed--New Yorker, Third World Newsreel, some > consulates, etc. So I use a *lot* of video 'cause it's the only way to > get access to movies that I want the students to see. . . Will "new" technologies (e.g., HDTV, cdrom, > video-on-demand) help to alleviate these problems of resolution, aspect > ratio, and availability? Or will small players not be able to buy into a market dominated by Rupert Murdoch and telecom corporations? > > Steve Fore Actually it may be a kind of dancing on the head of a pin question, but then i suppose that all theory is subject to the same strictures . . . it's pretty clear that for many of us video is the only way to go . . . but that doesn't address the question of why it's merely second best, of why steve fore would "prefer to use film." The fundamental question remains, and it is a nagging one: what, IN PRINCIPLE, is lost when we access cinematic texts through video channels? 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]