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]