[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Film look, ect.



Folks,

        I have been keeping a tired eye on some of this stuff drifting
by on "film look" vs "video look". I admit to not delving into every 
posting, either, but it seems to me that all this progressive versus 
interlaced, and framerate stuff misses the point. They are two entirely
different media, with different abilities to capture greyscale, and 
different colorspaces. On the one hand we have a wide dynamic range, 
chemical image capturing system with a subtractive color system using 
dyes of known color response. On the otherhand, we have an electronic 
imaging system of more limited dynamic range, using an additive (and 
different) colorspace. All displayed on a phosphor based display
system with a third dynamic range and colorspace. At times I think the 
real question is not how to make film look like video, or vice versa, 
but when do we use which to achieve our aesthetic goals( and those of 
our clients, bless 'em).  Freeman Dyson would have seen this diversity, 
this wide palette of choices as a good thing, to be celebrated and not 
dissected too much, and I agree.


                                JoeBeats