[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
is reality a good thing?
- To: multiple recipients of <telecine at alegria.com>
- Subject: is reality a good thing?
- From: Case Dominic <Dominic_Case at atlab.com.au>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:58:59 +1000
- Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 20:58:35 -0700
- Resent-From: telecine at alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"JFpG-C.A.VdB.ENWt1" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: SmartList account <slist at sun.alegria.com>
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at alegria.com>
Mike Most writes:-
>In previous discussions, many of us here have discussed
>the "departure from reality" that film presents so elegantly.
In the century that film/cinema has been around, film makers have learnt
to live with, and more, to exploit, the limitations of the medium that
are imposed by the laws of optics, photochemistry, mechanics, economics,
and , yes, perception. Depth of field, motion blur and motion sampling
artefacts, granularity, toe & shoulder sensitometry all emphasise the
difference between a filmed image and "reality" and have all been used
as a part of creative storytelling or mood-setting.
But at the same time, audiences have come to accept these artefacts as
proof of the authenticity of the cinema. The digital effects people have
learnt that without those artefacts in an effects shot, the audience
will "smell a rat". Even though a well-managed CGI shot can dispense
with some of the limitations of real-world cinematography, shots are
somehow more convincing if they look "photographic". Even in TV shows,
we see cinematographic effects (flicker to simulate silent film speeds,
letterboxing to hint at a cinematic look, the "Kodachrome" look for home
movies) used as visual clues to the image.
All of which gives a new meaning to the phrase "photo-realism": (does it
have to look _less_ than real to look "real") : and leaves me wondering
1. If photography liberated the painter from the need to represent
"reality" and allowed her/him to move on to cubism, surrealism etc, what
will be /has been the corresponding effect of video and digital imaging
on photography and cinematography?
2. How did the inventers/discoverers of photography/cinematography get
so much so right?
3. Have we gone off TIG topic yet?
Thanks to Bob Festa and Rick Dean for support in 1998.
No product marketing allowed on the main TIG. Contact rob at alegria.com
996 subscribers in 39 countries on Tue Jul 21 20:57:50 PDT 1998
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/