Jonathan: Aaron's right. Digital is not one thing. Neither is film. Coincidentally, just this morning I was at the archivist seesion at the Silent Film Festival in SF, and it was all about digital restoration. The guy who restored Dr. Strangelove showed the 4K digital restoration flipping back and forth with the projection of a 35mm release print. The digital had better detail, truer black, and was much less distressed, of course. But when queried about the difference in the actual coloring of the monochrome, he said 'that's not a difference between photochemical and digital, it's just the color balance of the different projection lamps.'
In truth, there are no significant FUNDAMENTAL differences that hold generally between photochemical and digital, because each is so broad a category, and digital is not a fixed target. There are not two mediums here, but a multitude. As I have posted here ad infinitum, the difference between two film projections can be much greater than the difference between a specific film projection and a specific digital projection, and of course, vice versa. If the presentation today revealed any fundamental differences it was these: Digital presentations are far more fixed than photochemical ones. The copy every theater shows of a digitally distributed film is identical, only the projection differs (which still introduces a lot of variables...) But no two film prints are exactly the same to begin with, and each print immediately gains different patterns of wear, which show up both in artifacts on the surface of the image, and in the stability of the image -- digital projection is rock steady, while all mechanical projection has registration issues: 'projector weave' or as I like to call it "registration bounce.' I think for a general student audience especially, it is far more crucial to talk about differences that cross the digital/photochemical boundary: resolution, contrast ratio and latitude, careful projection vs. sloppy projection, and most importantly those qualities that separate the cinematic experience from that of 'personal media': the size of the screen, the darkness of the room, the presence of others etc. etc. Whether we like it or not, photochemical film media are dying in the culture at large, and in a few years we will be dealing with students who have never seen a photochemical film projection, and will never see one -- outside of anything they may happen to see in school in 16mm. Even if there were fundamental differences between photochemical and digital, they are becoming irrelevant, while these other quality and character issues remain extremely relevant. The typical student today doesn't get that some things just shouldn't be watched on an iPhone, or even a 48" flat-panel because they need a much bigger canvas and the viewer's undivided attention. Beat THAT difference into their head, get them to appreciate CINEMA regardless of how it is projected, and you do the work of the angels. _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
