Digital Film And Digital Technologies Essay

The transition from film to digital cinema drastically changed the way films were made and greatly affected the cinematography of films. Digital versus film has been a widely debated subject in the film industry since the availability of digital cameras at the end of the 20th century. Now in the 21st century, digital dominates the film industry, so why is 35mm film still being used by both amateur and professional filmmakers? For years film was seen as a joke, far more inferior to digital, because of the fact that digital gave a better picture and was more convenient to use. But now, film has developed to the point where the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD digital films and 35mm films. For example, HDTV laser-beam recording on 35mm colour film can now be used to enhance the quality of the image without using digital. So now to answer the question earlier on why 35mm film is still being used today is that it is a preference for some directors. Although the average viewer cannot spot the difference between digital and film, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any differences between them.

It is a debate that has been going on for years and years, especially in the twenty first century, of which medium in photography is superior, Film or Digital, Personally I use both, I will be discussing the issue over the length of this paper. Going through positives and negatives around both the processes, and techniques associated with the forms of photography.

The essay will make use of the works of photographic artists who engage in one of the two schools of photography, Pictorialism and Modernism. The artists that will be used for this essay are Paul Strand who has been selected for the Modernist development together with a Russian artistic photographer Alexander Rodchenko and As White remained rooted to Pictorialism, his stance on his methodology and set up in the 1920s and 1930s led to occurrence of the stirring up of quite a number of understudies to handle his visualization style which was fresh and innovative (White, Clarence H., Jr. and Peter C. Bunnell 1965). In the process of talking about the two schools of photography, Pictorialism and Modernism rather than focus on the clash and disagreements that occurred from Pictorialism and Modernism it is more suitable to examine the merits in both the method and styles used in the two schools of

The successful exhibit of H.2.N.Y engages in a spirited interplay of framed geometries, counterbalanced by the unrestricted, free-form illustrations which spiral around the walls of the John Kaldor Family Collection gallery space. The collection is renowned for its in-depth portrayal of some of the most influential artists of the twentieth and twenty-first century, including Michael Landy.[7] Conceived as an assembly of solo shows, each individual exhibit contributes to a perpetuating dialogue between a diverse range of expressive forms in a cross-section of contemporary attitudes towards artmaking. For this particular installation, Landy digitally tore apart his charcoal drawing Machine to Destroy the Tinguely Museum 2 (2010), a process he described as “cannibalizing [his] own work”.[9] Consequently, he enlarged it to create the fragmented constituents of a large-scale drawing which envelopes and pirouettes throughout the exhibition space, linking together a selection of his own works in the immediate area. Counterbalancing the composition of interior architecture is H.2.N.Y, a drawing seated compliantly within a set frame. This spatial dichotomy plays a fundamental role in the audience’s experience of the artwork, catering to both ends of the heuristic spectrum and pays homage to the intrinsic correlation

Photorealism is a genre of art that creates photographic images which blend the real and the unreal. Édouard Manet’s painting, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, utilizes photorealism to depict the scene of a young barmaid standing behind a bar table in a lively cabaret music hall, facing the viewer with an exhausted, serious expression and awaiting her patron's order. The painting plays with our sense of reality by including a mirror that shows a strange man and the oblique-angled reflections of the barmaid and liquor bottles. Likewise, in Picture for Women, Jeff Wall emulates the arrangement of Manet’s painting and also positions the light bulbs and ceiling pipes to create linear perspective. This photograph is composed entirely of the mirror reflection of a studio and is split into three sections; on the left is a woman who stares at the viewer fiercely,

Upon arrival the artist invites us to honor and celebrate our own unique power of creation. Alberto Aguilar has successfully captured moments in time. From spontaneous weddings to at home installations, you are given the opportunity to explore and play with one's surroundings. Aguilar's perception of familiar objects through unfamiliar perspective has opened doors to new experiences that awaken the uncertainties of the artist and viewer.

Susan Sontag discusses the difference in viewing art in physical form versus viewing in through a lens. Throughout the essay “In Plato’s Cave”, Sontag thinks both Plato’s cave images and photographs represents, “the mere image of truth” (Sontag 3). With that, Sontag repeatedly uses the terms “truth” and “reality”, but does not define what these terms mean to her. The impression Sontag left for these terms is that “truth” or “reality” stand for nothing more than what we can see. Being said, the difference between what we can with our own eyes and what we can see with a camera is reduced to the physical/mechanical differences between the human eye and body camera/lens.

Every so often a movie is released with such tense anticipation and glamorous visual art that the public is drawn to this dramatic rendition of life in the theatre. For even just two hours or so, you are put into a different lifestyle. Action, drama or comedy it may be. We are thrust into a different way of thinking. We are forced to learn the characters thoughts and feelings. The hard work and artistic skill that goes into these magnificent films is not an easy thing to mimic. Out of the thousands of movies released worldwide each year only a handful are truly worthy of the label film art. Most of the great movies are either produced by a multi million dollar

Due to use of the viewer as part of the artwork, boundaries between art and life become blurred, leaving works to appear unfinished (Dohmen, 2013). To some, ‘relational’ art allowed the audience to regain awareness of their surroundings and of one another, something that had deteriorated in the late 20th century (Smith, 2008, p.c23).

It suffices to question those unnecessary ornamentations of postmodern design. But what is certain is that the latter blurs the line between art and design. It is reminiscent of the post-modernism precursor Duchamp, whose iconic work “Fountain” stirs much controversy about the identity of an object. It casts interesting questions: are things what they perceptually appear to be? Why are things they are?

In Akram Zaatari’s exhibit, images and video are used to comment on the power of images and their limitations. An interesting aspect of the exhibit is that it is very empty. The entire backdrop is white, with some screens projecting videos and images, photos hung on the wall, and glass cases that line the perimeter of the room with postcards, letters, and photos. This simplistic style continues with the idea of re-contextualization of objects that he has resurrected from the past. One factor that caught people off guard was the relationship between photographs and the illusion of size. This could be seen in the two large photographs that are side by side on the wall, depicting a mortar shell in one and the tightly folded letter to Samir on the other. The two photographs give the illusion that the objects in the photos are the same size, when in reality one is approximately two feet tall and the other is two inches tall. This is not only a commentary on how images can distort reality but also a metaphor for how images can

Direct Cinema The term 'direct cinema' was coined by American director Albert Maysles, to describe the style of documentary that he and his contemporaries were making in the 1960s as a result of a lightweight, portable 16mm camera and high quality lightweight audio recorders becoming available. The introduction of these, together with film-stock which was sensitive enough to give a good quality close-up monochrome picture under most lighting conditions (Including hand-held lights) led to a revolution in Documentary filmmaking, allowing film crews to be much more flexible. Gone were the days of bulky, virtually immobile 35mm cameras; now manufacturers improved their 16mm stock and accepted it

During the mid to late years of the 19th century, a new form of entertainment emerged. Film entered the stage of innovation. New marketing and technological innovations developed for film to become the art it is today. In the 1830s, Joseph Plateau designed the Phenakistoscope. This device had a picture in the middle of a wheel made with mirrors and small openings. When spun, the Phenakistoscope made the picture appear to move. The name changed to Zoetrope in the 1860s and producers advertised the product as an accessory every home needed (Dixon & Foster, 2008). Later inventions that preceded the first motion picture camera include: Henry Du Mont’s Omiscope, Henry R. Heyl’s Phasmatrope, Eadweard Muybridge’s Zoöpraxiscope, Etienne-Jules Marey’s fusil photographique and Eastman Kodak’s chronophotographs (Parkinson, 1997). With a design by Thomas Edison, William Kennedy Laurie Dickson built the first modern movie camera, the Kinetograph, in 1890 (Dixon & Foster, 2008). In 1895, Auguste and Louis Lumiére patented the Cinématographe, a machine that combined the engineering of a camera and a projector (Bergan, 2006). Businessmen capitalized on the growing need for a place to witness these brand new films, thus they charged people to see them in their living rooms (Potter, 2014). These creations made movie-making a reality.

No matter who a person thinks invented the motion picture camera, whether it was Louis Lumiere or Thomas Edison, I'm sure they had no idea what it would become at the turn of the century. Motion pictures, has become an entertainment medium like no other. From Fred Ott's Sneeze to Psycho to Being John Malkovich, the evolution from moving pictures to a pure art form has been quite amazing. Different steps in filming techniques define eras in one of the most amazing ideas that was ever composed. Silent to Sound. Short to long. Black and white to color. Analog to Digital. All were important marks in the History of Motion Pictures. "It's different than other arts. It had to be invented"

This captivation has endured through the ages so as to elevate these structures beyond mere buildings and to the status of art. In this light, the buildings can now be admired quite like a painting or a sculpture in respect to the composition and placement of key components that come together to make the glorified whole.