Lev Manovich - What Is Digital Cinema
Manovichs' essay discusses digital cinema and it's progression from traditional film cinema which preceded it. This was interesting from my point of view as many of the issues raised have parallels to recent research I've been doing for my dissertation, which will cover aspects of digital photography.
One aspect of the text seemed to mirror issues I've noticed in my research, that traditional photography provided a 'truth' of what was recorded on film, and that today we don't accept modern images with the same readiness as in the past because of the inherent mutability of digital imagery.
To some degree this is true, but ever since the first photographic images were produced, we have only seen reality as the photographer intended. The simple act of framing the shot means we are only being given a certain viewpoint, only one version of reality. These first photographs needed to have long exposure times of the images to be captured - people had to stand motionless for several seconds if any kind of image could be recorded with any clarity. This is certainly not natural. Photographers can make use of wide angle lenses, giving a greater field of vision than is capable with human eyesight. Dodge and burn techniques are employed in the darkroom to change the way the image develops onto the photographic paper, as well other techniques of cross processing, tinting and the use of different papers all change what the final output would be. Photography would not exist with the use of emulsions, light sensitive chemicals and developing fluids, so the difference between manipulation of reality in traditional methods of photography and those of digital manipulation is not so great. The processes are of course different, but the intention on the part of the photographer is the same. We only see an expression that the creator of the image wants us to see, not an exact reality.
I get the impression that some of these theorists are saying new media is 'killing off' older traditional media, like the painters and artists who predicted the invention of photography would kill off painting. It didn't quite happen that way. New technology makes it easier to things that would be much more costly or labour intensive with the traditional methods , as well as opening up new ways fort he artist to express themselves. Digital media incorporates aspects of the old, as well as bringing more choices to the table.
Manvich also states 'cinema pushed animation to its boundary, only to become one particular case of animation in the end'. Whats ended? Has the evolution of cinema ended? Will there be no further developments in film making? The only difference today is the technology, not the intention. Film makers have always explored the medium and will continue to do so until the the worlds end.
It will continue to incorporate older media forms and techniques as it evolves, we are only just beginning the process, the journey from cave painting to virtual 3d artwork is just a small step.
keyframe.org is a website with many essays and articles on digital cinema
Martin Lister's book, Photographic Image in Digital Culture has some interesting points, and
William Mitchell's - The Reconfigured Eye is worth a read also.
One aspect of the text seemed to mirror issues I've noticed in my research, that traditional photography provided a 'truth' of what was recorded on film, and that today we don't accept modern images with the same readiness as in the past because of the inherent mutability of digital imagery.
To some degree this is true, but ever since the first photographic images were produced, we have only seen reality as the photographer intended. The simple act of framing the shot means we are only being given a certain viewpoint, only one version of reality. These first photographs needed to have long exposure times of the images to be captured - people had to stand motionless for several seconds if any kind of image could be recorded with any clarity. This is certainly not natural. Photographers can make use of wide angle lenses, giving a greater field of vision than is capable with human eyesight. Dodge and burn techniques are employed in the darkroom to change the way the image develops onto the photographic paper, as well other techniques of cross processing, tinting and the use of different papers all change what the final output would be. Photography would not exist with the use of emulsions, light sensitive chemicals and developing fluids, so the difference between manipulation of reality in traditional methods of photography and those of digital manipulation is not so great. The processes are of course different, but the intention on the part of the photographer is the same. We only see an expression that the creator of the image wants us to see, not an exact reality.
I get the impression that some of these theorists are saying new media is 'killing off' older traditional media, like the painters and artists who predicted the invention of photography would kill off painting. It didn't quite happen that way. New technology makes it easier to things that would be much more costly or labour intensive with the traditional methods , as well as opening up new ways fort he artist to express themselves. Digital media incorporates aspects of the old, as well as bringing more choices to the table.
Manvich also states 'cinema pushed animation to its boundary, only to become one particular case of animation in the end'. Whats ended? Has the evolution of cinema ended? Will there be no further developments in film making? The only difference today is the technology, not the intention. Film makers have always explored the medium and will continue to do so until the the worlds end.
It will continue to incorporate older media forms and techniques as it evolves, we are only just beginning the process, the journey from cave painting to virtual 3d artwork is just a small step.
keyframe.org is a website with many essays and articles on digital cinema
Martin Lister's book, Photographic Image in Digital Culture has some interesting points, and
William Mitchell's - The Reconfigured Eye is worth a read also.
