Posted by mor847 on 12/23/72 11:27

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the reply.

I think I should have phrased my initial question differently...
What is wrong with shooting video and showing it as video? Why, change
the texture of the scene and make it look as though it were
photographed with a 35mm film camera?

To me, film is nice for movies to tell a nice story complete with
special effects. I realize film stock is expensive and once its run
thorugh the camera any mistakes are costly.

However, to me, video is immediate. No outrageous trick photography,
no expensive special effects, and no time consuming set ups.

Video is sharp, crystal clear, "live" looking. That's how I want to
see travelogues.

When it first appeared it was interesting to see a newly shot piece of
tape turned into a late fifties/early sixties piece of film that's been
around too long. Sprockets broken, the occasional film splice, the
lines running vertically thorough the picture...

But, that's boring.

As you can tell I prefer video that's video. I just do not understand
what the fascination with making it look like its been done on film
stock.

Anyway, thanks again for the help. I hope you can help me understand
this (try?), maybe I'm looking at it all wrong. ;-)

Take care.

Mike

[Back to original message]