Since I'm feeling especially ornery today let me pose an even more complicated meta-question...

Current research shows pretty clearly that when it comes to brain development - MOST people don't reach full brain maturity until 25 or so. So if you're standing in front of a classroom of 20 year olds, and they have diminished reasoning skills relative to where they'll be in another 5 years - what's the point of focusing overly much on ANY of the grave, important discusson processes suggested here that pretty much REQUIRE cognitive reasoning to parse.

Why not just teach PROCESS? At that age, kids can easily learn process and repetition. So drill, drill, drill on the button pushing skills. Push them out in the field and let them watch, and participate in the process of making content. But leave the philosophy stuff until the whole class can participate fairly?

Not my SUGGESTION mind you. Just a point of interest in the discussion.

If you've got 20 students and only 5 of them have the fully developed cognitive skills to learn the esoteric skills YOU want to teach - aren't you doing 15 of them a disservice by concentrating on what YOU find important at YOUR age? Rather than concentrating on what THEY can learn at their age?

Just asking the question.

And yes, I know school (at least in the US) doesn't work like that. I'm posing the question about what it SHOULD look like in order to be most effective.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Funny - I thought full maturity (mental at least) didn't arrive until 80 or 90! At least I assumed that's why my wife keeps telling me I'm acting like a child! Now you've got me starting to worry - maybe I've been going downhill all these years and never realized it.

Lots of interesting ideas bouning around here.

First, let me say that I'm not so sure what the OP meant by teaching analog(ue). If he was into teaching how to splice tape with a knife to do editing, maybe is isn't relevant any more (although I find it interesting) but if he was into things like understanding why digital (audio) clipping is so much different than analog (tube) clipping then I think he'd be right on to teach it. After all, tubes seem to be making quite a comeback lately.

Re Bill's comment re age of (mental) maturity for 75% of the college population, then I wonder if maybe 75% of the college population is in the wrong kind of school at their point in time - maybe they'd be better served by studying at a technical/trade school focused on workplace skills and going to university later in life. I think I'm sort of with the comments made by Geoffrey a couple of posts ago. re what exactly the point of a univeristy education really is.

Probably politically incorrect to go down this path but for some reason in the US we seem to have a fear of acknowledging that different people for different reasons have different educational goals and capabilities and everybody shouldn't necessarily be in a university setting.

Hi All,

Recognizing that there is a continuum of education in a college/university setting that ranges from applied to abstruse, and also recognizing that each college or teaching university or research-based university sets its own objectives, I looked up what and where he teaches. Ozzie himself is a highly qualified professional who has won Emmy Awards for cinematograhy and outstanding directing.

The stated objectives of the program are:
•Training in all relevant production techniques such as camerawork, lighting, editing, sound engineering, tape operation and more
•Intensive classroom instruction detailing the history of television, film production, radio, journalism and web-based media
•Opportunities for hands-on learning in a state-of-the art Television Center, both through classroom instruction and extracurricular participation in WRED-TV
•Courses in management, marketing and business administration as the industry values professionals with strong business skills.

So this is not a research-based university style course, it is a teaching style university and one of its stated objectives is "detailing the history of television, film production, radio, journalism and web-based media." Because it is an entire program and within this program one of the objectives is a detailed history, it makes sense to ask students to do a paper on the subject; perhaps even a big paper. But clearly the paper should focus on history as a way to learn the profession.

Ozzie is facing a challenge and looking for guidance on one part of the historical aspects; the evolution from film to digital. How to talk about the past when most of the students have never heard of the basics of the earlier technology. Presumably he will also teach other important aspects of the history about how to make a good film by examining the great films of the past.

But this remains an interesting question (the evolution of film to digital) that in a detailed history seems logical to ask a student to understand.

Alan

My major was psychology, and I studied how films influenced human minds.
I watched plenty of films including a lot of silent films and some movies made in the Soviet Union for my studying.
The silent films fascnated me very much though they didn't have colours nor sounds.
To be honest I prefer Murnau's or Stroheim's films to recent Hollywood movies.
They made impressive and exciting films in 20s.

I am just an amteur of shooting videos or films.
But I may tell you audience's mind.
At the present day a lot of people have their video cameras.
Even children can have their own cameras, and can post their works on websites.
But most of them are boring.
Though they watched their objects carefully when they shoot videos or films, but few cameramen think about audience.
I think Murnau and some directors in silent era understood what audience wanted to watch.
Their techniques impressed audience, but their camera didn't shoot the outstanding scenes.
The cameras didn't shoot only objects. but also views of cameramen.

I guess most students studying at universities want to be professinal of videos and films.
But instructors can teach them just fundamental and techniques.
I know one famous photographer who could ignored audience.
He was Jaques Henri Lartigue.
His family was very rich, so he didn't need to earn money.
He took plenty of photographs and shot some short films, but they were just his hobbies.
He took those photos for himself ,his family and his friends.
Though he didn't expect to show a lot of people his works, they impress a lot of people now.
He had a gift, but few cameramen are similar to him.

I don't think the latest technology can improve anyone's technique.
Once they post their works on websites, there are a lot of audience.
They can't decide if their works are good or not by themselves.
They should understand minds of audience.

Now I feel frustrated because my English is terrible, so I can hardly tell you my opinion well.
I think the shooting films doesn't mean just handling machines.
But instructors can't teach their students about human minds.
So I'd like a lot of students to watch a lot of films including very old works, and learn what shooting is..

I think your English has a lovely poetic flow, and you express opinion very well. Don't let anyone tell you your English is terrible.

Thanks, Adam.

Well said Adam, your English is perfectly clear and a pleasure to read Yoshiko and what you write echoes what I feel - learning about technique and practical skills is just the start. I teach in a Music dept. and concentrate on digital audio composition / sound design etc as well as historical topics which I begin by talking about the very first mechanical recordings on tin-foil cylinders so analogue tape is all a bit new- fangled for me! Maybe it's because making a film is a more complex business than working in sound alone, but we concentrate very much on generating ideas and aesthetic technique which involves a good understanding of the evolution of an art form. But yes we also have classes which are also dominated by practical skills though the context is never far away. Bear in mind that for generations Universities taught almost nothing practical at all - it was just theory and history: for the ancient Greeks, Music was studied but as pure theory only.

So for me courses that concentrate too heavily on technical skills are unbalanced and are essentially a commercial enterprise - come to us and get skills to get a good job - rather than University education. In the past in the UK this would have been what an apprenticeship would have been for but they have gone as employers stopped paying for them and so that sphere has moved into the university sector, hence the conflict in the idea of what we as lecturers are really for; a conflict that is apparent everyday in my job but not necessarily a bad one - we search continually for the balance.

Ultimately it isn't about what we teach though but about how much we can help the students to teach themselves.

Yoshiko - thank you for your cogent comments.

Interesting that Murnau had actually studied art history at university. I wonder if anyone was teaching "film" in those days?. If they had, I can just imagine people complaining that studying still images was irrelevant to the "new" technology of film. Or studying B&W was irrelevant to the new technology of color. Or studying silent films was irrelevant to "talkies". Etc etc etc.

I couldn't agree more with Geoffrey that teaching of skills without teaching the principles and historical contexts is in some way short-changing the student. But at the same time there are students at university who are very much focused on marketable skills rather than theory and history. Should the university teach the principles and leave it to the students to learn how these principles relate to practical skills, or should the university teach the skills and leave it to the students to learn the principles? Personally I favor the former, but that's just me.

And in the end maybe it doesn't matter all that much.

The mechanical skills are pretty useless you have common references with the creative people you are dealing with. Doing your own thing is fine, but communicating with a director can involve establishing visual (photographic, painted or graphic), dramatic or musical sources.

Some of the top film schools don't even include shooting anything until the 2nd year, so that the fundamentals are in place.

That's how it was at UT-Austin back in my day. Freshmen weren't allowed anywhere near the hardware.

A round of thanks to everyone who has so eloquently left their opinions on this subject; also my kudos to Chris Hurd for having one of the most useful informational sites on the web. The caliber of everyone here is admirable – no BS, no fights, just solid comments based on experience. Your opinions have started a big debate at this end as well. This week I will get together with the Chair of the Television Production Department to discuss some possible changes. Now let me expand and clarify some points raised in my original post.

I did say that I was thinking of making this the last semester that question would be asked. I have felt it coming since, several years ago; I was explaining the “single breakthrough that made television affordable to the mass market”. Instead of every camera, monitor, and home receiver having its own built-in sync generator – an expensive piece of equipment rendering TVs out of reach for most homes, a bright individual (name?) came up with a source of “universal sync” everyone already had. My little lecture reached an exciting climax as I pointed to a wall socket and pointed to “AC!” (60 cycles in the Western Hemisphere; 50 mostly elsewhere). My excitement was instantly squelched when a girl raised her hand and asked “Professor, I don’t understand what this has to do with air conditioning…” In an attempt to salvage my brilliant lesson I boldly asked – “Class, you’ve heard of AC/DC?” A bunch of hands went up. My sigh of relief turned into choking when a number of them exclaimed “A rock group!!” And so it goes, I am a 20th Century Man. That moniker was given to me in 2003 when I was teaching at another university, I don’t recall what I was discussing when one of the students donned me with the title. One last anecdote – two semesters ago I was teaching a class on writing for television. I began the class with fiction, and I must admit the entire class surprised me with their originality in plot, structure, and character development. After the midterm we turned our attention to writing non-fiction. I spent at least an entire 3 hour period explaining non-fiction. I suggested they find someone interesting they could interview, or report on the goings on at the grocery store. When the assigned non-fiction scripts were handed in not a single one fit the category. “How can this be non-fiction if you have created characters, assigned them names, and practically made up the whole story??!!” A girl in the last row raised her hand – “Professor, I am an intern at VH1. We do a lot of “Reality TV” shows there. Believe me professor; there is nothing real about reality.” … WOW!! The significance, and truth, of that innocent remark has gotten deeper and more poignant as each year passes. “There is nothing real about reality” – not only in reality series, but sadly in journalism in an ever expanding way. The front page of the New York Times might as well be the Op-Ed page.

My only reason for covering digital vs analog is because it’s in the syllabus and in the newest version of the assigned text – “Video Basics v6” by Zettl. Ironically, the same text I had in graduate school in 1968.

I agree with all who suggest the history of the medium should be a separate course. The course at hand is an introductory course to the techniques of multi-camera, live, studio production (even that form is rapidly dying – you can still find it in the evening news and SNL, and I inform the class of that fact.)

I tell them the technology they are learning will be outdated by the time they graduate. Some of it is already outdated. I am having constant panic attacks just trying to keep up with all the new chips, cameras, etc. To make things worse, the head of the TV studio is thinking of putting in a request for 3D!

I make it a point to let every class understand that although technology is changing, and they will always have to be dealing with new equipment and ways of getting things done, the one thing that will NEVER change is their innate ability to tell a story. Storytelling is what we all do, even in non-fiction. It’s our ability to attract an audience, keep them interested, and leaving them with a feeling they have gotten something – THAT will never, and has never changed.

So my initial plea for your opinion on how to remain relevant when all our points of reference are changing still stands. But what would you tell your high-school age child when as part of a photography class, when he or she shows you a photo where the background is much too sharp. I explained to David, my son, that it was a fine photo, but if he wanted to throw the background out of focus perhaps using a larger f stop, with a corresponding change of shutter speed might do the …. I looked at him and saw he was not paying much attention. “Hey, I’m answering your question!” When the inevitable reply came back at me – “Dad, I don’t have to know that!”

Enough for now. I should re-shoot and re-edit this reply. Instead I’ll just press “SUBMIT”>

I don't know about the US, but multi camera studio productions are alive and well doing entertainment, current affairs, magazine and sports programmes in the UK.

I was embarrassed by my poor knowledge among a lot of professional.
But I am very glad to know your passions forr shooting or teaching films and videos.

I'll never deny benefits nor posibilities of digital.
What I am sad is that few teacher can teach their students names of great directors or film makers at school generally though the students can learn names of great artists, such as da Vinch or Michelangelo.
At the present day most people must think films are just popular entertainments, but not arts.
But I can imagine people once watched Murnau's or Lang's films, and they believed film industry could make a new art with a new technology.
I simply wanted to tell you how the pioneers' film impressed me when I watched them.

I think audience always want impressive films in both periods of analogue and digital
And I believe humans always shoot films and humans always watch films..

I'm replying to Yoshiko and Brian.

Yoshiko - your English is fine, your thoughts and feelings come through perfectly, and that is what's important. Regarding the work of painters, which I believe you mentioned earlier, I teach white balance by using Rembrandt and Vermeer. Try to "white balance" either and you end up with junk. Rembrandt favored warm tones while Vermeer used blue in most of his works. I also use some interior scenes from Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" where only candlelight was used and there was no attempt to "white balance" anything. I've found using paintings gets the point across - white balance is an artistic choice. In the case of Kubrick the reddish light of candlelight stayed as such, try to white balance his interiors and you end up with very conventional lighting.

Brian, there really aren't many LIVE multi camera shows in the U.S. Most are "live on tape" - i.e. you get a line cut but every camera has an isolated feed for re-cutting in post. I've done several shows like this. It can save your rear if an error is made, but I crave the sport of doing it live and getting it right the first time. Occasionally there are episodes of series that are hyped as live, and that spectacle tends to draw an audience, of course the writers need to write for live. The fast cutting and sudden scene changes we've grown used to, simply is not possible when live. Of course, sports are live, but that's another story.

I sense a thread creep.

Indeed very few multi camera studio shows are actaully live, they're mostly recorded, but there are big events like the Eurovision Song contest that are still live, with pre recorded inserts. The BBC does "Strictly Come Dancing" as a live show, although the Sunday night results programme in previous years was recorded on the Saturday. I believe the even more dicey "Dancing on Ice" on ITV is also a live programme.

Dancing on Ice 2010 ? ITV

Hi Ozzie

I have a question - if YOU were asked to write the same paper re digital and analog, what would you say (of course in 25 words or less ("fewer" for the grammar police amongst us))

I guess after re-reading this thread it isn't clear what aspects of analog vs digital is problematic with the students. In one sense, if you think of it narrowly, there is very little difference except in the tools used for editing, ie tape splicing vs NLE's. On the other hand if you think of it more broadly it can permeate the whole approach to the creative process. Just wondering where on the spectrum you're really posing the question.

To me, I think of all manner of issues with conversion between the analog and digital domains - sampling, anti-aliasing, clipping, etc - even the whole concept of "pixels - quantization issues, basically (nothing about digital really necessarily implies binary) etc etc etc.

Thngs like representing a continuous (at least at the macro level and not the molecular/atomic level where the real world exists in discrete energy levels etc) reality in quantized space, etc etc.

Just curious!

Thank you for your kind reply, Ozzie.
I understand you also love analogue.
But I guess what you wrote is slightly different from what I pointed out.
So may I write about my view again?
I wanted to ask a lot of professonal if digital has possibility to make the latest art as valuable as paintings or other arts.

I also love Rembrandt and Vermeer.
I love the lighting in works of Rembrandt, and the perspective that Vermeer used.
And I found some film directors shot beautiful scenes like the paintings, such as in Griffith's "Broken Blossoms" or in Carol Reed's "The Third Man".
But I wonder why a lot of people still love Kubrick's or Kurosawa's films in the period of digital.

There was a very famous story about making films of Krosawa.
When he made "Rashoumon", he found he could hardly shoot good scenes of rain.
So he use China ink as rain instead of water.

At the present day people can shoot more clear images by digital cameras.
But I guess most audience like fantasic fakes better than realistic images.
I don't mean the fantastic fakes are CGI.
When people Krosawa's film, they are impressed with the beautiful scene in it though the raindrop is black actually.
But film makers at the presnt day don't need China ink for a scene of the rain.

So I want to ask you if digital can made more artistic films than analogue.
To be honest I don't want to compare digital and analogue.
I have a digital camera currently, and I think it is very good a lot of people can enjoy shooting videos by digital cameras.
I know I am writing silly things.
Because I am an amateur, I can write waht I want to ask professional cameramen directly.

Do you think digital end to all analogue films?
Will digital be able to develope films, or make just video games?

Yoshiko...............
 

I think you're confusing the message with the medium here.

Telling a riveting story using analogue, is the the same riveting story using digital, it is purely the delivery medium that has changed, for better or worse.

Some of the best horror movies of the 20's & 30's were shot on such average analogue that it has become almost a clasic genre, almost imposible to make again with crystal clear digital.

Yet, "2001 A Space Odyssey" was shot in crystal clear whatever and has the power of Zeus behind it, it really is not the medium you need to worry about.

Shoot in Black and White, Grey scale, hack it to bits, whatever, it is NOT the medium, and with digital you have all those options and more, stop thinking about it unless it is important to the story.

The reason people love those "old" movies is that they were crafted by experts in their field of expertise, and they ,er, work.

Many of todays confections are thrown together with the usual ingredient mix:

Sex, violence, more sex, more violence and maybe a bit more sex.

Blend.

Result: Standard Hollywood fare for the last 2 decades.

Story: Nope.

Reason: Make money

Memorise: 1 Microsecond

Review: a complete load of utter crap (IMHO)

You can make sweet music using a Box Brownie still camera if you have the skill, not many do, which is why so many buy state of the art digtals and blast away like Space Troopers at everything in sight and call it "art".

It ain't the medium, it's the attitude.


CS

I think there's an element of it's just CGI.

I't's surprising how much aerial stock footage from "The Battle of Britain" is being used in modern productions, it makes all the hassle that the aerial cameramen complained about shooting 65mm for the air to air shots worth while. Unfortunately too much VFX looks like a video game an unfortunate side effect of doing everything digital when just sweetening an older method can be so much better in quite a number of cases. That is a combination of what works best, rather than going for the fashionable and I suspect budget driven option.

It's unlikely you'd be able to put together aerial WW 2 scenes like those in a number of films in the early 1970s, but there was a feeling that there were real g forces involved, which is somehow missing in CGI.

Yoshiko-sama, doumo arigatou gozaimashita.

Thank you so much for bringing up a very important issue - namely to what extent does the digital medium influence the message. I have to admit that I'm not so sure myself. Would "Ikiru" have been as memorable if it had been done as a CGI animation? Or as a clay model animation?

Honestly, I think the answer is that it could have been. So I don't think there's anything inherent in the digital medium (including CGI/effects that have been enabled by digital processes) that makes it imperative to produce trash instead of art. However, it certainly does make it easier and cheaper to produce trash which may be why there is so much of it around.

Maybe a good way to say it is that the medium becomes part of the message. Some concepts are best conveyed by film without sound or sound without film (remember radio?). so to the extent that it influences the message, the choice of media is an important part of the creative process. and without knowledge of the pre-digital media I think it is impossible for an artist to make an appropriate choice.

Take a look at TVPaint Developpement - Web Site

There are some really quite fine digitally produced animations/images on the site.

I remember long ago when I scraped together enough $$$ to take a photography course in Yosemite with Ansel Adams. Of course I assumed that we'd get right down to serious photography. Wrong" We spent the first day or so of our photography course sitting in a room with black paper and white paper and a pair of scissors and some paste making compositions in black and white by cutting and pasting shapes. My initial reaction was that this was something we had done in kindergarten and was something we "didn't need to know" It wasn't long before I realized that it was something I really DID need to know because composition and balance in B&W were the same whether done on a piece of paper on a table or on the ground glass of a large format camera. I think those few hours playing with pieces of paper did as much to improve my photography as the next couple of weeks wandering around with Ansel himself.

Jim,

The problem is not with digital or with analog; the problem is with the awareness that two technologies exist that yield much the same results, and one is rapidly being replaced by the other, and we are at a point where both exist side-by-side, at least for now. We used to make "dupes" or "dubs", now we "clone" or just don't bother to ask "...how many generations down is this copy?" Ansel Adams used to "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights". Now we talk about HDR. A drop out was a drop out, now it's anything from a freeze frame to a pixillated frame.

Is any of this worth knowing anymore? Perhaps not, but I have to deal with the fact that our studio is a combination of analog cameras, digital monitors, we record digitally, and in analog. I have a choice - to ignore the differences or point them out. We are in the midst of a paradigm shift when it comes to media in general. A "TV show" is only one of many visual inputs available to us. The old college FM radio station I used to work at went from 3500 watts to 50k while I was there - boy were we happy of the extra reach! Now that station is heard around the world on the internet (wfuv.org)! So yes, our points of reference are rapidly changing, and we need to keep on top of it all, especially if we are passing our expertise to a young audience.

Yeah, "Expose for the shadows develop for the highlights." How many people would even know what he meant by "develop". My fear is that soon they won't know what highlights and shadows are either.

Our grand-nephews (10 and 14) spent a couple of weeks with us recently. The 10 year old had a little digital camera that he took everywhere. In the time they were here he took over 500 photos. I made some comment along the lines that if he had to send them out to be developed it would have been enormously expensive. He just looked at me like I'd suddenly grown a third ear in the middle of my forehead or something - he had no idea what I was talking about. Of course photos all just magically appear on the display in the back of the camera, right? Develop?????

The good - the economic disincentive to experiment is gone. The bad - the need for planning/conceptualizing before you push the button is - gonzo!

I remember walking down a little street in Tokyo many years ago and looking at the blank side of a commercial building where someone had carefully painted another Adams quote - "There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept."

He was wrong - there is something worse. A brilliant image of a nonexistent concept.

Let's face it - there was a lot of analog trash produced as well, it's just that the efficiencies of a digital workflow let us produce more trash with less effort, but don't really much speed up the production of real art.

Another one from AA - "Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop"

Yoshiko,

I have no doubt the new technologies will in time imitate and surpass the old ones. It's all a matter of time, but more importantly - it is a matter of visual subjectivity and creativity. Video games exist because the technology is there, it is cheap, and accessible. I am impressed with the kind of interactivity Wii is able to offer. People can even do real exercise with it - play tennis, or destroy and entire army. The possibilities are endless. Take the concept of 3D; in the 1950s when 3D as we know it first came out, it was nothing but a gimmick. It soon died a well-deserved death. Now with the help of CGI and polarized lenses there is a new 3D that comes close to real depth. I won't like 3D until it can be seen without spacial glasses, and the directors stop trying to impress with things coming at me.

So yes, in time there will be Vermeers that are created in iPhones or iPads. As I said earlier, storytelling will never die, and beauty runs along with it. It's not technology but us who do the real creation.

Thank you for your messages, Jim and Ozzie.
Jim, I was impressed with your Japanese.
And I'm very glad to read your valuable experience.

Well Ozzie, I don't know if Vermeer or Rembrandt wanted iPad.
But I can guess tendency of Japanese audience.
Of course a lot of Japanese enjoy playing video games recently.
But surprisingly most Japanese don't like Hollywood movies with CGI.
I guess one of reasons is that most CGI movies are just action or very violent movies.
Eventually a lot of Japanese audience returned to domestic movies from Hollywood movies.

One of the greatest director of animation in the world, Hayao Miyazaki made a new animation titled "Ponyo" with analogue three years ago after making some animations with CGI.
At that time so many audience in Japan supported his animation.
Unfortunately I didn't think the screenplay was very good, but I was impressed with wonderful images made by analogue.
I guess some directors still insist analogue in Japan.

Of course I also know all analogue films are not necessarily great.
And they will have a headache of money and time when they will make analogue films.
In fact most Japanese audience want more emotional and impressive films than thrilling or exciting movies.
I still wonder digital will make timeless movies or they will be able to have Zeitgeist.

Thank you Yoshiko. I really like Japan - I worked there for a long time and all of my consulting clients are in Japan - and my wife is from Nagoya.

And I also want to compliment you on your ability to express yourself clearly in English - I wish more Americans could do likewise;-}

Interesting thought - would Vermeer etc have liked an iPad? Would Bach have liked a synthesizer? My wife was a concert pianist and she absolutely hates electonic pianos and keyboards and thinks the sound is "heartless and cold" But she very much likes electronic harpsichords.because it is easy to switch from well-tempered to other temperaments and because you don't have to re-tune it every three minutes. In other words, the workflow offers advantages. Maybe like digital editing.

My guess would be that Picasso would have loved the iPad (or a PC) but someone like Jason Pollock would have hated it because his style was to become so physically involved with the medium.

And CGI - well it depends because after all there is more to CGI than bigger explosions and more disgusting aliens and more realistic blood and gore.

I think in fact Japan is one of the leading producers of digital animations, but very often they are 2-dimensional in character and very minimalist - even something silly but fun like Ge Ge Ge no Kitaro. More or less digital Manga.

By the way, I'm not sure CGI is that much cheaper than using human actors - rendering requires so many thousands of hours of computer time. And some applications (like, for example, Massive that is used for crowd simulations using programmed "intelligent agents") were developed as part of the making of such films.

Anyhow, yes I think timeless movies can be made digitally. But I think it is important for digital artists to understand analog and vice versa.

At some level of course the distinction between analog and digital is invisible - for years and years now movies have been shot on film, digitized for editing, and re transferred to film for distribution. And at some level analog and digital are visibly different.

Yoshiko,
We have landed on common ground - "Ponyo". I won't say more, just send you to my son's blog:
Arabesques: Wonderful Movies You May Not Know About: Ponyo

My son introduced me to "Ponyo" and I introduced him to "After Life". Arabesques: Wonderful Movies You May Not Know About: After Life

Happy reading.

I want to say thank you so much for your messages again, Jim and Ozzie.

Jim, I was very glad to read your message again because I regreted that I have not written about your friend Ansel Adams.
I'm sure people can't forget them if they look at Adam's works once..
I wondered if his works were photographs really when I found them first.
They were so wonderful like paintings, and I thought they evokes black and white paintings in China or Japan.
I also wondered how he could take those photographs.
You seemed to tell me an answer.
So I appreciate your message about your experience with the great photographer.
I'd like you to tell me about your valuable experiences in the near futre if you don't mind.

And thank you for Ozzie, a blog of your son interested me very much..
I am very pleased about knowing American also like Japanese animation, "Ponyo".
Of course we can say it is one of digital animations if we mean a difference between digital and analogue is just using films or not..
But as I said most Japanese don't think it was a digital animation.
A reason is that Hayao Miyazaki and his staffs drew all of scenes by hands, as your son explained.
And whole scenes of this animations always moved.
It is not a technique of digital animations.
Personally I guess its technique is similar to old animations.
But I can't explain it well in English.
I searched for some websites about "Ponyo", but all of them were written in Japanese.
So if your son is still interested in "Ponyo", please tell him to read those websites, and let someone transrate them from Japanese to English.

Well, I think we had a nice discussion about films.
So are you teaching your students about analogue now, Ozzie?
Would you like to report me about your students again?.

Hi Yoshiko

I was just watching NHK today after dinner and something occurred to me about your comment that Japanese audiences don't like American CGI films so much.

Today's show on NHK was about history - specifically the battle between the Roman general Scipio and Hannibal in the battle of Zama in the Second Punic War (202BC)

What struck me was the way the battle was "re-anacted". Instead of an American style animation with everything happening in 3 second bursts, it was done on a tabletop with a few small wooden figures very much like chess pieces, and as the speaker described the action, people used long handled pieces of plastic (almost like the little rakes a roulette dealer in a casino might use to move the gambling chips) to move the pieces around on the table. It was actually very effective given the accompanying verbal description. Very calm and low tech, but very interesting. I even found myself thinking of how stories are told in Bunryaku or with old stick puppets. Anyhow, 1) I doubt there are many American channels - even on public TV that would devote so much time to something like this, or 2) would approach it in such a simple and yet effective way.

I really enjoy well done CGI. But I don't think I'm a fan of much current CGI animation because it seems that people use dramatic CGI effects instead of telling a story - and the more dramatic the effects and the faster the scene changes, the less drama in the result. In other words, so much CGI these days seems to be used so as to avoid having to actually tell a story.

Of course, I don't think many Americans these days have an attention span much longer than 3 seconds. I often watch my nephew watching TV - surfing between three or four channels at once and paying little real attention to any of them.

Hi Jim, thank you for your inetresting information.
I guess you like Japan really.
I also know NHK made many intriguing documentary fprograms with CGI.
And a lot of Japanese (most of them are men) enjoy using iPad or iPhone around me.

Recently I asked my friends if they think "Ponyo" was a digital animation or not.
Most of them answerd they didn't think it was just a disital movie because Miyazaki and his staffs drew all scenes by their hands.
Of course if people should call movies that use computer digital movies, "Ponyo" is also digital.
But most Japanese audience don't think so.
I found there is difference of view between American and Japanese.

One of my favourite sci-fi movies was "Blade Runner".
In it SFX never destroied the story nor the performances of actors.
Rutger Hauer played a robot (I think his performance was great), but his character was not mechanical.
Also in "Jaws", a derector didn't use much SFX.
He didn't make fright by an appearance of a shark.
Audience were frightened by an atmosphere of the shark during watching the movie.
I believe most Japanese don't like movies with much CGI, such as "The Incredible Hulk".

Jim you agreed with me that people should have studied analogue.
Probably some Japanese professionals still think so.
And I also think so.

Yoshiko-san

I think if you look at the original Disney cartoons and the newer ones you can see some doifferences in how rhe characters' faces look - in the old cartons there is nicer feeling about the areas around the corners of the mouths - in the olds of "skin". It looks so much more smooth and organic in the older movies and crisper and more artificial in the newer ones. The newer ones look "digital"

Jim san,

Absolutely I like early Mickey Mouse in a black and white movie better than recent Disney movies.
I don't know a reason why, but I love black and white movies or photographs very much.
So your memory of a practice about black and white balance was very intreresting for me.

Digital pictures never shows colours like Autochrome Lumiere.
My favourite digital creater is only Micheal Busselle, a British photographer.
I think his colours were very different from other pictures.
And his composition was excellent.
I guess he also learnt analogue technique.

Just to throw a little more kindling on the fire...

I remember reading a story - I *think* it was in a 1960's issue of Harper's Magazine about a guy who had been granted a very rare opportunity to interview Pablo Picasso late in his life at his home in Spain. The magazine wanted to send a photographer, but the request was politely refused. Writer only. So the editor grabbed the camera bag from one of the magazine's photographers and told the writer to take it along so that the writer could ask to grab a couple of simple pictures - nothing fancy - to illustrate the story.

During the extended interview on Picasso's patio, the maestro agreed to the photo, and while the writer was opening and pulling out the camera a small strip of film fell out. It was celluloid strip containing a few frames at the end of a roll of black and white 35mm film that had been somehow left aside fully exposed. So the frames were fully blacked out.

Picasso noticed the scrap, picked it up, examined it for a while during the interview, and eventually took out his pocket knife and started playing around. When he eventually handed it back to the interviewer - Picasso had scratched into the emulsion a series of studies of Don Quixote on horseback. The article ran the images along with the story in a sidebar to the story.

Reading that I learned that Art is seldom about tools and materials. It's largely about VISION. And the studied ability to use whatever tools you have at hand in order to communicate ideas.

Analog vs Digital? Who cares. Color vs Black and white? WHO CARES. Make something that sparks the brain and makes the viewer's mind come alive with a story. Might be a new twist on a familiar one like that piece of film - or a totally new story. But sorry Mr. McLuhan - the medium IS NOT the message. The Message is the Message.

(leaving to visit the Harpers web site and see if the internet has any links to that long, long ago story...)

That is one pithy story! A very good reminder, thanks for that and do post back if you find it!

Well, for Picasso the medium wasn't the message. I think us mere mortals can aspire to works in which the message transcends the medium. Otherwise, in the day-to-day of mass communications McLuhan's point is very well taken IMHO.

But, my interpretation is that it is more related to Television Network distribution than it is to Analog or Digital. That is, "I saw it on TV; I read it in the Newspaper; I read it in Ebony magazine; my cousin told me; it's in the Bible" all raise different expectations about the message, and therefore do color the message and influence profoundly our perception and understanding of the message.

I think the choice of medium has to influence the perception of the message as Seth said. No, it isn't the message, but at the same time some media are better for some messages ie reinforce or negate the message. So then one begins to wonder to what extent the medium influences the creator/reporter of the message as much or more than the perceiver/recipient of the message. Would there even be some messages if the creation of the message hadn't been enabled by the medium?

Wow - we're certainly getting philosophical! What really strikes me is that this has become a rather substantial thread and we haven't once gotten into talking about which camera to use or which brand of tape is best. Amazing!

So what is the difference, if any between digital and analogue? At some level it's all to do with how to produce the final result, ie as Bill said, no difference to the viewer.but maybe at some level it really is different.Magnetic tape audio recordings are different in character from digital recordings and vinyl sounds different than CD . The way analogue media react to over-saturation/clipping is different from digital.

One of the great advantage of digital "processing" is that with appropriate computational trickery one can imitate the characteristics of analogue media quite well. But is it the same? At some level yes, at some level, no.

But does it matter?

Just so I don't leave the thread hanging...

Searched the Harpers back catalog but couldn't find the Picasso story.

Damn. I probably got the magazine wrong.

Going forward with Google indexing everything in sight this will cease to be a problem. But right now, those dimly remembered images are lost in the mists....

Rats.

Well I think we started this topic if students who know digital only should learn analogue or not originally.
So we haven't reached a conclusion?

Basically young people, especially twenties and under think old things are boring.
Amazingly French director, Rene Clair captured what young people were in his film "Les Belles de nuit" in 1950s.

Most young people don't think to need knowledge of analogue because they are boring.
They like rock music, but dislike works of Bach or Felix Mendelssohn generally.
But most of them have not listen their music.
They simply claim old music is boring though they don't know them.
I think there were a lot of more interesting films in the the past than recent movies.
They will help young people for making new films.
I don't care which medium is better analogue or digital.
But I guess masters should have both knowledge about analogue and digital.

I'm with Perrone on this one. Sure, you can give a brief - and I mean brief - history of TV and film production, but then it's time to roll up the sleeves and teach these kids real-world production techniques. One semester isn't nearly enough time to learn about all the new HD cameras and formats, editing systems, audio, etc. When it comes time for the students to get a job, they will need this info and hands-on experience. Why devote a lot of time talking about the past?

I'm sure a lot of us in this forum can remember our first break into the production world. Mine was at a local TV station. Do you think they cared that I knew who invented the radio? They just wanted to know how much I knew about lighting, working with video cameras, then checking out my sample "reel" (there's a throwback term). All of my college activities of clubs, honor rolls, being a member of the student senate, being in Who's Who in Colleges made not a bit of difference to them. They just wanted to know how I could contribute to their TV productions. It was hands-on experience that got me my first job.

It's not one or the other, they need to have the grammar of the meduim, have references and to have the knowledge not just for now, but the grounding that can allow them to use whatever bits of kit will the future bring.

A lot of those basics haven't changed, you just need to upgrade them as you progress. Unfortunately, as one BBC cameraman put it to me years ago, the technological aspects can be a lot more interesting than the content of many programmes.

Well, I would think that there would be more than a one semster course in a 4 year university program.

But I guess we keep coming back to a fundamental disagreement on the role of a university. Honestly speaking, I personally don't think it's the right place for a nuts and bolts course on the details of production using X or Y or Z software. workflow, etc. I really think it has to provide a broader focus.

As an example, about 100 years ago (well, actually 50 years aga - just feels like 100) when I was in college, I took a music theory course. My major was in the physical sciences, so this was what we called a "distribution" requirement - ie you weren't allowed to take ONLY courses in your major. I didn't learn much about music theory, unfortunately, but I did learn a lot about how the music department operated. To start with there were no courses in performance. Theory, history, etc yes, performance no. If you wanted to study performance you were encouraged to take courses at a nearby conservatory in parallel with the university courses. Or as one of my friends who DID major in music put it, at our school, music was treated like the proverbial "good child" ie it was something to be seen but not heard! And if performance was your objective, you were also encouraged to take part in the many extracurricular musical groups about.

I didn't learn prigramming at school - I learned programming by working at a federal research lab in the summer putting in 80 hours a week for 40 hours pay (at the princely salary of $1 per hour). At school we focused on theory of computation, mathematics, physics, etc. - in other words the fundamental principles. At work we learned how to apply these fundamental principles to actually do something useful.

Anyhow, that's how I got into the computer "biz" 51 years ago so maybe I'm biased towards thinking that the university's role isn't preparation for a job per se but rather preparation of the student by laying the foundation that practical skills can be built upon

Maybe things are different today.

EoR (End of Rant!)

Before Impressionism some painters also drew pictures of landscape.
But in the old days their paints got dry easily, so they couldn't draw their pictures outside their studio mostly.
The period around Monet a new paint was invented.
Painters could bring the paints and could draw their pictures outside.
It was a good example that a new technology or a new tool helped to make a new arts.
But I guess Monet or Renoir learnt old masterpieces though they could use new paints.
I also guess even Picasso learnt fundamental or old techniques of paintings.

I am still studying English, and I know so many English teachers.
Most of them could teach English by just textbooks.
They could teach me recent topics and modern English.
Sometimes we could use computer and learnt natural English by Internet.
But they were boring for me.
My English didn't improve at all.
One day I met one instructor.
He never taught me recent topics or modren English that most young American people used (I mean slang etc.), but he taught me a lot of words and phrases about world history and the fine arts.
How his taught was very unique and not a modern way, but it encouraged me.
He helped me to keep studying English.
I still thank him though I go to another school now because of some reasons.

If we are talking about what instructors should teach their students rather than which medium is better analogue or digital, I want to claim instructors should teach their students whole things about shooting including analogue.
I guess studying don't mean knowing just modern things.
A few decades later it is likely the modern things at the present day would be very old.
Maybe most students can learn some easy techniques by themselves.
But they can't learn history without instructors.
I repeat instructers should teach children both analogue and digital.
Then children should choose which medium is better for them.