mike_mccue


I'm hoping that Pedro can teach you all about the problems with sheet film and how we all were *confusing* the image because the multi layers are stacked so that each color ends up in a slightly different degree of focus.

Splitting the colors to adjacent collectors can make a much crisper light-drawing.

I'm hoping to learn which way is better... especially now that it's hard to know which way is the old fashioned way.

Next, Christianity is going to make sure that all images of Jesus, the Christo, are in living color .... so they have a better reason for you to believe in him, and show you that ...
 
Wow!

Poetry in notion; You have perfected the art of offending everyone you speak at.


regards,
mike

mike_mccue


Poetry in notion; You have perfected the art of offending everyone you speak at.


regards,
mike

That is not the point!
 
Besides, ideas are just ideas ... and you basically are stating that I have no right to state mine ... but because yours has a laugh track it is right, and my idea is wrong!
 
That was not the point, Mike!
 
I have more appreciation for your music than I do half the articles that the media likes to flock us all to all the time ... but you don't see that? And another professor or what not ... is more important?
 
Not to me!

Wow, mosh... I just like images from the past, of all kinds.  Don't care if they are in color or not, but since this one IS, it's a new way of seeing what I haven't seen before.  Don't think it's at all a money waster.  I found it a fascinating way to made old tech new and reach more people.  But I'm just geeky like that.  I don't actually like "colorized" versions of things... But THIS... Being "colorized" was the original intent.  I think the mechanism to do so was genius and way ahead of it's time.  So what if it's not a cinematic masterpiece?  

I don't know anyone who actually thinks that the world was black and white before Dorothy landed in Oz.  Can't you just accept entertainment for what is IS and quit railing against what you think it should be?  The world is not made of only Philosophers and Writers and Artists (I say this MARRIED to a Philosopher, mind you).  Entertainment must be accessible to the masses.  Art--- pure art in a higher form-- is different.  And just as important, but there is a line between that I think you often miss.

Entertainment must be accessible to the masses. Art--- pure art in a higher form-- is different. And just as important, but there is a line between that I think you often miss.

 
Yes, no and maybe.
 
My point is that we have a tendency to look at everything else, and then when you look in the mirror, you/we/I, do not have the ability or talent to do half as good.
 
No one, has fought more for the "low arts" than I, although I do not think that the Ramones are that great, but then, I don't go around saying that Shakespeare or Milton are teh pinacle of "art", or Picasso, or Carmen!
 
In some ways, the colorization of that, to me, is like the new age bible ... or a new "translation" of the old thing ... and sometimes, I think that we put on the 3D glasses, as a way to get out ... because we're afraid to trip inside, and see the REAL 3D. with more colors than any palette will ever be able to distinguish or show you or I.
 
My work, words, and comments, are not ... ideas ... I tend to deplore ideas because they are the bery things that derail our own understanding of things.
 
I can see, and appreciate, more than anyone, the ability to RESTORE a lot of music, film and art ... to me that is a vital record of the time and place, and much more important than what that process brought out ... which I think was ... funny, and fun ... not exactly meaningful per se.
 
There was a film, called "My 20th Century", a Hungarian film that was ... nuts and just like this ... but it was "displaced" at the turn of the century and it was like you were seeing film for the first time, and it had a riot with people's reactions and such. In it, people also confused the real thing ... and immediately, one little girl says ... "I wanna be like her" ... which is neat, and you and I would never want to take away one's dream ... but sometimes that "dream" is a perception that is wrong ... it's an image, not a reality!
 
Film, can be accused of a lot of things, from "reality" to "neo-reality" to "fake" and many other terms in between ... but it's still about the "manipulation of an image" ... and that is totally different for all of us! And no, I do not believe any of us are wrong, but folks are saying here I am ... when they have no idea where I am coming from, and worse ... they are not big enough to ask ... you at least, are on par with your voice ... you comment to invite the proper/better answer and understanding ... and you know that is not a "philosophy" ... it's a true and tried reality!

julibee
   
I don't know anyone who actually thinks that the world was black and white before Dorothy landed in Oz. 

It wasn't?
Another illusion shattered.
First it was the Easter Beagle.
Then the Great Pumpkin.
I think I'm going to be depressed.

Mosh,
 Serious question; did you bother to watch the video? Are you aware that the photographer developed both a color separation process and a presentation process where the film was originally viewed and experienced in color?

 It seem as if you are reacting to an idea that the restoration actually added color when in fact the process merely attempted to rescue and present the film as it was experienced in 1902.

 I would have been delighted to learn that someone built a new projector to re combine the color, but it seems as if the use of digital com-positing was a cost effective way to preserve the legacy that the inventor of the process left for us to enjoy.

 Are you taking all that into account before you offer your generalized criticism of society?

 best regards,
mike

RobertB

julibee
 
I don't know anyone who actually thinks that the world was black and white before Dorothy landed in Oz. 

It wasn't?
Another illusion shattered.
First it was the Easter Beagle.
Then the Great Pumpkin.
I think I'm going to be depressed.

Actually I have, and ... worse.
 
Class I taught at UCSB (I called the "The 7 Deadly Arts") was about all the arts and I spent one week on each of them.
 
The hardest part? ... more than half the class thought the world started with JC ... and I had to explain/show to them that the pictures of that Greek stuff, and many other images, and stories in the Bible like Moses, and such, were not exactly "images" ... and very likely were realities of the time and place.
 
It was on that day, that my written treatise of what I was going to teach the class in the next 10 weeks, was never gonna happen ... and I ended up with one of the best records for attendance and graduation with that group ... 2 classes, 48 kids, and 37 of them graduated on time. The next best one? ... a Philosophy professor had 30 of them graduate on time.
 
Program that was created by Reagan, I think ... the EOP, and I taught Summer School. One week per art, and a history of it and examples show. The last week was TV. Homework for Monday? ... how many cameras can you see on Monday Night Football. The film and theater week? ... second day we all wrote a play, and then we performed it on Friday with some folks being the "camera" and such ... kids had a riot in there ... and then some!
 
It's hard, not fun, and sometimes ... bizarre ... we do not spend more time sharing "know" ... we spend our time arguing instead, which of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the original!

Hi Mosh,

 I went out and found a new B.C. avatar for you to consider using:

 

 

“and much more important than what that process brought out ... which I think was ... funny, and fun ... not exactly meaningful per se.”

I completely disagree with this statement.

That’s fine that you want to “share” your belief system with us on the role of technology/film in society BUT, keep in mind “we” are consumers and users of technology and as such the archeology and history of science and technology are certainly pertinent to our current understanding of science and technology.

It is OK with me that you want to treat the technical side of things as a black box (we can’t all be scientists) but to lambaste the technology and those who study its history simply suggests to me a very narrow world view.