Analog VS digital

 What we are experiencing today is something that only exsit in people's memories decades ago. We now familiar with photos which combine unconnected locations together in one photo:

We can look at a scene based on reality but also containing fantasy:

Or fing that reality can be deconstruct and reproduced:

  These are great fantasies created with digital techniques.

            There are some photographic effects which can achieved both by analog techniques and digital techniques. For example, color wash, light leaks and blur. But analog technique can achieve those naturally while digital techniques have to rely on software.

               But we have to admit that certain effects can only be done using digetal technology. Followings are some examples.

twisting the image of a real world to an impossible angle

change the color of the object



            Judging by the different works produced, there must be a great differences between analog photography and digital photography. First of all, "analog photographs were made by exposing light sensitive films and used chemical  to develop and stabilize the image. By contrast, digital photography can be displayed, printed, stored, manipulated, transmitted, and archived using digital and computer techniques, without chemical processing."1 Secondly, analog photography have to rely on the staging or capturing images of real world, but digital photography can produce any object existing or not and makes it into a photograph.

          There is so much more to discuss about analog and digital, and how they interact with each other. Besides study them, we can also enjoy them.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTUxNjQxMjg4.html           music video.

Discussion on Mission to Earth

1. digital cinema is very different from traditional filmmaking in a tramendous way. Take

Mission to Earth(2005) as an example. It's a work of soft cinema which, explained by Lev

Manovich,  is "a 'cinema' in which human subjectivity and the variable choices made by custom

software combine to create films that can run infinitely without ever exactly repeating the same

image sequences, screen layouts and narratives"1. So that the film directly shows the influence

of online film clips by putting different clips simultaneously,which was impossible in the

traditional filmmaking history not only because of inmature techniques but also because that

without  online video watching webside such as youtube, audience can hardly follow the screen

 which contains 3 or 4 video windows at a same time. Besides, the allegory meaning of the

story makes it much more meaningful than traditional films which only wanted to create

fantasies.


2. Although digetal cinema is a new kind of art, it has its root in different art forms which exist

before. Like in Mission to Earth,  the way it is presenting remind us of collage, only those

different still pictures have been replaced by videos. This kind of way actually correspond to

today's websites we used a lot. Those website such as BBC news website have different 

information or small vidoe windows just like the film.

3. The construction of the film is also very unique and has a great difference with traditional

ones. It is not continuity film like traditional ones. Its narrative is cut into fragments by the stops,

and there is no one story but only some details of daily life. In the case of its isolation theme, it

achieve it quite well. It makes the male narrator like a voice diary of the woman.


Anyway, I don't feel like the film. But it did a good work at experimental film.



1:Lev Manovich, soft cinema, http://softcinema.net/?reload, 2005

PS Fish

The original one

My PS work

Group VB's arguements

Our group goes with the Britannica. And we choose Britannica for basically two reasons: accuracy and user-friendly. We have our arguments as follows.
Firstly, if only one encyclopedia can be left for human beings, it has the responsibility of the continuity of knowledge. Our offspring will have to depend on it to study, to explore, so the accuracy is very important, because we don’t want to mislead them. And Britannica is more accurate than Wikipedia. Quoted from Hioberg (senior vice president and editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. ) ‘Britannica has published more than a hundred Nobel Prize winners and thousands of other well-known experts and scholars. Contrary to Wikipedia, Britannica's contributor base is transparent and not anonymous.’ This is the main reason for our choices.
Secondly, we found that Britannica is more user-friendly than Wikipedia. Here are the homepages of these two encyclopedia.
1. Britannica

2. Wikipedia

We can judge from the pictures above that although Wikipedia has a lot of information, but it is too messy, because the page is not so well-organized. As for Britannica, we have clear categories, we have dictionary and news, we also list some articles like news for today. It’s easier for us to find useful information from this well-organized page. And we searched for ‘Plato’ as a test. The result just as follows.
3. wikipedia

http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=Plato Britannica

Wikipedia simply pumped out a page talking about who Plato is and his theories and life and so on. It did give out great lists of footnotes, references and extensional readings. But Britannica did even better. It listed all the result on the page, and when you put your mouse on each of them there would be a brief introduction of the resources so that you can choose what to read more specifically and easily. And you can choose to read Ebook or magazine or dictionary.
As we discussed above, Britannica has obvious advantage over Wikipedia in accuracy and user-friendly. So we absolutely support Britannica to be the only encyclopedia in the world.

May Britannica be with you——survivor from an Alien Attack

To our offspring:
      
      As you may now know that a terrible Alien attack happened, and I had no idea why these freaks chose

me to make this decision, it's not like I had any connection with them (I swear!). Anyway, for whatever

freaks' reasons, they asked me to choose one encyclopodia for you guys, I did some research, really. In

order to convince you, I leave this explaination. And may Britannica be with you.

       
     
     First that came to my mind is the inheritance of knowledge. It is very important to make you know our

knowledge, and accuracy is vital. Ohterwise the consequences are very fearful. Just like all the debases

between open source and propritary, I think that it can be a bad idea to let any one edit those knowledges

freely. At our times, open source like wikipedia can't be used in acadamic writing, which means that the

majority of us still don't trust it. It is both positive and negative effects of am opem source, but when there is

nothing else to refer to, we'd better trust authorities.

       Secondly, I think Britannica is more user-friendly. To compare, I put the picture of both of them here.

We can see clearly that  the homepage of Britannica is better organized than that of Wikipedia. We can find

different catagories clearly listed on the left hand side and plenty of tools on the right while wiki shows only

some news. Blog, dictionary and other related sources are well listed on Britannica which makes us easier to

get whatever we need.

                                                                         

    

Britannica

  

wikipedia

 Thirdly, I tested their function as encyclopeidas. I searched  Plato from both of them. And here's the results.

http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=Plato

 

Wikipedia

Wikipedia simply pumped out a page talking about who Plato is and his theories and life and so

on. It did give out great lists of footnotes, references and extensional readings. But Britannica did even better.

It listed all the result on the page, and when you put your mouse on each of them there would be a brief

introduction of the resources so that you can choose what to read more specifically and easily. And you can

choose to read Ebook or magazine or dictionary.

     

        To sum up, Britannica (properities) is more valuable than Wikipedia (open source) both user-friendly

and functionally. I hope you can create something much better than Britannica and Wikipedia with the great

legacy I've left you. And …you're welcome. 

sincerely

your ancester

Fast fast …what?----Feedback on Mordern Times

    I've heard a lot bout Modern Times, and I've watched the part of it. After viewing the whole thing, I found out why people speak so high about it. It a great representative of quick development productive system stressing citizens. The concept and its forms has been applied to different medias. So I started to think that is modernism really that good as I knew before? Does the word simply represent speed, development and elit?What new technology actually mean to our daily life?

     New technologies can make things more easier. In order to produce a sophisticated product, with the aid of machine, one group focus only one little part of it, and other groups and the machine will take care of the others. Boss can control the factory without move an inch, just telling his workers what to do by using a camera and a speaker. It makes administration more convenient as well as making the factory more standar. It can increase the speed of production, saving a lot of time and labour. All these benefits shows in the profit, and the big boss and consumers gained through thess new technologies.

    The main character is a typical figure of workers at that time. These new technologies have huge effect on his life. First of all, we can see that he can't stop even for one second to get rid of the fly. And he has little time to rest.As soon as he entered the men's room, his boss saw him in the camera and asked him to get back to work. Sencondly, he has such a long working time that his body can't relax even after work. He just can's help tighting screws. But physical damage was not the most terrible. All these creativeless work and long hour repressing made him crazy. He broke the rules of the factory by working arround and disturbing others, most important, he damaged the machine. So he was accused of mentally break down and was sent to the hospital. It shows the distortion and depression of machine to him.
     
    Computers are similar to the machines in the film. We use it everyday, sometimes we stick to them all day without a break. It requires finger movements a lot, and a few of us may end up typing air. Computer is our working tool, we can use it to do our homework, write novels, read books, watch movies, and doing almost whatever you like. It can make us happy by connecting us to others, provide entertainments as well as enhance our knowledge. It harms our eyes, and prevent us from outdoors and families. It also harms muscles. But we can't leave them.
      
    The pros and cons of new technologies has been discussed a lot. Many science fiction films talks a lot about it. And it remains to be discussed.

Introduction

It's my 3rd year at Ling Nan University, and all these years had been dedicated to visual studies,well, countless travels,shopping, parties also included. Although I'm busy, I still did an outstanding job with my studies. essays, short films,readings, blah blah blah. Maybe I'll put some of them on this blog, if they are related to the topics we'll discuss here later.

Enough for the official introduction, and more about me personly.

I'm 20-year-old, and I'm a female. It's my dream to become a  movie director or something like art dealer, basically those who work in museums, art galleries and auctions. I embrace modern art, but I respect and appreciate classics too.

Looking forward to share with you my knowledge and experience in digital media.

XOXO

M