Thank you very much Jay. I did actually read them, but I found them in the list only after I had posted.
Of course memory is edited, but so are our current perceptions. How could they not be? We are constantly making decisions as to where to look, how close or how far, and what to pay attention to. This prioritization of perception is necessary to our survival. If we were constantly noticing everything that was going on in our environment, we would not be able to function. And daily reality itself is always on its way to becoming a memory as it slides by us into the past. What gets imprinted in memory is what we have noticed, and that's a tiny subset of what's actually happened around us.
In short, I agree with Terry's post, which I just read. The original question was whether cinematic 3D is actually something our brains have evolved to tolerate, and on that, I have no opinion, because I have no experience of it. It sounds gimmicky and uninteresting, which is why I have avoided it so far.
Shirley
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Mahavier <jay_mahavier@earthlink.net>
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 1:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] 3D? hee hee hee
I refer you to the rest of that thread that you may not have had the
opportunity to read.
1st response from blafarm
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/message/87789
my reply
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/message/87791
And David Dodson's reply
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/message/87794
In addition I would like to point out that you're talking about memory
in your example. Not real life, real time, organic vision. Very very
very different things. And in your example you decided to only
remember the most very exciting moment. You are not recalling the
utterly boring times you made that drive and not a damn thing
happened. You edited your memory. Organic vision is ALL of the
horribly dull and uninteresting crap that goes on all the time.
Compare the 80+ hours of camera source dailies to organic vision and
the 90 minute edited program to memory. Just because the camera
selectively points at different things it's not actually edited.
Take for example Rope by Hitchcock. It a series of roughly 10min
takes. I don't remember exactly but there is something like 9 actual
edits in it. Every other one being hidden in black the others being
hard cuts. But while the 10min takes are very well choreographed and
composed to move from WS to MS to CU etc., they are not edited.
What you look at throughout the day, day after day, all day long,
while it may be selective, it is not edited. What you remember is
edited.
Jay
On Jan 29, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Shirley Gutierrez wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "And we don't organically edit what we see in nature."
>
>
>
>
> You've no doubt read "In the Blink of an Eye?" This is, of course,
> the slender and absorbing volume by Walter Murch himself, which
> attempts to answer the question "Why do cuts work?" His answer is
> that we edit reality constantly when we blink. It is this function
> of our vision, the fact that we are looking at a given scene, and
> moments later, seeing a change in that scene that's occurred in the
> fractions of a second that it takes to blink, that makes us
> neurologically primed to accept edited films.
>
> Reading this book made me realize to what extent my perception of my
> daily reality is divided up into shots, wide, tight, medium, ECU,
> etc., and to what degree my visual memory is made up of "camera
> angles." For example, when I remember the day my car's radiator
> failed while I was crossing the San Francisco Bay Bridge, my memory
> is divided into distinct visual frames, the view out the windshield
> as the first wisps of smoke drift ominously across my field of
> vision, and the tight cutaway of the dashboard vent as the smoke
> starts to pour out of it. I've asked myself if I divide up reality
> this way because I edit for a living, but then I bring up memories
> from my youth and realize that they are constructed the same way, as
> are my dreams.
>
> Life itself is a movie, and it runs in 3D. But in my head, I think
> it's playing in 2D.
>
> Shirley
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Mahavier <jay_mahavier@earthlink.net>
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 11:53 am
> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] 3D? hee hee hee
>
>
> There are some out, myself included, that think editing done well
>
> should go unnoticed. Yet a great majority of films and television are
>
> edited. And we don't organically edit what we see in nature. Just
>
> like we don't crossfade into flashbacks or many other techniques of
>
> story telling. And just because 3D is mostly lame right now does not
>
> mean that it will never improve.
>
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:52 PM, David Dodson wrote:
>
>
>
>> if it's not noticed then why do it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/
>
>
>
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
>
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
>
>
> Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
>
> Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No comments:
Post a Comment