DMS419

Response 5

Manovich writes, “Digital cinema is a particular case of animation that uses live action footage as one of its many elements.” I completely agree with this statement. In recent years, our use of special effects has become extremely profound. One can look at movies such as the three new Star Wars films and see clear evidence of how live action is only becoming a small part of film. Additionally, digital cinema contains things such as computer generated 3D animation, and things such as this can be used almost solely in a film. We can look at works such as Toy Story and see this in full effect. So the question I would like to counter with is ‘Is classic cinema obsolete?’ and will all films eventually be some form of digital art. One can look at a movie like Beowulf and already see evidence of this.

Lionel Ray Response 5

In response to the first idea, “Digital cinema is a particular case of animation that uses live action footage as one of it’s many elements” I initialy thought that this was a broad statement, because all live footage is animation. But in reading the summarization Manovich does over a few times I realized that there is sort of a funneling of definition going on. He seems to build this definition off of principles he creates, of live action footage being only raw material. I agree but I don’t think he goes far enough to separate them. I think it could have just been left at live action footage being raw material of any kind, literal celluloid or digital tape. Digital cinema for me is the stage that all of these forms end up at for effects, editing or distribution(DVD, web stream, youtube, etc). I would agree that animation re-emerged as the foundation for the USE of digital cinema, but I guess in my mind digital cinema is as i said, more a state in which different forms of cinema pass through. I guess its hard to stuff into categories since footage is still images animated, as is animation, as is digital cinema, its just that film and animation can be perpetuated entirely without touching a digital state, where digital cinema is video. In response to the third topic, the loop being used as a narritive engine, I was really interested. I feel like after reading and being reminded of how the loop is used for animation in cartoons, I almost wonder if there is a home for loops in the idea of film, be it the re-use of footage to perpetuate action in a story, which in one form we use as tropes on occasion, or as some device re looping film footage through a projector. I think that using “looped” footage to re visit actions in filmic space could provide an interesting experience if explored. the idea of repeated character actions being re-used footage as they are in cartoons seems like it may find its place in telling a story if used properly.

Lionel Ray

When referring to digital cinema, the live-action footage part of it is just a starting a point that will be manipulated and changed with the help of digital effects and the outcome will be an entirely different product than the original. So I do agree with Manovich’s statement because in a way digital cinema contains characteristics of animation. If you look at a film such as the Incredible Hulk where original footage of an actor is manipulated and made to have that actor transform into a gigantic mutant, this reminds us of animation, as animation has no boundaries.

The loop is a basic instance of repition. In regards to the loop serving as a narrative form, it is a possibility as the loop does have a start and finish point. When applying this concept to the computer age, we see that loops are very common within the online world as they are used within websites as well as computer games and within animation. I consider the loop a popular symbol within internet culture as even simple gif animations are displayed on many popular websites.

Spatial montage is an expanded version of temporal montage which can be considered the traditional form of montage that goes in sequence, showing images one by one that relate in some way. Spatial montage breaks the boundaries by using multiple images within on shot. Manovich mentions “the logic of replacement, characteristic of cinema, gives way to the logic of addition and coexistence”. What he means by this is that by breaking the traditional boundaries of montage, we have the ability to give new meaning to it. Regarding the example of “My boyfriend came back from war!” by Olga Lialina, the splitting of windows within a screen allows the user to manipulate the interpretation of the piece, thus making the piece non-linear and giving it multiple narratives based on the actions of the user.

Manovich discusses further in this chapter many points of how a lot of the film industry is now turning to 3D rendered assets and scenes to be chroma-keyed into their movies instead of trying to use live action or stock footage. “Rather than filming Physical reality, it is now possible to generate film like scenes directly on a computer with the help of 3-D computer animation.  As a result, live-action footage is displaced from its role as the only possible material from which a film can be constructed.”  Now I can’t really tell if this transition sits well with Manovich or not from his contrasting views.  For me I know I’m on the fence about it being that as a 3-D artist you want to strive for as much realism as possible and photo-realistic look and with that being said you can’t replace something that is real with a fake and not have it look odd.  I feel that the computer aspect should only be turned to in film for something that is unobtainable in current situation or its just a more feasible realistic option for a special effect or location.  The idea though, is not to over do it (Michael Bay) and not entirely rely on the effects to carry your piece.

As the use of live footage may be dwindling, the cinematic techniques still remain are in use in the new mediums.  With the emergence of video games and other virtual narratives they continue to use the same camera and visual techniques to display to the use a realistic vision of the virtual world they are exploring.

Written Response 5
Inter. Digital Arts – DMS 419
Adekambi Laleye
Al Larsen

              When Manovich writes, “Digital cinema is a particular case of animation that uses live-action footage as one of its many elements.” (Page 302) I believe he means that digital cinema is animation and animation is digital cinema, and here’s why. Digital cinema is a group of pictures electronically moved across a screen, and when you think about it animation is also a group of pictures moved a across a screen just in a different format. When creating an animation you can draw one frame at a time, or you can also take a picture with a camera one frame at a time. And in post production you add them together creating a film of animation. When shooting a film your camera is taking a picture one frame at a time and is putting it together for you on a roll of film. When you break it down there is almost no difference between the two. In digital cinema the camera is just doing one of the steps for you. 

               I’ve worked on an animation project. I used many different techniques that I have learned to create it. On part was the sun setting. Being able to control the speed of movement is one of the reasons I love animation. Also another part was a person staking on a frozen lake. This took a large amount of time drawing each frame by hand then taking pictures of each the putting them together in the computer. It’s one of thoughts things that the more time you take on the project the higher chance you have of having a great work of art. What I believe Manovich is trying to say is that the life we live in is animation, and that everything has come from animation with the way we view cinema.

Manovich talks about digital cinema in chapter 6. What exactly is cinema? Cinema is motion pictures. Manovich writes, “Digital cinema is a particular case of animation that uses live-action footage as one of its many elements.” (page 302) What Manovich means by this is that Animation of images gave birth to cinema. Animation is cinema is very similar. Digital cinema is just one form of animation which intells live footage. Other forms of animation would involve clay animation, direct cameraless, rotoscope, computer animation, etc. Animation can take more than one form and shape of many elements. Yes i agree with this statement. There are many aspects and ideas to the word cinema. Cinema is a very broad topic and not all forms of cinema are the same. Thats why I feel you can consider digital cinema as an particular case of animation.

When Manovich states that “Digital cinema is a particular case of animation that uses live-action footage as one of it’s many elements” (P. 302) I feel that he is referring to the ability to manipulate the images much easier than you would be able to with film.  In digital cinema you can always add a number of filters, animations, special effects, texts, or any other things to the media in the post-production stages by combining those with live video.  Today, in the digital age it is especially easy to manipulate cinema in all of these ways with the availability of media editing software which will allow you to do just that.  Manovich also writes that “special effects have become the norm in digital filmmaking” (p. 302).  This is completely understandable due to the fact that almost every piece that comes out,  specifically in main stream media, is heavily relied upon the digital manipulation of the images or sounds.
I would completely agree with this statement.  Film seems, for the most part to be such a “final” medium once the footage is shot and the film is developed.  With digital cinema it is possible to continuously add or remove effects as one pleases, and also very possible to come up with a completely new work using one that was already existing by adding any number of digital effects to the piece.  The simplicity with which somebody can now manipulate this media led to a whole “new” area of art and cinema where these manipulations and animations are what is to be observed and thought about within the piece.

Manovich writes, “Digital cinema is a particular case of animation that uses live action footage as one of its many elements.”

Live action footage is now only raw material to be manipulated by hand: animated, combined with 3-D computer generated scenes and painted over. The final images are constructed manually from different elements; and all the elements are either created entirely from scratch or modified by hand.(page 302)

Digital film = live action material + painting + image processing + compositing + 2-D computer animation + 3-D computer animation(page 302)

I almost agree with this statement. but here is my question.

As the movie “Beowulf” used digital animation form. When I was watching the movie, characters in the movie seemed to real. Their eyes moving, expression, and moving were so natural. I thought production company did good job. When i research about the movie’s production notes, I found out that they took shot of live action from real actors with motion senser(it is not just motion capture) , and they made it as a digital animation. Can I call this digital animation or digital cinema? Because it also contains live action as a digital cinema. Recently, many realism digital animations breaks the boundary between digital animations and digital cinemas. They mimic each other’s way. should it be placed in new category?

That is why I think his statement is not perfect answer.

by Elizabeth Nixon

I enjoyed this first part of Chapter 4 of Manovich’s The Language of New Media because of its discussion of illusion in ways I have never thought of.  I never thought of live action film of TV as an illusion, even though obviously it is, for there is not an actual person on the screen but just a representation of a person on a screen.  I’ve always just thought of an illusion as a clever slight of hand by a magician.  But, of course, in a broad sense an illusion is any representation that is made to look very much like the thing it is representing.  Manovich describes illustionistic images as something that “shares some feature with the represented, physical reality, shares some feature with human vision, and has percieved improvement.”  He brings up the example of movies gradually becoming more and more “realistic.”  At first they were silent, then there was sound and now there is color.  I think Manovich’s description of the illusion is very accurate.  One normally thinks of a film as ”live action” or “real people” as opposed to animation, but the images seen on the screen are merely the result of light percieved by the camera and recorded, so they are not real people; they just appear to be real- they are illusions. 

    As technologies develop there are more and more simulated realities with computer games, video games, virtual worlds, and more Manovich describes.  These simulations become more real with things like vibrating joysticks or even something simple like 3D glasses.

By Elizabeth Nixon

  Manovich discusses in Chapter 3 of The Language of New Media artwork, its reproduction, its aura, and its distance from the observer.  He refers to Walter Benjamin’s article, “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.”  Having read this article, this discussion of the aura sticks out to me in this reading.  Manovich describes Benjamin’s idea of aura as “the unique presence of a work of art, a historical or natural object.”  This makes me think of hugely well-known pieces of art such as the Mona Lisa.  Everyone has seen a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, but only some have seen the actual painting.  It has been reproduced on to websites, books, movies, posters, book marks, coffee mugs, tee-shirts, and numerous other media.  So, what is the difference between these reproductions and the actual Mona Lisa, the very painting Leanardo DaVinci touched with his paint brush, if they all look the same?  Why is seeing the Mona Lisa on a tee-shirt not as cool as seeing the real thing? According to the book it is its aura.  The painting stands in a “physically remote location” but this aura can transcend space and reach people all around the world with its beauty; a reproduction cannot do that. 

    Manovich compares this to telecommunication, where images or information can be transmitted through space to people all over the world.  I agree with this idea of original masterpieces possessing some aura that reproductions lack.  Whether the work itself has an inherent value or aura, or it is because of the artist’s aura that the work has one, there is something much greater in the original than in the reproduction.