The Members of AMIA, the prestigious Association of Moving Image Archivists, have been busily debating a technical video issue on their internal forums and in e-mails to one-another. The subject? A query posted by Dekel Hamatian, who is responsible for restoring the videos of the Rebbe. The subject matter refers to camera flashed in some newly restored videos of the Rebbe’s dollars, and comparisons Hamatian had been making for quality control.
Prestigious Archivists Debate Rebbe Footage
The Members of AMIA, the prestigious Association of Moving Image Archivists, have been busily debating a technical video issue on their internal forums and in e-mails to one-another. The subject? A query posted by Dekel Hamatian, who is responsible for restoring the videos of the Rebbe. The subject matter refers to camera flashed in some newly restored videos of the Rebbe’s dollars, and comparisons Hamatian had been making for quality control.
From the Living Archive, Flash of light
http://livingarchiveblog.com/journal/2010/3/23/flash-of-light.htmlDuring the past few weeks we began to check and compare the samples that we received from various vendors. Since we discovered many problems with the quality of the files during the first time around, the suppliers reproduced their samples one more time in an attempt to improve the end product.
As part of the process I made a comparison between the first round of samples and the second — and in so doing, found in one of the files an interesting phenomenon; you could see in the video that a photographer was taking pictures withof a flash. Strangely, this was only visible in one of the transfers, while in another the flash wasn’t visible. What makes this even more puzzling was the fact that as the recording went on, one would see the presence of the flash in different files, however, there was no uniformity in which file or which conversion this would be!
The two conversions that you see in the picture are samples recorded by the same vendor. For the moment, we are examining this phenomenon, and are trying to understand whether this has any effect on the quality of the sample, and whether we want to keep the effect of the original, in other words, keep the visibility of the flash, or go for a better quality output whose content would be a little different from the original.
Huh?
Say WHAT???????
Clarification...
Basically, I am assuming that you should go to the blog link and if you know the answer to the question, share it in the comment box in the blog.
Eli
A camera flash, is a very short burst of light which is typically visible in very few frames of a video. At 30 frames per second, if you remove one frame and replace it with a neighboring one, you won’t notice that you missed one thirtieth of a second worth of image data.
However, by doing this, the video has essentially been “photoshopped” and isn’t pure anymore.
They are debating whether they should do this to look professional, or leave in the flash and keep the vintage look.
I say keep the original content as it physically happened (the presence of a flash) and only clean up visible artifacts, image degradation, or color shifts.
What?
Say HUH?
Ish
Huge dilemma.I think this one requires a beis-din of 71.
In agreement
I agrre with Eli, keep it pure. (The writer of the querry writes in beautiful Tech jargon).
Yossi
Purity, religiosity, or authenticity does not have to equal uncomfortabllity.
The pictures aren’t changed, it’s only minus the flash, so make them as nice as they can be.
Rim Shot
The only one who might have a legitimate objection is Flash Photo.
American
ya nye panimayish Parusky