SsoouuunnddDDDD [like the doppler effect].

Chion makes a very interesting point when he discusses how sound in cinema is "primarily vococentric. This is especially imperative when we are discussing narrative films. When I read this, it seemed to me, blatantly obvious, however I was surprised to realize that I had never actually though about out prominent this trend is. Sound design in the cinema is primarily heard in relation to its "importance," which follows:

1. Speech

2. Sound Effects

3. Score

The soundtrack of a movie has the ability to help convey a certain tone/feeling or it can also be more ambiguous that is left up to interpretation. This more abstract sound, I compare to poetry.

I also found it really interesting when he got into the technical aspects of sound, and discussed speed of perception. He discussed how the ear is more "temporarily adept" while the eyes are more "spatially adept." This is really important, because it shows us that sound actually processes audiovisual messages faster than the eyes.

This is perhaps why a flub in the audio of a film is more noticeable than a flub in the visual. For most of us, I believe that our eyes are our most dominant sense, and that is perhaps why it is so fascinating to learn that our hearing processes things faster.

AAAAAAcousticsssssss.

Acoustic ecology is the study of how humans and animals alike are affected by the sounds that surround them. These studies can be research oriented, or these ideas can be developed by "deep listening."

This reminds me of Shannon's sound addiction that I learned about in intermediate experimental. We watched films without visuals, and even composed soundscapes from everyday noises. This exercise in "deep listening" helped me a lot more than I originally thought it would.

When we did these types of exercises, I realized how much I discount sound in my everyday life. We were able to build spectacular soundscapes from the most random of sounds and put them together in a way that was extremely stimulating. I think that this is the type of deep listening that the writer is talking about, and I don't think one can truly understand it until they really exercise their ears in the way my class did in intermediate experimental.

Wells Reading.

I really enjoyed the Wells reading, because to be honest, I have never though about many of the points that he brought up in the article. In this article, he describes how what he calls "orthodox animation" overshadows all other types of animation. He also looks the characteristics that make up this type of animation.

As children, most of us are introduced to animation at a very young age. This animation is almost always orthodox animation. As Wells states in the article, the most prominent company to produce this type of cell animation is Disney. It is a very realist type of animation that is based on many things, most specifically, narrative form and continuity. These types of animations are most commonly made by many different artists, and follow a story. They are most often animated after a soundtrack is made.

Another clear difference between experimental animation and orthodox animation is the role of the soundtrack. Orthodox animations have dialogue like in a narrative film, where as experimental animation often has a more musical soundtrack that must be interpreted by the viewer. Experimental animation is often more ambiguous, and it is left up to the viewer to interpret the film. It is also important to take note of the fact that in experimental animation, the soundtrack doesn't always correspond directly to the visual.

I think is is really important to take note of these differences in order to understand the difference between experimental animation and mainstream or orthodox animation. Where as orthodox animation is more like a novel, experimental animation is more like a poem. Experimental animation leaves it up to the viewer to take something from the film.

Cameraless filmmaking.

I am loving camera-less filmmaking! I am really glad that we get to explore so many different methods of camera-less filmmaking, because each is unique and something that I may want to work with further in the future.

I found myself really intrigued with the idea that we could print onto the film strip, so I played around with that this past week and am REALLY excited to see how that turned out. For anyone who may be having problems with this method (the ink not drying onto the film strip) I think I have come up with a solution. =^..^=

What I did, is take an acid-free glue stick, and put a solid coating on the emulsion side of the film. (This was after taping it to the paper and covering the sprocket holes). Then after a minute or two, it was dry and I ran it through the printer as we were directed. It worked GREAT, and dried quite fast...I'd say under 10 minutes. Bam.

I did one strip in color, and one in black and white. I'm hoping to paint the black and white one today in class, because it looks really bad ass...I'm sure that will take up the entire class, however because of how small it is...but I think it will give it a really fun look, so I am excited to see what comes of it.

The only thing that is kind-of a pain with camera-less filmmaking is that we have to wait soooo long to see our finished product. When I animate I like to preview what I have every hour or so to see the progress and futher manipulate something if you want to. With camera-less, we have to wait to see it projected, and if somethings a bit off, you can't just go and fix it like you could an animation made in photoshop or after effects...but perhaps that is the beauty in it.

Amazing Screen-capture.

Sweet Short. "Synesthesia."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnnGHgeyC0