I have been looking at the horizons of the two dimensional still and moving image technology path and I’ve been trying to tease out what exactly would a perfect camera be able to give you.
So I guess I need to define what I mean by a camera.
I take a camera to be an instrument capable of recording light information that can then somehow be projected on a two dimensional surface that when seen by the human eye will resemble consciously the perspective of the instrument.
This being the case the reason why a Canon EOS 5D Mark II is more compelling than the Canon Powershot SX10IS is that it has the capability to record more information corresponding in a smoother and richer way with the actual full view of the object.
Here I think one should say that part of the power of this medium is it’s ability to grant one a structurally privileged view. Thus vast and rare views from all over the planet are available for people to hold in their hand. (I wonder why it is we can be amazed by the screen on a PSP, I-phone or Kindle and yet never strive to use the finer texture of a photograph or really to be amazed by their results. There is a hell of a lot more information in a page out of the national geographic than has ever has been on a screen the same size and yet magazine page is not nearly as compelling.
No. The point is that whatever the viewpoint the results must pop out of reality and that leads necessarily to its differentiation from reality. But is it in the expliotation (through the instrument) of ever finer details that renders these kind of images their magic pop?
It’s really kind of hard to know.