infobong.com

We screened Sadie Benning's short video "Girl Power" tonight in the film screen theory class I TA this semester. We're doing a week on TV, comparing ideas about the television form to film. For the screening, Janet put together a slate of experimental and art videos, including "Girl Power."

Before the screening, Janet warned the class that Benning's video would look strange because of the low-res PXL-2000 camera used to shoot the film. She was unsure about the technology, and I suddenly geeked out on the camera's technology. In 1987 when Fisher-Price released the camera, I was 12, going on 13, which was probably the sweet spot for the PXL-2000's market. I desperately wanted one, even though I knew my parents would never shell out $100 for something like a video camera.

When we watched the movie, it didn't seem strange at all. It reminded me of watching video off the Web, except I think I prefer the clarity of the pixels to the anti-aliased schmutz layered on to most lo-res video. I wondered if Janet's disclaimer was necessary, although it did have the effect of making me wonder if the dropouts on some of the videos was intentional or merely evidence of an old videotape. It seems like undergrads would also be accustomed to watching lo-res pixelated videos on the net, and the effect wouldn't seem so shocking.

After the screening, I checked a few RSS feeds on my laptop, and noticed that Chuck posted an entry on Benning and the PXL-2000 today In particular, he points to a Web page that outlines some of technical specs of the camera in detail. I think it's totally fascinating, The camera has a frame rate is only 15 frames per second, half of the NTSC television frame rate. (I suspect that the frame rate is actually half of 29.97, rather than a true 15fps) Like the pixelation, this was an engineering choice that allows the camera to record on a standard audio cassette. Other choices were presumably to keep the cost down, but interestingly nonetheless. The camera has a pinhole lens, which give the camera "amazing depth of field," according to the author. I'm not sure how important deep focus is for a camera that "represents the real" with giant pixels, but I imagine this is another quirk its fans enjoy.

The technology of the camera is also interesting in a way that relates to the class. Much of the work we read this week dealt with how television is different from film technically and how it might produce a different aesthetic. Since Pixelvision has half the frame rate - 15fps is nearly the minimum required to create the effect of motion - is Pixelvision distinct enough technologically that it doesn't belong in the category of television or "video"? Does watching something on a TV screen make it television? We watched "Girl Power" on a large screen with a fancy digital projection system. Does the PSL-2000 suggest the same intimacy as Super 8 home movies or does the unfamiliarity of the retro-tech distance the viewer?

I'm going to be leading the class discussion on Friday, and the students are a little reluctant to talk. If things get slow, I think I might do a little presentation on the PXL-2000's technology to explain the video a little more and perhaps the students will want to talk about the issues that I raise. Next week is our week on "new media," and, if nothing else, this will provide a lead-in for talking about an even more diverse range of technologies and practices.