Looking Through Video: The Psychology of Video and Film

In “Looking Through Video: The Psychology of Video and Film”, author John Belton describes the differences and similarities between film and video. He starts off comparing cinema to video and then moves on to discuss broadcast television. Technology is Belton’s main area of focus while he compares and contrasts film and video. As someone who is uneducated in the area of media, I found some of his comparisons to be very helpful in finding the differences between film and video. First, Belton shows the similarities and differences between cinema and video. These two are the same in that they share a similar sound recording technology. But, according to his facts, cinema comes from such media like photography, photochemistry, and the persistence of vision, while on the other hand, video evolves from the telegraph and the telephone. This is strong evidence of the differences because photography is completely different from the telegraph. Also, cinema is more mechanical and photochemical, quite contrary to video in which there is no photochemistry and has no moving parts. Belton points out very persuasive evidence to verify that video is not cinema. And, in my opinion, he does a convincing job of presenting it and has made me see the differences between the cinema and video. Next, broadcast television appears in the text. Television simply transmits programming almost instantly. However, in film, more time is placed between the filming and the actual showing or airing of what has been filmed. Also, television editing is different than film editing in that editing during broadcast television is done while recording. However, in film the editing is done after the fact and taping does not have to be in a sequence, but can be pieced together at the end. Therefore, television is obviously different than film, in regards to technology. Personally, I feel that Belton wrote a very informative article. Before reading the article I did not notice that there were any differences between these medias, but now I am able to see the differences between film and other medias such as broadcast television and cinema. However, his arguments are merely based on technology. This fact only makes me think of what the differences are that are non-technological, such as the difference between cinema and video. Belton states that “we tend to look at cinema through film”, but he does not elaborate on any explanation. And, with only little knowledge of their differences, this leaves me wondering one thing: how should we look at cinema, if not through film?