Difference between revisions of "Mutoscope"
(→Moving pictures vs Moving Images) |
(→Moving pictures vs Moving Images) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[[Image:Mutoscope in Steel.jpg|thumb|right|A later version of the mutoscope was encased in steel so that it could not be carried away, c. 1900 (Keim 11).]]The design of the mutoscope was motivated by both appropriation and avoidance. ____ Cassler and the American Mutoscope company aimed to enter the market of the peep-show style, moving-image viewing devices dominated by Edison's Kinetoscope, while simultaneously avoiding mechanical overlap with Edison's patents. "The Mutoscope was intended to compete with the Kinetoscope and the motion-picture camera to give the company independence from Edison’s control of the market...The use of 70mm unperforated film and an associated “Mutoscope” “flip-card” device was intended to be as different as possible in principle from Edison’s system of 35mm film with a double row of sprocket holes" (Brown and Anthony 9). Thus, the main features of the apparatus are best understood as a contrast with its competitor and predecessor. | [[Image:Mutoscope in Steel.jpg|thumb|right|A later version of the mutoscope was encased in steel so that it could not be carried away, c. 1900 (Keim 11).]]The design of the mutoscope was motivated by both appropriation and avoidance. ____ Cassler and the American Mutoscope company aimed to enter the market of the peep-show style, moving-image viewing devices dominated by Edison's Kinetoscope, while simultaneously avoiding mechanical overlap with Edison's patents. "The Mutoscope was intended to compete with the Kinetoscope and the motion-picture camera to give the company independence from Edison’s control of the market...The use of 70mm unperforated film and an associated “Mutoscope” “flip-card” device was intended to be as different as possible in principle from Edison’s system of 35mm film with a double row of sprocket holes" (Brown and Anthony 9). Thus, the main features of the apparatus are best understood as a contrast with its competitor and predecessor. | ||
===Moving pictures vs Moving Images=== | ===Moving pictures vs Moving Images=== | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
===Hand Crank vs Electric Motor=== | ===Hand Crank vs Electric Motor=== |
Revision as of 22:37, 28 March 2010
Contents
Technology
Moving pictures vs Moving Images
Hand Crank vs Electric Motor
Circularity vs Linearity
Spectatorship
Arcades: Viewing Alone, Together
“Early cinema audiences were often an unruly bunch, drawn to nickelodeons and Kinetoscope parlors through the lure of sensation alone. “(Dixon & Foster 11)
Scopic Pleasure: Erotic Viewing
References
Adair, Gilbert. Flickers : An Illustrated Celebration of 100 Years of Cinema. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1995. Print.
Brown, Richard. A Victorian Film Enterprise : The History of the British Mutoscope and Biograph Company, 1897-1915.Print.
Casler, Herman. Mutoscope. Patent 683,910. 8 Oct 1901. Web. 27 Mar 2010.
Dixon, Wheeler W. and Foster, Gwendolyn Audrey. A Short History of Film. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2008. Print.
Gunning, Tom. "Machines That Give Birth to Images: Douglas Crockwell." Lovers of Cinema: The First American Film Avant-Garde 1919-1945. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995. Print.
Herbert, Stephen. A History of Early Film Volume 1. New York: Routledge, 2000. Print.
The Illustrated History of the Cinema. Ed. Lloyd, Ann and Robinson, David. Orbis Book Publishing Corporation Ltd. and Macmillan Publishing Company., 1986. Print.
Kardish, Laurence. Real Plastic Magic: A History of Films and Filmmaking in America. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972. Print.
Keim, Norman O. with Marc, David. Our Movie Houses: A History of Film & Cinematic Innovation in Central New York. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2008. Print.