From: jarrod whaley. (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Mar 04 2006 - 15:14:38 PST
Niche market, yes. But how large (or small) a niche would you like it to be?
I'm not saying that presenting on video would open things up to the
extent that experimental work will be playing at the neighborhood
multiplex. But a decent video transfer every now and then might allow
the work to reach viewers for whom such work is currently unknown and/or
completely inaccessible, but who might be very interested in seeing it.
Oh horror of horrors.
I just happen to find a great deal of disingenuousness in claims that
video transfers would somehow destroy the so-called "purity" of work
shot on film, where in many cases, very low-quality transfers already
exist and are widely distributed, often for free. If filmmakers are so
concerned with purity, then why all the hostility toward the very
mention of quality transfers (which would be supervised by the creators
of the works in question) when crappy transfers are already a fact of life?
I have yet to hear any argument against video presentation/exhibition
that does not rely upon emotional response and/or ad hominem attacks.
I'd just like to see a rational discussion. I'd also like to be able to
stop repeating my points (and those of others here) ad nauseam.
web designer. educator.
Sam Wells wrote:
>> Thus, commercially, the very existence of 16mm camera stock would
>> seem to depend exactly on the various forms of digital distribution
>> that get people in a snit here.
> To some extent that's true. And ?
> I don't see why that implies anything much about what to shoot on now,
> or even what to present on - for now.
> If we're talking about Formal / Experimental cinema we're talking
> about a "niche market" if 1956, 1976. 2006, 2016.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.