From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Mar 05 2006 - 12:57:47 PST
> I think it would be a shame to lose people who make
> interesting work just
> because of the loss of film as a medium, but to each
> his own. However, it
I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
> does strike me as a bit strange only because it is
> obvious that eventually
> digital formats will equal or exceed film formats in
> terms of resolution and
> dynamic range. I mean, I can understand nostalgia
But those aren't the only reasons that people like
film! They might even be some of the least important
reasons why people like film. Dynamic range is great
of course, resolution is I'm sure, not as big of a
deal as so many people seem to make out. I think it is
mostly die hard video fans that are obssessed with
> for nostalgia's sake, but
> at least for me, it's the art that matters, not the
> technology; everyone has
but film *is* about the art and not the technology,
that is the thing!
> their own locus of nostalgia, It does remind me a
> bit of the old story about
> the passenger railroad industry and why they refused
> to get into air travel
> and thus disappeared: they thought they were in the
> railroad business when in
> fact they were in the transportation business.
However to be fair, obviously the loss of rail travel
and the growth in air travel have generally been bad
things in some ways. This is all economics tho.
Art is not always about econmomics, and in the case of
artists making experimental films, it obviously isn't
at all. If people want to make films and don't want to
make video, then that is up to them isn't it. It's no
> Everyone is free to make their own choices, of
> course, but I really encourage
> people to really check into what is possible now.
Well theres all kinds of things possible now, with
film too as well as in video.
> a major reason I believe
> that video projection is becoming a viable
It's been a viable alternative for ages. Some people
make films for projection on video projectors, some
people make film prints for projection on video
projectors. *shrug* I'm don't see what the problem is.
> Going over other technical measures, many high-end
> HD cameras already exceed
> the signal-to-noise ratio and effective resolution
> of 16mm, and even match it
> in dynamic range --- the one area where film still
> tends to do better is
> extremely low light, but a very high signal to noise
> ratio HD camera can do
> very well in low light given some gain boost.
People don't neccesarily just watch films for a really
good signal to noise ratio, or listen to music for the
same reason (tho sometimes I wonder).
> Of course, I don't have an inherent bias against
> digital, I don't have a
> romantic attachment to film. To those who do, fine,
> obviously no one can
> force you to try something different. My opinion,
> however, is that
> everything changes, and not always for the worse,
Well yes some things change, some things stay the
same. Things happen etc.
> and I for one am more
> interested in what people do with what is available
> to them.
Well yeah but you make it sounds like video is what is
available to them, when film is also available and
people will do things with what is available to them,
so it isn't really a problem.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.