From: Mitsu Hadeishi (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jul 02 2006 - 14:56:24 PDT
I wasn't suggesting that you were saying that, Sam. And I completely
understand why Dorsky refuses to transfer his films to DVD or any other
format other than the original Given what he is trying to accomplish, it
makes perfect sense.
I also agree (who would disagree?) that HD is inferior to film in terms of how
it captures light --- but it is far superior to "video" as it has been known,
and in the hands of experienced cinematographers the results can be quite
stunning. The inferiority of HD is also much more visible with 35mm than
with 16mm --- one can argue that the best HD cameras can get superior results
to a 16mm camera for certain applications, though a 16mm film camera retains
the advantage in exposure latitude right now. However, HD cameras inch
closer with every generation, and there are certainly going to be newer
generations of cameras at higher resolution than HD.
But my point is an extremely simple one --- people use the word "film" to
refer to "HD movies" quite naturally, without any cognitive dissonance. It's
Anna Biller wrote:
>You're the one conflating terms
As I keep saying, though it is true that I happen to fully support the use of
the term "film" to refer to, say, an HD movie (since one can easily qualify
the term if one needs additional clarity) --- my main point is that it is not
I who has decided to "conflate" these terms, but rather it is already a done
deal, the world and society have already spoken, the word "film" has been and
will continue to be used to describe work shot entirely on HD. Case in
point: "Filmmaker Magazine" put a picture of Miranda on the cover of their
Spring 2005 edition. They didn't feel the need to qualify it or write some
explanation "she's really a videomaker, but we've decided to make an
exception in her case..." There's no doubt in my mind that the use of the
word "film" to describe entirely digital productions will continue and only
accelerate with time.
On Sunday 02 July 2006 11:58, Sam Wells wrote:
> > Nevertheless as I've stated before I find
> > the attachment of some to the absolute exclusion of other formats a
> > bit
> > extreme. I've read Dorsky's book and I am very inspired by his
> > remarks, yet
> > I am also drawn to the artistic possibilities of digital production.
> Since I'm the one who cited Dorsky's book I hope you don't mean me
> because not once did I state an attachment to one format to the
> exclusion of others. Quite the opposite. Nor did I cite it to say
> anything about *film* uniquely.
> (It doesn't mean I think it doesn't matter what format you see a
> Nathaniel Dorsky film on, but that's not what I was talking about).
> Nor do I see anything wrong with an artist "attached" to one specific
> medium. Fine with me if Yo Yo Ma just plays cello and not Gigasampler.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.