From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Jul 23 2010 - 10:54:59 PDT
Thanks, Fred.
I'll postpone (maybe for years, thankfully) the "video light" issue
because again it's a moving target (I am personally excited about
possiblities of OLED, (at least I wouldn't have to duck the "it's not
organic" missives; I mean we would have a true black etc)
My pointed replies to Doug were not primarily to get into a scientific
debate (with the sheer number of assertions he made, that could take
me way more time than I have to reply point by point); rather I was
making a kind of rhetorical reply --- to show that for for every
assertion (generalized) "Film & Digital (video, electronic whatever
you wan to say) are really different" I could come up with a
verifiable, accurate reply that "Film and Digital (etc) a really
similar"
Setting aside my belief that there is NO catchall phrase appropriate
for "non-film" these increasingly useless terms "video" even "high
definition" I do think there is heuristic value in some of these
debates, if only in the sense that the emerghence of video, digital
etc *into the realms once exclusively occupied by film have (stolen
from Haroun Farocki of all people)
"revealed film" i.e. it's competitor so to speak has forced formal
(and I would say scientific)
consideration of very very specific film properties that had
previously been the staus quo.
I think this investigation has 'benefitted both parties' so to speak
but also truly upset what had formerly seemed the Received Truth of
Film.
-Sam
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks