From: 40 Frames (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Dec 16 2010 - 12:30:28 PST
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Sam Wells <email suppressed> wrote:
> Well I was hoping we'd avoid THAT barfight again; this isn't really a
> film v digital argument per se in the sense that David responded...
> But really Alain, tying digital motion pictures to television makes no
> more sense than binding pure film to Hollywood,Bollywood, or narrative
> arcs.... well maybe that's what youstart to say but why would that in
> itself make you "hate video / digital filmmaking " ? You make the
> association you seem to have rejected in the previous sentence !!
Sam, I think you are confusing my words/comments with that of someone else
posting in the thread. I said nothing about TV. That was (address suppressed)
My comment was about Aaton's ad in the mid-1990s (HD16).
> (and as far as I'm concerned, the further 'digital filmmaking goes
> from video the better)
> I should keep quiet,now, but I like working in digital as much as I
> ever did with film, like any passion it has its frustrations, so does
> celluloid, but really it's a young medium, it'll get where it needs to
> be but that will happen more by engaging it...
> > Because of TV, digital to these guys always seems to mean "following a
> > narrative arc," as if that's the extent of the medium's possibilities.
> > one more reason why I hate video-- Oops sorry, I mean "digital
> > BTW, what does a "digital counterpart" look like-- do they get all broken
> > when they stop making sense?
> > Film is probably now better placed in the art department
> Art Departments never were that friendly were they ? Maybe that will
> change (cd be for the better..)
> >. And it has something to do
> > with Facebook etc.
> Huh ?????
> So is Penelope weaning or unweaving ? ;-)
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
-- 40 FRAMES Alain LeTourneau Pam Minty 40 FRAMES Attention: Pam Minty PO Box 15207 Portland, OR 97293 USA +1 503 231 6548 40frames.org 16mmdirectory.org
FrameWorks mailing list