From: David Tetzlaff (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2010 - 09:46:06 PST
> As time goes by it is going to be more diffucult to explain the difference between fim and digital to most people.
In part this is because neither 'film' or 'digital' are one thing, and as time goes by new digital technologies get father away from old NTSC video and closer to 'film'. My larger point is that, for any kind of work and any kind of teaching, we need to look at the _specific_ technology, what it enables, what it limits, what it costs - and either choose technology that fits the work, or choose forms of work that fit the available technology.
The paradigmatic example of this is that Super8 is not dead. It has a small but devoted niche market because it creates unique aesthetic effects, and offers a kind of shooting that fit certain purposes. !6mm is moving in that direction. It is now an impractical medium for most of the things it used to be used for. Many sub-genres of experimental work, though, are an exception. The texture of 16mm stocks, the physical manipulations it enables, and the entirely different frame of mind you have to have with a 100'ft load of film in a noisy wind-up camera vs. 32 GB of flash memory in a DSLR all have their benefits, but these point in a limited set of directions. For those that want to go with those flows, awesome! But there's no point in swimming against those currents, when there are other more effective paths to get you where you want to go.
FrameWorks mailing list