I'm afraid this talk is degenerating into the usual film vs video debate.
We have already established that the two technologies are different
animals - they do not simply look different - they ARE different.
They provide different phenomenological experiences. They are not
interchangeable.
Fred's original question was specifically asking what aspects of our
work depend on celluloid.
For me there is no specific one aspect that depends on celluloid, but
I have accumulated expertise and equipment in that way of working. If
I look around my room now, what do I see? A Bolex. Super-8 cameras.
1.5 liter bottles of E6 chemistry. Scissors and tape. Projectors,
etc. Stuff that I have had for decades and that still work, state of
the art, and stuff that is cheap and getting cheaper. I could never
afford (in money or time) to start equipping myself with a new
technology and training my eye and hand to use it. The stuff right
here in my room is fine. All the images I have made since I was six
years old are here too, and in that format. That's it. I will
continue living my life, and filming it, with these tools, thanks
very much. I don't do it for anyone but myself anyway. If it weren't
for the stupid world outside the window, I would never know that this
stuff is old or obsolete - they're just my tools. Are hammers and
nails old and obsolete? I think I once wrote on this topic: bicycles
and forks are old too, but they still work fine for me.
A good high-def image? it's a lossy translation, and very expensive
to achieve. I'd rather just lug over an Eiki and project it my way.
A poet needs only a pencil. The expression comes from within.
I'm sure it's just entropy or laziness on my part, but rather than
get excited about video, I think I'll just play the guitar.
-Pip
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Received on Mon Aug 22 2011 - 18:25:18 CDT
