Re: [Frameworks] Article: The Last film camera

From: <>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:52:45 -0400 (EDT)

In a message dated 10/14/2011 5:11:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

It's so predictably ironic that the Salon article concludes with a
link to an illegal, badly transferred, horribly compressed YouTube
version of Mothlight. That's exactly what makes film purists angry
about digital, and frankly, I can't blame them.


Yeah. The guy is a little twirp, too-- he totally rips off Creative Cow's
article only to add an even more cynical spin. And what the hell does he
know anyway?-- his world-weary, condescending, oh-so-hip attitude is
ridiculously out of scale. He writes likes he's 75 years old.
a) Never trust a man with three names, and
b) Never trust anyone that young who has no hair. That haircut of his is
really awful-- so why the hell should we defer to him on anything? He knows
He's a typical "ought" a-hole who has no idea what he's talking about. His
typewriter analogy is stupid, and for anyone to claim that film is a goner
is like saying that because we have Photoshop we no longer need oil paints.
Mark my words: in 100 years people are going to be MUCH more interested in
celluloid prints than in any stupid and archaic digital compression scheme
of years gone by.
This fact alone will make today's film work even more valuable. All the
digital crap will have melted away-- thank God ! The artifact is king.

FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Sat Oct 15 2011 - 02:01:05 CDT