There is also the broader idea, that of an innate dislike of the older technology, no matter what. ("I do not want to look at that. It is not up-to-date, it is not the latest thing. I am up-to-date, I deserve better.") Once the talkies got going, silent films were shunned and ridiculed; at a certain point mainstream movies simply could not be black-and-white, they had to be color. Years pass and there is more acceptance of "the way things were back then," but around the time of the shift the culture tends to push the old thing away as it embraces the new.
Personally, I've always been years behind, scooping up second hand technology and enjoying its relatively low cost. I think this is true of many people throughout the history of experimental film.
It's another topic altogether, but what continues to amaze me is the cultural tolerance for motion pictures RUN AT THE WRONG SPEED. All kinds of documentaries run any kind of silent footage TOO FAST - did you know that in the early 19th century people walked down the street really really fast all the time? The proof is on the screen, often, and to me it always looks like lazy sloppy filmmaking. It is a convention based in some part on the phenomenon described above, and around the time when film speed changed from 18fps to 24fps this would have been somewhat understandable. But in this day and age when material can be easily run at any speed, why don't people use the material at something that looks like NATURAL SPEED? If you were adding a soundtrack in post-production and using records, and someone played the 33rpm record at 45rpm, wouldn't that mistake be noticed and corrected? Why don't fps get the same respect?
- Tom
From: frameworks-bounces_at_jonasmekasfilms.com [mailto:frameworks-bounces_at_jonasmekasfilms.com] On Behalf Of T. Siddle
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:19 AM
To: Experimental Film Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] 16:9 vs 4:3
My guess would be that they have gotten used to watching video on monitors/tvs that are 16:9 and that they dislike 4:3 because it either doesn't fit the screen (when watched in full screen mode) or has to be warped/cut to fit. They also likely associate 4:3 with older, lower resolution video.
- Ts.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Timmins <on-one-2_at_hotmail.com<mailto:on-one-2_at_hotmail.com>> wrote:
I'm making a video for a uk bike trials video and put up a poll for the public to decide what ratio they want their video filming in. The youth of today hates 4:3! Really hates it for no reason. That is they say things like "4:3 is aweful" but with no explanation as to why? What's going on here?
Kev
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com<mailto:FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Received on Thu Oct 20 2011 - 10:21:00 CDT
