Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

From: D Dawson <>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 22:06:53 -0500

Okay, perhaps this might add a bit more perspective.

I doesn't matter how many stops video or film may have. It doesn't matter
how indistinguishable the two may "look" (I assume as a digital file on a
computer, or monitor not projected on their intended format in a theatre).

What we are looking at is essentially the same things that were said when
motion pictures started rivaling live theatre. Those in cinema said,
"theatre is dead, who wants to go pay for a live show, when you can see the
exact same show every night for a fraction of the cost!?"

Well, theatre didn't die. Sure it isn't as much a part of daily culture the
way it once was, but to argue that live performers and film are
"indistinguishable" from one another is pure folly.

If you get the analogy here, it doesn't matter how "close" the image CAN
look to the other, as Pip said, they just aren't the same. Even 3D
holograms on stage are not the "same", they are different.

Some people like live theatre better than movies, some the other. To say
they are the same - well I have difficulty believing anyone who argues that



On 10/8/11 6:22 PM, "Aaron F. Ross" <> wrote:

> Definitely good points. However, don't forget that any film stock can
now be
> emulated, given good enough digital source material. As I said
before, the
> moment that HDR sensors become affordable, then celluloid
will be irrelevant.
> If you start with 20 stops of latitude in a
32-bit floating point color
> space, you can push or pull it wherever
you want and the end result will be
> indistinguishable from footage
shot on the stock of your choice. --

> printing may not be obsolete, but optical printing effectively
is. A few
> diehards who love the medium will keep celluloid on life
support forever, but
> the handmade stocks I've seen (Impossible
Project) can't possibly compete
> with the quality offered by
deep-pocketed corporations. When it's no longer
> profitable for
corporations to make film stock, then artists will have to
> make their
own stock. And it won't be as good as it was in the golden age of
> celluloid. --

It *is* about artistry, and sentimentality. But the art depends
> in
large measure on the movements of global economic forces. --

Ten years
> ago I taught a university video production class. None of
the students back
> then had ever seen a piece of celluloid before.
Film had already effectively
> receded into a specialist medium. My
students were amazed that it was
> possible to hold the film up to the
light and actually see an image! They
> were even more shocked when I
showed them a Bolex and explained to them that
> it was over 30 years
old and had never been serviced despite fairly heavy
> use. A windup,
clockwork mechanism built to last puts disposable plastic and
> silicon
to shame! Truly a triumph of engineering. --

Mind you, although I
> don't shoot in film myself, I have collaborated
with a film artist and I have
> a great love of celluloid. I guess the
"silver lining" here is that film will
> inevitably be used for the
properties that are unique to that medium. There's
> a kind of purity
to that thought. --


At 10/8/2011, you
> wrote:
>Aaron- I know this is a few months late, my apologies on the
>tardiness, but I'd like to address what this thread was originally
> about...
>my problem with your original post is not that film will
> eventually
>stop being produced (this may or may not happen, and Forbes
> should
>certainly not be our proof - this issue is bigger than a "business
>model") it was that digital cameras have "surpassed" the quality of
> film stocks. The future of film will not be in its ability to
>provide more
> information, but rather in its antiquity, its glow, its
>physical and
> tangible characteristics, its craft, something that
>only celluloid can
> provide. When you claim the inevitable demise of
>film you sound like a best
> buy or radioshack salesman. As long as
>this list exists, as long as there
> are films being made outside of
>the "industry", celluloid will exist.
> like to provide a different example: screenprinting. Why has
>that not become
> obsolete? Can digital printers not produce the same
>"result"... and yet
> artists have found a way to encorporate the
>medium into contemporary
> printing practice.
>I am 22 years old, I was RAISED with digital and made
> the conscious
>decision to work with celluloid. I fully understand the
> technology,
>and for me, for the purposed of my art, I choose analog.
> is an issue of artistry not industry.
>On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at
> 1:42 PM, Melissa Parson
><<>> wrote:
> sore eyes,
> insults and negative facts about his art have nothing to do
> with
> his arguments or assertions. try to argue the points and resist
> your urge to lash out. critical analysis of art is important but
> that's not
> what this thread was about...
>>On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Melissa
>><<>> wrote:
> FU was pretty weak in my mind. What was worse was slamming
>>someones art
> work because you don't agree with their statements on
>>technology changes
> etc... How are we to create community where
>>people feel safe to have
> heated discussions if we get abusive. If
>>we want more people to contribute
> we must think about this. Anger
>>and passion are fine but being mean just
> ain't cool....
>>Sent from my Samsung Replenish
>>But I did take a
> look at his "Art". My eyes still sore. Pass the Visine,
>>Sent from my
> Gatorade
> Replenish
> mailing
> list
> >
> ________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing
> list
> ttps://
> ______________________________ FrameWorks mailing

> -------------------------

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts
> Guild

FrameWorks mailing
> list
> nfo/frameworks

FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Sat Oct 08 2011 - 20:07:02 CDT