The demise of film is inevitable. Labs are shutting down, stocks are
being discontinued, Kodak itself is about to be placed on the
chopping block. These are facts. What is your action plan? Shall we
play the fiddle while Rome burns?
Aaron
At 10/5/2011, you wrote:
>So... you used an example of technology not quite there yet, and
>tech also still in the prototype stage. You may know what you're
>talking about but you're being a tad disingenuous about the current
>abilities of digital by using two not quite there yet examples of
>the technology. Saying 'these things are coming' is fine, but
>artists have to use whats there now. Some artists who want the look
>and abilities of film will never find that in the digital medium (my
>grandfather was an animator and experimental film maker who worked
>in 8mm and 16mm, he taught me a lot about film). As I said, I'm a
>digital artist, I make experimental films in the digital medium, and
>have done for over twenty years. I'm also a freelance compositor who
>uses Nuke, and a rigger and modeller who uses Maya (since version
>4.5). I Am well aware that you can create HDR images using multi
>bracketed exposures, but this is a film list containing film makers,
>who don't actually always want to make time lapse films. Plus as I
>said, you're missing the point here, more sensitivity/latitude being
>available in sensors is going to be more preferable (and good
>enough) for film makers than huge and unweildy HDR image sequences
>(such as the 14 stop range of the Arri Alexa, an incredible camera).
>
>On depth of field in post, yeah, but that technology is actually
>going to be more useful in making compositing elements with a 2D
>plate a lot easier (also it isn't going to be available for
>recording moving images for quite some time either). Digital is also
>not going to accurately recreate the bokeh of my 1966 Helios lens
>attached to my hacked digital Panasonic GH2 digital VDSLR either.
>Back to your losless argument, there you really don't seem to know
>what your talking about in general. Pretty much all digital
>procesess do create a generative loss upon the data, you may think
>thats a semantic argument, but if you were a compositor you would
>think very differently about it.
>
>Your list of experimental film essentials is quite short really. As
>a digital artist I understand my form and my work in terms of its
>place within the wider tradition of experimental film. For all 'the
>new' digital gives there are very few, if any tbh, experimental
>digital films out there that you can't trace back directly to
>experimental film (in terms of aesthetic, structure, the basic 'how
>it works'). This was also likewise true for video art. This isn't
>so true in digital audio, where entirely new forms of music have
>emerged that couldn't have done prior to the digital domain.
>Overstating digital and its future is not contributing to any
>discussion here, so stop doing it. Also, there are a few filmmakers
>here who use both film and digital sources in their work and make
>hybrid works, they know all about the digital domain (as do
>filmmakers here who don't work in it). Digital will replace film
>evangelism, or as you call it 'the coming apocalypse', is not a new
>discussion here either. I for one remember seeing such discussions
>here when I was first subscribed in the 1990s, and the bottom line
>for me is the discussion hasn't actually fundamentally moved on
>although the technology has. This could be because its pointless, as
>the people here are artists first, technicians later, and mostly not
>gear heads chasing the next new shiny or software paradigm. But
>everyone here knows whats happening in their form. You're not saving
>people, or informing them, noone here will be 'twisting in the wind'.
>
>- Stray.
>
>
>
>From: Aaron F. Ross <aaron_at_digitalartsguild.com>
>To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 20:40
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
>
>Regarding the allegation that my last post was technically inaccurate--
>
>Altering exposure in post with no loss in quality is possible High
>Dynamic Range imaging. This type of sensor captures the entire range
>of brightness values visible to the human eye-- much greater latitude
>than any conventional camera, analog or digital. Exposure can
>literally be set in post. HDR sensors are not affordable yet, but
>they will be in a few years. Meanwhile, HDR still photos can be
>constructed from multiple bracketed conventional exposures.
>
>As for depth of field in post, that is also coming soon to a digital
>camera near you. Light field cameras work by capturing not just the
>wavelength and intensity of light, but also its direction vectors.
>Images can be focused after they are shot with no loss in quality.
>
><http://www.lytro.com/>http://www.lytro.com/
>
>So actually, I do know what I'm talking about. I try to stay abreast
>of the latest technologies in image-making. Anyone who has a
>sentimental attachment to a particular technology is bound to be left
>twisting in the wind when technology inevitably changes. Likewise,
>anyone who buys into the myth of progress will find him or herself
>saddled with a lot of useless gadgets.
>
>Thinking critically about technology is a necessary condition for
>success in this postmodern world.
>
>Aaron
>
>
>
>At 10/4/2011, Alistair Stray
><<mailto:alistair.stray_at_yahoo.com>alistair.stray_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> >wow, speaking as a digital artist that is quite an uneducated and
> >illinformed post I've read arguing the benefits of the digital
> >medium over film.
> >
> >"where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in
> >*POST* with no loss of quality." Thats just bollocks isn't it ? Or
> >do you really believe that there is no loss of quality altering
> >exposure in post ? You're not very technically savvy in relation to
> >concepts such as dynamic range if you do. Do you also believe DOF
> >alterations in post accurately mirror the look of lenses ? Also,
> >building a Zdepth channel to perform DOF changes is hardly a simple,
> >and rarely a completely accurate, or indeed a fast procedure. Out of
> >interest are you also one of these people who use the term 'film
> >look' when talking about digital cameras, lenses etc ?
> >
> >As others have said Kodak were extremely important in driving a lot
> >of the changes towards digital.Also, artists choose their medium for
> >the aesthetics and the control they want among other things. Digital
> >does not look like or respond like film does, and vice versa (just
> >keep adding more stops of sensitivity to those sensors, HDR Sensors
> >? haha.. you're missing the point), both mediums have their place
> >and role to artists.
> >
> >- Stray.
> >
> >From: Aaron F. Ross
> <<mailto:aaron_at_digitalartsguild.com>aaron_at_digitalartsguild.com>
> >To: <mailto:frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> >Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 1:41
> >Subject: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
> >
> ><<http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as
> -kodak-crumbled/>http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crumbled/>http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crumbled/
> >
> >
> >Once again, the old guard clings to obsolete business models and is
> >ultimately swept away by inevitable shifts in technology. The party's
> >winding down, folks. CDs, newspapers, and now analog film are going
> >the way of the wax cylinder. The canary in the coal mine dropped dead
> >about ten years ago, now the roof is about to collapse.
> >
> >35mm motion picture film will still keep hanging on for a few more
> >years, despite the fact that high-end digital cameras have now
> >surpassed the imaging quality of most 35mm film stocks. Anyone who is
> >unwilling to adapt to digital imaging had better start hoarding film
> >stock in their walk-in freezers. The day that HDR sensors become
> >affordable is the day that analog film unequivocably becomes more
> >trouble than it's worth. Sprocket holes seem increasingly quaint in a
> >world where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in
> >*POST* with no loss of quality.
> >
> >I'm not a hater, I'm just pointing out a reality that may be painful
> >for many on this list. Don't look to Fuji to save you, they're
> >ultimately headed for the dumpster as well. Starting up another
> >Impossible Project is a noble idea, but from what I've seen, these
> >handmade stocks can't compete with the real deal.
> >
> >Aaron
> >-------------------------------------------
> >
> >Aaron F. Ross
> >Digital Arts Guild
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >FrameWorks mailing list
> ><mailto:FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com><mailto:FrameWorks_at_jonasmeka
> sfilms.com>FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> >https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing
> >list <mailto:FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> >https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>-------------------------------------------
>
>Aaron F. Ross
>Digital Arts Guild
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
><mailto:FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>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
-------------------------------------------
Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Received on Wed Oct 05 2011 - 09:48:57 CDT
