I found Aaron's post to be very succinct, and brought up some good points. And a hearty 'fuck yourself' a fine follow-up to get the rowdy discussion going.
To me, Aaron's post highlighted the focus on debating image quality in the capture process of film and video, but seldom to I hear discussion about the consistent quality image projection. From my experience, this is where video is inconsistent and lacking, and where film projection truly *shines*. I never experience eye fatigue watching film projected, and I hope that film persists as a medium, or that more attention is paid to developing affordable, high quality consumer video projection systems. The faint glow of the LCD projectors in the 1K-3K range just don't cut it - at all. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David Tetzlaff <djte...@gmail.com> wrote: > What's important about the Forbes piece is not the precise details (Kodak > Park may not be shuttered, but it was more or less a ghost town as of 5 or 6 > years ago), but the fact that a major business publication is looking at > Kodak's stock collapse as a sign of 'the end.' Forbes is not going to print > anything like that if Kodak has real chance of pulling out of it's tailspin. > > There's really nothing new here... The questions remain: > > - What will happen to Kodak's motion picture stock business? > > - If Kodak's film unit is just shut-down, rather then sold etc., what > limitations will be imposed by whatever appears in it's place to provide > small gauge filmmakers with material (SOMETHING will, but what?) > > Strangely, for Frameworks, Aaron Ross seems to view things from the > standpoint of the mainstream entertainment media biz, and from that > perspective, he's no doubt correct. 35mm will hold on for a number of years, > mainly because small theaters cannot afford the capital outlay to go to > digital projection. But once that obstacle gets overcome, the 'movie biz' > will be essentially all-digital. > > I don't go out to 'the movies' much any more, but I did go see 'Drive' last > night. The multiplex seems to have converted all or almost all of it's > screens to DLP. I have been going to this theater over the course of 10 or 11 > years now, and had many poor-quality viewing experiences there: films out of > focus; uneven focal planes; multitudes of bad audio issues... 35mm > projection is pretty complicated technology, and requires people who know > what they're doing to be presented properly. And as we all know, the > exhibitors cast aside professional projectionists long ago, leaving their > multiple screens on some kind of automation system under the supervision of a > single minimum-wage teen-age employee who had no idea how to handle any kind > of problems, which happened pretty regularly... > > I realized last night that digital fixes all that. No mechanical issues. No > film to handle. No analog audio path to get messed up with ground loops. No > deterioration of the print. The corporations have what they want now: > dutiful machines do all the real work, and a minimal staff of disposable > low-wage workers is all that's required to run the show. > > For the average moviegoer, this is an improvement. However 'cold' or 'dead' > or whatever digital projection may seem to some in comparison to film, most > people aren't going to care, and at the retail end out in the suburbs and > towns it's going to work a lot better and more reliably. > > Me, I'd MUCH rather watch a nice print projected properly (but then, I like > real newspapers, magazines, books... you know, on paper...), but, really, > over the years it's been like a 50/50 proposition at best that that's what > you'll get for your $10. > > 'Product' continues to be separated not just from 'art' but from human craft > more generally. This should not come as a surprise. (For a good account of > this process as history and concept, read Harry Braverman's 'Labor and > Monopoly Capital'. Don't be scared by the title or cover, which evoke fears > of thick academic jargon and proclamations of doctrinaire Marxist cant. It's > actually an engaging read, and the politics aren't shouty at all...) > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > -- "Perfectly white cats with blue eyes are always, or almost always, deaf." -Engels _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks