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

Reply via email to