the starting point of your logic is all wrong.
It doesn't matter if digital looks like film or not.
It is NOT film.
The debate is not about what digital looks like, or about what film looks like.
It's about what they are.
The nature of the material.
Artists work with those qualities.
Sculptors choose to work in clay, plaster, bronze, stone...
Moving image artists choose to work in digital or analog video, 35mm
16mm or S8mm...
they choose for a reason: the nature of the material and what they
choose to express through it.
This to me seems irrefutable and essential.
Whether or not corporations survive is another debate.
Kodak is only one of several corporations making film, including
three in eastern europe.
If one stops, others will have more orders.
Cameras are still selling like hotcakes on ebay so there is a demand
for stock to feed those cameras.
But the arguments should have nothing to do with comparing how the
media look like each other or not.
That's really not the point.
At 16:22 -0700 8/10/11, 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. --
FrameWorks mailing list