There is also the broader idea, that of an innate dislike of the older
technology, no matter what. ("I do not want to look at that. It is not
up-to-date, it is not the latest thing. I am up-to-date, I deserve better.")
Once the talkies got going, silent films were shunned and ridiculed; at a
certain point mainstream movies simply could not be black-and-white, they had
to be color. Years pass and there is more acceptance of "the way things were
back then," but around the time of the shift the culture tends to push the old
thing away as it embraces the new.
Personally, I've always been years behind, scooping up second hand technology
and enjoying its relatively low cost. I think this is true of many people
throughout the history of experimental film.
It's another topic altogether, but what continues to amaze me is the cultural
tolerance for motion pictures RUN AT THE WRONG SPEED. All kinds of
documentaries run any kind of silent footage TOO FAST - did you know that in
the early 19th century people walked down the street really really fast all the
time? The proof is on the screen, often, and to me it always looks like lazy
sloppy filmmaking. It is a convention based in some part on the phenomenon
described above, and around the time when film speed changed from 18fps to
24fps this would have been somewhat understandable. But in this day and age
when material can be easily run at any speed, why don't people use the material
at something that looks like NATURAL SPEED? If you were adding a soundtrack in
post-production and using records, and someone played the 33rpm record at
45rpm, wouldn't that mistake be noticed and corrected? Why don't fps get the
same respect?
- Tom
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of T. Siddle
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:19 AM
To: Experimental Film Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] 16:9 vs 4:3
My guess would be that they have gotten used to watching video on monitors/tvs
that are 16:9 and that they dislike 4:3 because it either doesn't fit the
screen (when watched in full screen mode) or has to be warped/cut to fit. They
also likely associate 4:3 with older, lower resolution video.
- Ts.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Timmins
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm making a video for a uk bike trials video and put up a poll for the public
to decide what ratio they want their video filming in. The youth of today hates
4:3! Really hates it for no reason. That is they say things like "4:3 is
aweful" but with no explanation as to why? What's going on here?
Kev
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
