From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com
Definitely good points. However, don't forget that any film stock can
now be emulated, given good enough digital source material.
No it cannot, not remotely. I work in post, and have done for some time, with
both film and digital source and
: Alistair Stray alistair.st...@yahoo.com
To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011, 9:40
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com
Definitely good points. However, don't forget
This also is a fallacy. Film is a choice more than ever today. 20
years ago it was an obvious choice but today it is a choice with a
committment attached - an esthetic, political, poetic or personal
committment.
More and more young students are getting interested in working with
super-8 for
Aaron- I know this is a few months late, my apologies on the tardiness, but
I'd like to address what this thread was originally about...
my problem with your original post is not that film will eventually stop
being produced (this may or may not happen, and Forbes should certainly not
be our
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
always make a film. No?
Tim
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:17:20 -0700
From: dcinema2...@yahoo.com
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
I guess you could always make film?
Matt
http://www.youtube.com/user/oscarthepug1234
http
, October 7, 2011 10:03 AM
Subject: RE: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
Interesting little videos, but what do they have to do with making film?
When I saw your message I thought I was going to be linked to something about
actually hand producing film stocks. Does anyone know of anybody
It's OK, I always wear a flame-retardant vest while on the Internet. ;)
BTW, as I said before, I'm not a hater. I just think critically about
technology. Cases in point: I don't have a smartphone. I still have
my collection of vinyl records. And I'm still using the same email
program, Eudora,
...@digitalartsguild.com
To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@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
frameworks@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
I'm sorry, is there something wrong with playing the fiddle while Rome
burns? You've got your fire-resistant vest and you're happy. Some people are
choosing similar options and others are choosing to keep fiddling. We like
the warmth, but its awfully hard to finish our tunes when you keep aiming
Discussion List frameworks@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
] Forbes editorial about Kodak
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2011, 1:12 PM
I'm sorry, is there something wrong with playing the fiddle while Rome
burns? You've got your fire-resistant vest and you're happy. Some people are
choosing similar options and others
Aaron talks about Constructive criticism This is not Mrs. Hendersonn 6th
grade home room, paly.
Do not come in here with a knife clenched in your teeth and expect to be
treated with silk gloves.
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
History
University of Oklahoma
From: Francisco Torres fjtorre...@gmail.com
To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
Aaron talks about
Having, somewhat regrettably, dropped what was probably the first Frameworks
f-bomb directed at Aaron F. Ross last June, I am nevertheless (hypocritically,
I'll admit) disheartened by the devolution of this thread in schoolyard ad
hominem cursing. I think it's time to just stop feeding the
The FU was pretty weak in my mind. What was worse was slamming someones art
work because you don't agree with their statements on technology changes etc...
How are we to create community where people feel safe to have heated
discussions if we get abusive. If we want more people to contribute
The fact that people have been wrongly declaring film dead for so long doesn't
make it immortal.
What the filmados here are missing in their stampede to denounce Aaron is that
film's possibilities in 1890, or in 1960, were much more open than the
possibilities now. Film cracked open the world
mediums have their place and role to artists.
- Stray.
From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 1:41
Subject: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
http://www.forbes.com/sites
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
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
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
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
While Koda's financial struggles are interesting on many levels, and
certainly having some affect on this group.
Please G-d, No more Film Versus Video (Electronic Capture) because really:
WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ANYONE ELSE IF SOMEONE CHOOSES TO USE FILM OR
OTHER MEDIA TO CREATE THEIR WORK?
...@digitalartsguild.com
To: frameworks@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/
Once
PM
To: 'Experimental Film Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
I seen your vimeo page
Pretty bad.
-Original Message-
From: frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com
[mailto:frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com] On Behalf Of Aaron F. Ross
Sent
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Mike Maryniuk WFG
m...@winnipegfilmgroup.com wrote:
I seen your vimeo page
Pretty bad.
About that Vimeo page...
But that been the problem with most of the Digital artists since the 80s.
They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. Like those guys I
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
Go fuck yourself.
Silly old film is going to be around long after your obsolete digital
files have disappeared into the 'cloud.' Wherever that is.
The article is also filled with tons of errors. Kodak invented much of
digital photography, which is why its patents are so valuable. Kodak
Trollolololol
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 3, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote:
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
+1
From: carli...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:16:32 -0400
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
Go fuck yourself.
Silly old film is going to be around long after your obsolete digital files
have disappeared into the 'cloud
30 matches
Mail list logo
