I don't work in film, I haven't done since�I was a kid, I'd already switched to analog video before I�switched to a completely digital workflow. Are you actually talking to me here ? If you read the last paragraph of mine you'll see everyone here already knows the score, and they know what they're dealing with, and�I'm pretty sure�they know how they plan to adapt.�What is the point of you being on this list exactly ? Seriously, what the fuck are you doing here ?��T
�
hese 'facts' of yours have not escapes anyone here. Are you just here to troll people using what is to you a dead medium ? Are you really that clueless about the history of the moving image ?
�
�
>________________________________
>From: Aaron F. Ross <aaron_at_digitalartsguild.com>
>To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 17:48
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
>
>The demise of film is inevitable. Labs are shutting down, stocks are
>being discontinued, Kodak itself is about to be placed on the
>chopping block. These are facts. What is your action plan? Shall we
>play the fiddle while Rome burns?
>
>Aaron
>
>
>
>
>At 10/5/2011, you wrote:
>>So... you used an example of technology not quite there yet, and
>>tech also still in the prototype stage. You may know what you're
>>talking about but you're being a tad disingenuous about the current
>>abilities of digital by using two not quite there yet examples of
>>the technology. Saying 'these things are coming' is fine, but
>>artists have to use whats there now. Some artists who want the look
>>and abilities of film will never find that in the digital medium (my
>>grandfather was an animator and experimental film maker who worked
>>in 8mm and 16mm, he taught me a lot about film). As I said, I'm a
>>digital artist, I make experimental films in the digital medium, and
>>have done for over twenty years. I'm also a freelance compositor who
>>uses Nuke, and a rigger and modeller who uses Maya (since version
>>4.5). I Am well aware that you can create HDR images using multi
>>bracketed exposures, but this is a film list containing film makers,
>>who don't actually always want to make time lapse films. Plus as I
>>said, you're missing the point here, more sensitivity/latitude being
>>available in sensors is going to be more preferable (and good
>>enough) for film makers than huge and unweildy HDR image sequences
>>(such as the 14 stop range of the Arri Alexa, an incredible camera).
>>
>>On depth of field in post, yeah, but that technology is actually
>>going to be more useful in making compositing elements with a 2D
>>plate a lot easier (also it isn't going to be available for
>>recording moving images for quite some time either). Digital is also
>>not going to accurately recreate the bokeh of my 1966 Helios lens
>>attached to my hacked digital Panasonic GH2 digital VDSLR either.
>>Back to your losless argument, there you really don't seem to know
>>what your talking about in general. Pretty much all digital
>>procesess do create a generative loss upon the data, you may think
>>thats a semantic argument, but if you were a compositor you would
>>think very differently about it.
>>
>>Your list of experimental film essentials is quite short really. As
>>a digital artist I understand my form and my work in terms of its
>>place within the wider tradition of experimental film. For all 'the
>>new' digital gives there are very few, if any tbh, experimental
>>digital films out there that you can't trace back directly to
>>experimental film (in terms of aesthetic, structure, the basic 'how
>>it works'). This was also likewise true for video art.� This isn't
>>so true in digital audio, where entirely new forms of music have
>>emerged that couldn't have done prior to the digital domain.
>>Overstating digital and its future is not contributing to any
>>discussion here, so stop doing it. Also, there are a few filmmakers
>>here who use both film and digital sources in their work and make
>>hybrid works, they know all about the digital domain (as do
>>filmmakers here who don't work in it). Digital will replace film
>>evangelism, or as you call it 'the coming apocalypse', is not a new
>>discussion here either. I for one remember seeing such discussions
>>here when I was first subscribed in the 1990s, and the bottom line
>>for me is the discussion hasn't actually fundamentally moved on
>>although the technology has. This could be because its pointless, as
>>the people here are artists first, technicians later, and mostly not
>>gear heads chasing the next new shiny or software paradigm. But
>>everyone here knows whats happening in their form. You're not saving
>>people, or informing them, noone here will be 'twisting in the wind'.
>>
>>- Stray.
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Aaron F. Ross <aaron@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 in quality is possible High
>>Dynamic Range imaging. This type of sensor captures the entire range
>>of brightness values visible to the human eye-- much greater latitude
>>than any conventional camera, analog or digital. Exposure can
>>literally be set in post. HDR sensors are not affordable yet, but
>>they will be in a few years. Meanwhile, HDR still photos can be
>>constructed from multiple bracketed conventional exposures.
>>
>>As for depth of field in post, that is also coming soon to a digital
>>camera near you. Light field cameras work by capturing not just the
>>wavelength and intensity of light, but also its direction vectors.
>>Images can be focused after they are shot with no loss in quality.
>>
>><
http://www.lytro.com/>
http://www.lytro.com/
>>
>>So actually, I do know what I'm talking about. I try to stay abreast
>>of the latest technologies in image-making. Anyone who has a
>>sentimental attachment to a particular technology is bound to be left
>>twisting in the wind when technology inevitably changes. Likewise,
>>anyone who buys into the myth of progress will find him or herself
>>saddled with a lot of useless gadgets.
>>
>>Thinking critically about technology is a necessary condition for
>>success in this postmodern world.
>>
>>Aaron
>>
>>
>>
>>At 10/4/2011, Alistair Stray
>><<mailto:alistair.stray@yahoo.com>alistair.stray@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >wow, speaking as a digital artist that is quite an uneducated and
>> >illinformed post I've read arguing the benefits of the digital
>> >medium over film.
>> >
>> >"where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in
>> >*POST* with no loss of quality." Thats just bollocks isn't it ? Or
>> >do you really believe that there is no loss of quality altering
>> >exposure in post ? You're not very technically savvy in relation to
>> >concepts such as dynamic range if you do. Do you also believe DOF
>> >alterations in post accurately mirror the look of lenses ? Also,
>> >building a Zdepth channel to perform DOF changes is hardly a simple,
>> >and rarely a completely accurate, or indeed a fast procedure. Out of
>> >interest are you also one of these people who use the term 'film
>> >look' when talking about digital cameras, lenses etc ?
>> >
>> >As others have said Kodak were extremely important in driving a lot
>> >of the changes towards digital.Also, artists choose their medium for
>> >the aesthetics and the control they want among other things. Digital
>> >does not look like or respond like film does, and vice versa (just
>> >keep adding more stops of sensitivity to those sensors, HDR Sensors
>> >? haha.. you're missing the point), both mediums have their place
>> >and role to artists.
>> >
>> >- Stray.
>> >
>> >From: Aaron F. Ross
>> <<mailto:aaron@digitalartsguild.com>aaron@digitalartsguild.com>
>> >To: <mailto:frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com>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/>
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 way of the wax cylinder. The canary in the coal mine dropped dead
>> >about ten years ago, now the roof is about to collapse.
>> >
>> >35mm motion picture film will still keep hanging on for a few more
>> >years, despite the fact that high-end digital cameras have now
>> >surpassed the imaging quality of most 35mm film stocks. Anyone who is
>> >unwilling to adapt to digital imaging had better start hoarding film
>> >stock in their walk-in freezers. The day that HDR sensors become
>> >affordable is the day that analog film unequivocably becomes more
>> >trouble than it's worth. Sprocket holes seem increasingly quaint in a
>> >world where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in
>> >*POST* with no loss of quality.
>> >
>> >I'm not a hater, I'm just pointing out a reality that may be painful
>> >for many on this list. Don't look to Fuji to save you, they're
>> >ultimately headed for the dumpster as well. Starting up another
>> >Impossible Project is a noble idea, but from what I've seen, these
>> >handmade stocks can't compete with the real deal.
>> >
>> >Aaron
>> >-------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Aaron F. Ross
>> >Digital Arts Guild
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >FrameWorks mailing list
>> ><mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com><mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmeka
>> sfilms.com>FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
>> >
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing
>> >list <mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
>> >
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>-------------------------------------------
>>
>>Aaron F. Ross
>>Digital Arts Guild
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>FrameWorks mailing list
>><mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
>>
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing
>>list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
>>
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>-------------------------------------------
>
>Aaron F. Ross
>Digital Arts Guild
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
>FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
>
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Received on Wed Oct 05 2011 - 10:40:17 CDT
