Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Oh I've always been plenty cranky. I'm gearing up to be a ranty old man! I'm still standing by my statement though. Of course you have the right to your opinion but there are dangers in your language. As a professional your opinion means more than the average layman's. I know my way around a Bolex and let me tell you, in my opinion it's not easier to shoot on film so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about when you say "it's easier..." While you can get a great look from film, as far as I could tell it's mostly a nightmare to work with compared to modern digital mediums. Same thing with tape. Does it have some inherent qualities that are desirable? Sure. Is it your right to prefer to use it? Absolutely. Saying "It is better" when you're coming from a place of authority is a bit irresponsible though. Also, it's not useful. Saying "I like it better because..." is useful. I do find it funny that there are a lot of VSTs out there now that create the analog crap I spent years as an audio engineer trying to minimize. After Effect plugs that emulate the look of different film stocks complete with scratches and fuzz on the shutter. Awesome. I find it more useful asking the question "does this give me a look/sound that works with my art?" than "Is this medium better?" I had to laugh at the Dumble Amps thread a little while ago. I'm not saying they're bad or good or worth it... I've never had any experience with it, but the price tag makes me smile. I think we spend a lot of time chasing the .5% increase in sound quality that somehow costs 100 times the cost of the 99.5% good sounding gear. What's the point? It becomes a fetish object, just like your film camera is on it's way to becoming. You can argue that, but in 1984 when I saw my first digital multitrack I said, "this will be done totally on computers soon" so I called that one. ;) I'm like The Great Carnak! Have a look at Sin City and tell me that's not a beautiful film. It's shot digitally and the medium is still young. On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:06 AM, mark francombe<mark@markfrancombe.com> wrote: > >> > > Sorry, but Film IS better than digital, and Tape IS better than >> digital... >> > > but I agree.. close enough and a hell of a lot more convenient... >> > > no I was just thinking about the way people hear... >> > >> > These statements are false. > > Seriously though, one of the ways to push my buttons is to make > blanket "this is better" statements rather than "I like this better > for these reasons." > > Seriously, though What are you like Sottilaro?? I cant just say "Im sorry > but film is better now???" Im just NOT HERE (Loopers Delight) to argue >and > stand up for EVERY SINGLE off topic aside I toss into my posts, where Im > just being witty anyhow. I wasnt making a GREAT BIG IMPORTANT >statement... > AND it was an opinion... You know it was an opinion becase I started the > sentance with Im sorry but... then followed with a statement that is > COMPLETELY OBVIOUS that it cannot possibly be proven, and is SOOOOO > subjective that NO-ONE could have believed that I was stating a >scientific > fact. > > Im a film-maker dude... we like film... its easy to shoot on... Sure >video > can look nice.. I happen to LOVE the look of VHS 3 tube cameras from the > 80s... and video can look like film... but there you go,,, when video >looks > good, it cos its been made to look like film... therfore FILM IS >BETTER!!! > > As for the plastic emulsion being bad for the environment, weak... boy... > weak... > > Thats why I yawned... could be bothered to follow up your (initially > unsubstantiated blanket statement) These statement are wrong... > > > Please cheer up a bit Mark... i dont know if you noticed but you're >being a > bit agressive these days... >