This article from TIME magazine presents a few interesting perspectives from both the Pro-digital and Anti-digital camps.

What strikes me as most interesting is the terminology those who dont like digital use to defend their use of this archaic format - ?soulfull?, ?human?, ?emotional weight?? these terms (apart from being highly subjective and not particularly useful in a debate on a formats mertis) arguably have nothing to do with the format and the way it presents colour and light at all but rather are purely based on an intangible perception. Film as a format trades on its history and a long association in peoples minds with great cinematic moments. Not really anything to do with the technical ?quality? or ?visual aesthetic? of celluloid but rather more than 100 years of audience association with that look?.

This is one of the reasons I find it very difficult to use the term ?Filmmaker? in the 21st century. I think the new Developmental Space of cinematic production should really place these creators under a more inclusive and expansive title of ?media-makers? or ?cinema-makers?." />
Blogs: Page (1) of 1 - 05/30/07 Email this story to a friend. email article Print this page (Article printing at MyDmn.com).print page facebook

film is dead

  By digitalbasin
Following on from previous thoughts....
Much has certainly been written on this topic. And whilst there are many (including myself) who would loudly proclaim that Film is indeed Dead - or at least should be - there is still a huge section of filmmakers who are still addicted to the photo-chemical process of celluloid. This article from TIME magazine presents a few interesting perspectives from both the Pro-digital and Anti-digital camps.

What strikes me as most interesting is the terminology those who dont like digital use to defend their use of this archaic format - soulfull, ?human, ?emotional weight? these terms (apart from being highly subjective and not particularly useful in a debate on a formats mertis) arguably have nothing to do with the format and the way it presents colour and light at all but rather are purely based on an intangible perception. Film as a format trades on its history and a long association in peoples minds with great cinematic moments. Not really anything to do with the technical ?quality or ?visual aesthetic of celluloid but rather more than 100 years of audience association with that look?.

This is one of the reasons I find it very difficult to use the term ?Filmmaker in the 21st century. I think the new Developmental Space of cinematic production should really place these creators under a more inclusive and expansive title of ?media-makers or ?cinema-makers.

Click here if your browser is not automatically redirected within 3 seconds..

Page: 1


Related Keywords:

HOT THREADS on DMN Forums
Content-type: text/html  Rss  Add to Google Reader or
Homepage    Add to My AOL  Add to Excite MIX  Subscribe in
NewsGator Online 
Real-Time - what users are saying - Right Now!

Our Privacy Policy --- @ Copyright, 2015 Digital Media Online, All Rights Reserved