In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Time-stopping Redux | Main | Crunchy Cons, Reredux »

September 21, 2002

Free Reads -- Film vs. Digital, rerereredux

Friedrich --

A conversation in ICG between the cinematographers Bill Bennett, David Darby and Allen Daviau, here. (It's a site with frames, so once there you'll then have to click on the feature on the righthand side that says "evolution or revolution.") Their topic is film vs. hi-def video.

Sample passage:

Bennett: In Hi-Def demonstrations, the manufacturers carefully select scenes where video does look like film. And you can, shooting in very controlled situations, create scenes where the image looks very similar. But, in other situations and in broader use, a child could tell the difference...In the piece that was shot digitally, the green outside the window was a bright green mass. Whereas in the piece that was shot on film, you could see individual blades of grass. There's detail there. The ferns blowing in the breeze were discernable.

Darby: Video is great for documentaries. If you're all about gathering information, then shoot video. But if you're specifying the information and having control over it, for the time being, you absolutely have to shoot film.



posted by Michael at September 21, 2002


Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?