Chalk one up for the silver image

[Mitch Perkins]

What part of "capture" don't you understand?

The part where you try to make distinction where there is none. A video camera scans the image onto its CCD array and a scanner scans the image it sees onto its CCD array.
Roger

the main difference between a scanner and a camera CCD is not so much that the scanner is slower/bigger, but that the scanner captures an image that has already been compressed into a different contrast range while the digital sensor has to cope with the real world contrast...
which in exteriors (and uncontrolled interiors) is more then any CCD can handle. so the CCD clips and the image caputured on film has the typical highlight/shadow compression that we've grown to love.

More simply put, you'll *have* to compress the real world contrast to make it viewable on a screen/tv/photograph, and so far film emulsion handles this task best.

Agreed.

So you understand that there's a distinction, except when I try to point it out?

But my point is that technology does not remain at a standstill.

I thought your point was that there's no distinction between capture and scan...

That was never my point nor did I say that.

--------------------

So when you say that you saw something that looked too good to be digital and it turns out to be digital,

Meanwhile, I said, "I checked this out because I saw the commercial(s) and thought the image quality looked too good for digital..." My apologies to anyone who didn't understand I meant ~digital capture~, though apparently you're the lone ranger in this category.

[Rick Palidwor]

... So we went and saw "INLAND EMPIRE".

Well...the "freedom" allowed the director through using a PD150 resulted in a sprawling piece that I haven't the heart to decode

Everyone else take it from me, it's worth decoding. Mitch will change his mind after sitting through the DVD a few times - and there are no extraneous bits to skip through. Everything that is there needs to be there. It's a very intricately constructed house of mirrors. I have seen it three times and it's a story-telling masterpiece. Whereas for much of Lynch's more cryptic work I am convinced that you need to look at it from a distance, like a painting, to see the broad strokes before trying to decipher the finer strokes, IE is a three-dimensional puzzle. You need to stand back and then walk around it to see it from all sides. More a sculpture than a painting. Considering this you can understand why I don't care about the format issues. It's all about the script.

The touted benefit of forty minute takes did not show up on the screen, IMHO - the acting was no better or worse than that in a traditionally shot story of equal interest.

It was not about getting better performances. It was about getting the performance he wanted in less time, which the 40 minute takes allowed for - less interruptions. He was financing it himself.

Lynch has stated he can never go back to film - to heavy, too "slow". Methinks he is too lazy to do the job right.

If he thinks he found a format he wants to stick with I would not argue with him or accuse him of laziness. I think he knows what he's doing, and has to be the least-lazy directory in the business. It may be more about money than laziness. [/quote]

Thank goodness we still have Scorcese!
Mitch

Luckily we don't have to choose between them. We can, and do, have them both. Three cheers for that.

Rick