Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

Post Reply
User avatar
S8 Booster
Posts: 5852
Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
Real name: Super Octa Booster
Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by S8 Booster » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:03 am

MovieStuff wrote: This conversation is stupid. I'm out.

Roger
Thank you and,

Digital origination SUX.

No offending Roger.
This discussion is sort of double stupid and useless.

Film's true potential is at a level digital origination never can touch however much tweaked.
My old 35mm K-bayo Ricoh focal plane copal shutter with true depth of field check funtion is so simple fast actually furiously fast and easy to get good results with that I still can not se any comparable dig cams touch it.
Of course the digi photographers do not need such a splendid camera but i know that quite a few internationsl pros allways brings 1 35mm cam in their bags to be able to take care of those special tasks digital can not solve.

Shoot... More film...;)
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...

carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by carllooper » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:14 am

Some Manovich:

http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/ ... c_form.htm

I should also say that Greenaway eventually does succeed in producing works of "database cinema". While some of his previous work in movies remain capable of being completed as database films the energy is no doubt gone. For better or worse they will probably remain as movies.

Another good read with respect to new media is Sean Cubitt.

Now all of this is simply to put digital in the light it deserves. That aspect of digital that infiltrates and emulates traditional media is the least representative of what new media is about.

Once digital/new media is understood in the light it deserves the lure of film becomes so much more understandable. Film becomes something differentiated from new media - not a difference in degree - but a difference in kind - as Deleuze would say. An organic difference rather than a crystalline difference.

As Tim said, it is not just a question of which is good/bad: film or digital - which we're all free to decide for ourselves. Film becomes understandable as qualitatively different from digital (new media).

It is not film that ever sought to become a digital version of itself. It was a retrogressive aspect of digital that sought (still seeks) to be filmic. And the big end of town (Hollywood) of course, can't wait for that retrogressive aspect to be achieved. For all the reasons Roger has argued. But that's just commerce. It has nothing to do with art.

Carl
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/

carllooper
Senior member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:00 am
Real name: Carl Looper

Re: Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

Post by carllooper » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:25 am

Some commentary on Deleuze and his Cinema books
http://www.filmosophy.org/deleuze.html

Some quotes from such (albeit out of context and selective):

In what way is it an illusion, or a false or artificial movement; just because of the means by which we receive it? Deleuze asserts that 'cinema does not give us an image to which movement is added, it immediately gives us a movement-image'

movement, being a 'translation in space', *expresses* a change in duration: just as when a sugar lump is placed in a cup of water there is a transition from this, water + sugar lump, to 'sugared water', and thus a qualitative change in the Whole. Deleuze gradually leads us to see that while the instant/movement development is an illusion, the movement/change one is real, and is something that we perceive.

The Whole is not made up from objects but is defined by their external relations: with movement the objects or parts of a set (which are necessarily closed and are *in* space) change positions in relation to one another, and so qualitatively transforms the whole.

An organic description is one where the setting shown is totally independent of the camera's view, 'and stands for a supposedly pre-existing reality', in which we do not feel the attitude of the camera. One can find the pure descriptions of this regime everywhere where the director wants to return us to the real, but especially in the cinema of Italian neo-realism.

Deleuze touches on aspects within cinema that seek to break out of the cinema into the space of the new media. A cinema of the Brain. Or to reinscribe such (previsualisation?) within the cinema (because unable, or not yet able to break out). But Deleuze does not pursue such to any great extent, probably being historically too early (at that time) to do so.

Carl
Carl Looper
http://artistfilmworkshop.org/

Post Reply