3 ms·

I'll reserve judgement. Technical advances are of course an integral part of film history, but the idea that absolute fidelity to some Platonic ideal of an imag

by jfb 14y ago

I'll reserve judgement. Technical advances are of course an integral part of film history, but the idea that absolute fidelity to some Platonic ideal of an image is an end in and of itself is purest bafflegab. You don't get to throw away the existing language of film just because some consumer electronics consortium wants to sell new TV sets (see: stereo projection). It doesn't help the case that the last time this subject came up with a big tentpole release it was Dinosaurs Fighting Helicopters.

roc 14y ago
> "the idea that absolute fidelity to some Platonic ideal of an image is an end in and of itself is purest bafflegab" Particularly in artistic media, where emotion and tone are regularly conveyed through distortions. 48/60p may be great for some projects. Their technical advantages may enable shots that simply can't be done well at 24fps. But even that does not make them inherently "better". Merely the right tool for a given job. As there's no technological requirement for us to use either one format or the other, I see absolutely no reason we can't go forward allowing people to choose technology on an as-appropriate basis without slandering particular choices as illegitimate in all cases.