Print

Print


One thing: Roger Ebert is an *investor* in MaxiVision, so he is
certainly not unbiased in this matter. As for digital video not
"stimulating us mentally" in the same manner as film, the very idea
seems ludicrous to me. I think that the content of the images in
question is far more important in initiating mental stimulation than
whether the images are encoded digitally or on celluloid. That is an
aesthetic issue. If Mr. Ebert finds digital video to be lacking in this
area, perhaps he is thinking about it too much, and thereby causing a
placebo effect of sorts.

Chris Nuzzi



On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 03:20 PM, Jonathan Cullum wrote:

> Film critic Roger Ebert, who is fairly passionate in his defense of
> celluloid, makes a compelling case against the dominance of digital
> filmmaking in an article he wrote at
> http://www.volksmovie.com/rants/archive/rogerebert.htm . He favors
> the MaxiVision film system and suggests that research should be done to
> determine the differing effects of film and video on our "brain
> states."
>  He seems to think digital images don't stimulate us mentally in the
> way
> that images on film do, and his argument makes you wonder.
>
>
> ---
> Jonathan A. Cullum
> Auburn University
> 303 Samford Hall
> Auburn University, AL 36849-5110
> voice: (334) 864-6194
> fax: (334) 864-4844
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 9/25/03 4:37:59 PM >>>
> I've noted some disparaging remarks here and there on the use of
> digital filming.  I was wondering if any of you could enlighten me
> about
> the pros and cons of traditional film vs. digital film.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.ScreenSite.org
>
> ----
> For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.ScreenSite.org