Clint Wardlow
Forum Replies Created
-
I also started using it and find it very useful. My only real complaint is how it saves out into a microsoft word document. It formats in kind of a funky fashion. I was using Celtx for script creation before, but have just purchased Final Draft and story will save out into that format.
Still I think it is a pretty cool app. I am curious to see what they are going to charge as a subscription starting in April. I would also like to see an entire project sharing function.
-
The master of deep focus, to my mind, was Sergio Leone. How many times would he show us a stunning, perfectly in focus, scenic vista only to have a grizzled face in close up invade the frame? Or a great shot of a gunfighter in the distance standing ready to do battle while a gunbelt and hand over the gunbutt is in sharp relief in the foreground.
Unfortunately, video seems to flatten the frame of such shots and never seems to have the 3D-like depth of film. It is getting better, but still not quite there. With the shallow depth of field I think video looks more film-like…and that is why it is being over used, IMHO.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “While a lot has changed in 60 years, you can still buy film developing tools. How long will that last? Not too much longer in the grand scheme of history. I believe we are standing in the middle of great change.”
Actually creating your own photo chemicals or light sensitive paper is very doable (I have a friend who creates his own emulsion for printing from plates he shoots with his Graflex). Using the negative itself is pretty much a very basic process. All you really need is a dark room, something to shine light through the negative and onto coated paper, and the chemicals to process it. I’m sure an enterprising type could probably construct a rudimentary enlarger (although with really large format negatives all you need is something to press the negative between the paper and light source.
Film is a little more problematic. Years ago I purchased a bunch of 16mm projectors and films from my local high school which was switching to video for very little cash (the films were a goldmine…including an anti-drug movie starring Sonny Bono!) I currently use most of the projectors as parts to keep two of the projectors in running condition. However, I think it would be nigh unto impossible for almost anyone but the most skilled shade-tree engineer to construct a working film projector.
Still, someone with a very rudimentary skill set in mechanics can keep such things up and running if they can get their hands on the parts (at least for now).
With digital media, no mater your skill set, creating the media and hardware you need to run such media is almost an impossibility without lots of support. Of course this could change. Maybe some future artists will specialize in building the hardware and working in outdated digital media just the same way modern artists work with large plate cameras and wet collodian film processing.
-
[Rafael Amador] “Sure not, but archiving is not about putting something some where and forget it till somebody will discover it.
Archiving need is people to take care.
if all these books, movies or painting has survived, is because there are been always people paying attention.
Archiving doesn’t just cost money and means, but time and dedication.
I archive in HDs and BR disks (no the SONY disks that needs expensive hardware) till I find something better and affordable.
I know that if I wan’t that my little archive survive, is not just about to finding the best format or media, but finding somebody interested in keeping it.
rafael”Things aren’t always preserved because they are meticulously cared for. They are discovered centuries after they were written. Read about the Nag Hammadi Library.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi
If they had been written today, outlawed and stored on a thumb drive, would someone digging them up 1,500 years from now be able to do a thing with them? (To be honest, even if they were written on today’s acid-based papers the probably still would,’t survive the centuries.)
But once again this is just me being philosophical and really has little to do with FCPX
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “The art that has survived has been lovingly cared for and stored, and perhaps a bit of luck. Think of all the art that didn’t make it. It was unlucky, or put in a place that wasn’t conducive to long term storage. A lot of great art pieces have been professionally restored as well.”
Actually this is only true to a certain extent. Read about Vivian Maier, an “amateur” photographer whose negatives were discovered after her death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier
If she were a photographer living today, using digital technology, would someone in the future be able to publish and appraise her work if they came upon it stored on a thumb drive.
Historians are always searching for artifacts to dig up, art, or bits of manuscripts, broken pottery, clay tablets and such like. Maybe it is just the historian in me (I was a history minor in college), but it seems we may be the first generation that makes such things inaccessible for future people. That the culture of our time may be wrapped up so tightly in a case of technology that it will be uncrackable for future generations. I hope not.
[Jeremy Garchow] “And frankly, yes, most of the work I do is seen for a limited time and disappears. It is not deserving of lasting 1,000 years.”
I’m not so sure that is true. Even the most banal corporate video (not to say you make banal corporate videos) could provide future historians with valuable information about the way we lived.
But as I said before, I am just waxing philosophical. Maybe the FCPX board is not the place for it.
-
[Rafael Amador] “[Clint Wardlow] “Provided in 50 years any software to open one still exists.”
Provided in 50 years you will still be here to open it.
Do you expect to find an archiving format forever and ever?”The point I am making is that archiving for future generations may disappear. Do you want everything you have ever worked on to simply vanish? Is all your hard work that disposable?
Like I pointed out earlier, if you find a box of 50-year-old negatives and 8mm films in a drawer, you can still use them to make prints or show the movies.
In fifty years if someone finds your disc are they going to be able to do anything with it?
Yes, I would like an archiving format that lasts past the current generation. I mean we can still look at a 1,000-year-old painting or read a book that was printed 500 years ago.
With all of our technology, have we become the disposable generation? Is everything we create just going to vanish once technology passes us by?
-
[Rafael Amador] “SONY XDCAM disks are supposed to have a 50 years warranty.”
Provided in 50 years any software to open one still exists.
-
[Rafael Amador] “Time to start to put things in HDs. I’ve already started with my more than 200 MiniDV tapes.”
The problem I have with relying solely on hard drives is, that with the amount of data that they store, a hard drive crash could be a total disaster. With tape, it really sucks when one goes bad, but it is only an hour of footage.
As it stands now I try to keep my my files on at least two hard drives. A 1TB hard drive failure could eliminate hours of footage.
-
[James Culbertson] “I’d be more concerned about the gradual disappearance of decks and particularly the shelf life of tapes. Similarly, at some point the i/o device makers will stop supporting analog i/o I would assume.
Get them into a digital format now, because I doubt you will have a usable tape in 10-20 years.”
This brings up a bigger issue (not one I am sure belongs in a FCPX Forum). The issue of archiving. With our move to digital and tapeless, how well is this going to bode for future preservation.
To illustrate my point–if you find a box of Grandma’s 50-year-old negatives or 8mm films in a drawer, you still have the ability to print or play them.
In the future, if our grandchildren find a 50-year-old USB thumbdrive with a bunch of .jpg or .mov files are they going to be able to extract them. I hope so, but have a feeling all but the most important digital images will be lost in the ether over time.
-
[Rafael Amador] “VHS is already a mistreated signal; Low horizontal resolution, Reduced Luma, “Color Under” and all that “composite”.
The signal can even be improved on capturing with a good IO card (Resampling + using the “Pro Amp).
rafael”For my purposes DV works fine for right now. I’m am not really looking for clean video, but for that smeary tape feel. However, I think a good IO card is in my future, just as it increases my options.