I don’t see why simulation of film qualities is inherently kitschy or nonsensical. We agree that the visual aesthetic of film projection engenders a certain mood or tone — I simply further suggest that this aesthetic can itself be a tool. Why not? From the consumer end, given technology good enough to fool the eyes, it doesn’t matter if screen effects are “genuine” products of light passing through plastic or “simulated” renderings passing through luminescent crystals.

Film is great — it’s good at certain things and bad at others just like any tech. I don’t work with video often, but I happen to shoot 35mm photos as a hobby (I shoot digital for the studio). There are certain situations where grain adds perfect character to a photo, such as this (forgive the horrid scan):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jambeeno/2980040069/sizes/o/in/set-72157608441611763/

And there are some instances where the crispness of a flat 18-megapixel RAW with perhaps just a pinch of sharpening in post would make a much more powerful photo, as in the case this goofy shot (again, bad scan):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jambeeno/2980912708/sizes/o/in/set-72157608441611763/

I think we probably agree more than not — we just have different tastes. I really don’t have any use for theater-nostalgia. I simply don’t lean one way or the other regards the inherent goodness of film vs digital projection.

The whole method of shooting and projecting film is so significantly and necessarily unique that I cannot allow it to be “just one of those things”. I for one am very happy that I started recently shooting super-8, for example, as it has made me a substantially better shooter of HD video.

As for putting grain and flicker in post – that is kitsch nonsense. One should respect one’s medium for that which is innate. I would no more wish to add grain to digital footage than add screen-door pixellation to film, but can appreciate the aesthetic coherence of both in the ontology of their appropriate medium.

Exactly. Whenever talks to me about what people “deserve”, I become suspicious – as if the Lord has decided that certain people in certain professions have an indemnity from change that, say, scribes and coal-miners did not.

It does reward all those genuinely involved in producing a record and delivering it to you (by whatever means) if the artist wants to continue making records. But what is he saying? That someone deserves to be paid whether or not there’s a demand for their labour? That when the job becomes redundant as the technology and the market changes, it should it be subsidised regardless, at the expense of the public? That doesn’t make any sense. There’s nothing stopping the band from employing a producer or tasking someone with distribution if that’s what they want to do—that’s entirely workable within the patronage scheme that NM proposes—but if they don’t want to do that, why should that job have any more “right” to exist than that of the scribe after the advent of the printing press?

Also, as I drove at, the character of film can be convincingly simulated. There are entire companies specializing in this field. Failing that, though, folk can simply shoot on film and transfer, adding distortion and randomized flicker in post. And again, the technology good enough that we couldn’t tell the difference, especially when everything’s smeared out across a giant screen twenty-odd feet away.

Actually, given the clarity of recently-developed film projectors, it’s not inconceivable that a digital recording could be gussied up to look more convincingly “filmy” than a genuine film product.

I am talking about digital cinema, really: in other words, everything from 2k to the latest magic that RED produces. The simple thing is that the chemical process of film creates a very different artistic experience in production and projection. It is one I happen to prefer, both aesthetically and existentially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraka_(film)

If you categorize that experience as “soulless” or suggest that it’d be just as affecting in standard def, well… I’ll slap you with a Luddite-whacking stick.

Also, stuff like grain, reel speed shift, dust, etc can be present on HD material transferred from film; check out the Godfather Blu-ray restoration, for example! The marvelous film grain is preserved intact. The Blu-ray version is much more enjoyable on my home theater than the DVD version — and when I get my projector, I’m pretty confident it’ll rival a theater experience (and I won’t have to overpay for soda and popcorn).

But really it’s just a nitpick. The very term “HD” is just marketing nonsense. It doesn’t mean anything specific. In terms of sheer resolution, PC enthusiasts had been using “HD” resolutions for a decade or so before they became the vogue in television screens. You have two flavors of HD, of course — 720p which is 1280×720 and 1080p which is 1920×1080… and how long have 30″ monitors with 2560×1600 resolutions been around now? Or 24″ units that run at 1920×1200?

I agree that the level of detail HD provides can be off-putting in some situations… but in the same token, the film grain or flicker of reel-based film can be circumstantially off-putting as well! Grain and ultra-crisp-realism are now merely tools which cinematographers will use to set the mood in their works. Given that all the aspects of reel film can be reproduced exactly on digital format I daresay you won’t be able to tell the difference, too. It’s just that from now on, when you see an effect you can be sure it was intentional and not just a product of the medium.

Ashish; I’m trying, and failing, to imagine Kanye West expressing modesty.