Joel wrote:
> Roy Jose Lorr <kenthz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roy Jose Lorr <kenthz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vance wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mar 24, 6:59 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <ken...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vance wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I now
>>>>>>>think, see and imagine toally within the context of digital
>>>>>>>production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Monkey see, monkey do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Meaning?
>>>>
>>>>'Follow follow follow follow follow the yellow brick road'.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, trying to follow the exact same technique that
>>>worked for *you* with film will probably not work with digital
>>>for most people.
>>
>>Actually, the difference between film and digital is only one minor
>>manifestation of the problem.
>
>
> Me? I don't have one of a most expensive cameras which I read and saw a
> sample 3-5 years ago, I don't remember the exact number of pixel and
price,
> or any dirty trick etc.. but I believe it's at least tens of millions of
> dollars camera. The samples were incredible, but the price was a
*little*
> too juicy for my reach so I didn't pay much attention for small detail
to
> show off with other.
>
> And it could be hundred(s) of millions of dollars, I can't remember. I
> don't remember seeing the camera (?) to know how big it was, but an
article
> and few samples.
>
> I believe it was film camera, but I may be wrong.
The problem is not with the technology but in the way approach has
deteriorated.
|
