the problem is it would look like CGI. It would look computer generated. Yeah, maybe it'd look more crisp, and you could do more with it. But it's the fact that this is real that makes it more enticing.

mimicking other artists work is a great exercise for artists to understand the techniques of greater artists who came before them. Replicating older pieces in a new medium can be used as a form of exploration into new mediums and discovering the possibilities of it. Trying to break ground for a new form of art. …

The rule of 3 that I've heard is essentially completely different than what this states. In the film industry, if digital media isn't archived on film (film still lasts longer at full quality than digital media), they create 3 back-ups on different servers. Then, they constantly copy the media files back and forth…

Aside from my Canon AE-1 Program, and my Canon Rebel (and a 4X5 Speedgraflex, which I won't count) all of the cameras i've used have been school cameras, the Bolexes being at least 30 years old. I have never seen viewfinders this gross.

damn...what the hell happened to these cameras? I've looked through many different viewfinders, and viewfinders that have been around for decades (Bolex Rex 5 is probably the oldest), never have I seen viewfinders this disgusting.

I personally love motion blur. It's apart of the art of cinema, but high speed photography is also apart of cinema. I think they both have their place, their use needs to be well thought out.

Ah, with a name like "solarization" I had assumed it was an in camera effect achieved by using a filter over the lens or some other technique.

Might be a good idea for computers, but I can't stand TVs with high refresh rates. TVs that have the built in motion enhancing or motion smoothing technology. Most things are either filmed at 24 fps or 30fps. The high refresh rate, and motion smoothing technology needlessly interpolates the frames and makes up data…

so, precisely, how are these photos taken? It seems like certain parts of the photo are inverted, while others are not.

I prefer Leyendecker

agreed, this is not time lapse, there is no apparent time compression going on in this video, there's only parallel time, but the two different times play out in real time.

what the hell? is your TV sitting on the floor? How'd he reach the TV? Is he some sort of giant?

Well...first of all, i'm not sure how Sesame Street makes money...i'd assume that for one it's a non-profit. Otherwise, don't they only get funding from "viewers like you"? Maybe donations from a couple sponsors?

there is nothing intuitive about any of this...

really? with a nose half the size of her head? and a nose that's red and looks irritated, like she's been blowing her nose all day?

do you (loose a lot of resolution)? i haven't actually done it yet, but my current teacher keeps talking about it. What resolution were you printing your transparencies at? on onto what kind of transparency? and what kind of printer?

i think it would have been easier to have just printed the picture out onto a transparency, making a true digital negative...could have printed the image onto 8X10 transparency and just done a contact pring...it's kind of a standard practice for digital negatives...

haha, that was actually the first thing i looked for.

this seems pretty irresponsible of the schools...to me this is just asking for kids phones to get stolen. if they have a strict no-phone policy, to the point where it's also impossible to sneak a phone into the school. Then the school should allow kids to check in their cell phones in the office, or with their…