Aintitcoolnews discussion board RED discussion

[Anthony Gratl]

Unfortunately the effect on the environment for all movies over an entire year is probably equal to about 10 minutes of an industrial plant or an entire highway full of cars. Whilst we can argue the virtues of cutting down every step of the way it's not a point I would use when discussing artistic virtues persay. Ok so it's a plus I'll give you that much. But you can compensate for using film by planting a few trees to offset your carbon footprint if it's that big a concern.

Actually, the carbon footprint from Hollywood filmmaking alone, never mind the independants, is one of the largest in the state of california, which by itself has the 7th largest economy in the world. So it has a HUGE impact. With all due respect you don't know what you're talking about.
Artistic virtue? How about the notion that if we don't start cutting down our footprint every step of the way there will be no artistic virtue left to discuss?
Here's a study released today.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/1...peratures.html

also, here's the website for the union of concerned scientists...
http://www.ucsusa.org/

Planting a few trees? As in 30 or 40 billion as a minimum? Environmental problems are far greater than planting a few trees. But I'm thinking you're just kidding right?

There are many film makers put off by digital because they are looked upon as dinosaurs for not embracing it with their entirity by digital adopters. Like-wise many of those embracing RedOne are looked upon by film users as individuals who know little about the reality of making a movie.

These generalities you've written are just that, and do nothing other than to contribute to the idea that there is this vast gulf between those who shoot film and those who don't. Kinda like the notion of "the war on terror". We're gonna find those WMD's somewhere....more like Weapons of Mass Distraction, as Matthew Fraser put it in his book.
Most filmmakers I talk with, including many who shoot on film, are eager to exchange thoughts and ideas on all mediums of filmmaking.

It's not everyone of course but if you read any number of cinematography or camera related forums you'll be able to pick out the types from both sides of the coin relatively quickly. Either way of looking at it is something everyone here on RedUser should actively try to distinguish and comments such as Film is dead does little to do so.

Sorry man, I think what you've written here is again, stereotyping, and I'm not sure what the point of the second sentence is.

Of course using Red makes incredible financial and artistic sense for individuals such as yourself and myself.

Absolutely. I guess I also see it as a way forward for both of us, and everyone else in the industry, to lessen our footprints as well. Which in my mind is actually incredibly important.

The point that film is not dead, however, relates to the fact that there is an entire industry that embraces 35mm film and will continue too for a while yet.

Yup. An incredibly wasteful and polluting industry at that. Given us pretty images and lots of nostalgia, but I'm not a freakin' magpie, engrossed in the shiny objects all day long. Well, except for Reduser.net maybe

The comment itself is nothing short of insulting to those who still work with film, given that it is derogatory towards their chosen format.

This is sooooo melodramatic.....as if people shooting film give a shit about what others are saying, or that the people saying "film is dead" are directing it at the people shooting film, like it's a war.
The only war is by humans, on the environment and each other, and any discussion that I choose to be a part of, from a filmmaking perspective, should include the idea that we shouldn't poison the ground we walk on, as this earth sustains our existence, and more importantly, that of our great-great-great-great grandchildren.

Let's start trying to build a sustainable future.
So with that in mind, I say peace.