Emanuel

No, it didn't. What changed there? The word "already" to couple to "the wheel is invented"? LOL That one is the same written earlier in English : ) And from your response, it is easy to see we're talking about different things ; ) Nothing about room for improvement. Art hasn't been invented with the medium of film. It won't be reinvented with the future to come neither. Nothing changes when more people as target are added to the equation. The wider you go or the larger your target is appointed as, the narrower the quality of your content needs to be. To reach more people. Theoretically, the more educated audiences you have, the better outcome your chances are. The more complex and most influential mainstream will become. It's all about that. The point is that's mere food for dreamers. It will hardly be achieved. Low level is not to be pessimist but realist.

*knowledge (no typos or carefree language converted in written posts will contaminate the speech or the understanding of the receiver... the same for the use of a non-native idiom as second language, that's beyond and more complex than that)

As said before, it would work exactly the same : ) Really. Don't you follow the problem going on here? As written earlier too, a filmmaking forum is not a campus even though the efforts made along these many pages... haha I am pretty sure you're able to find competent Colleges, Universities or a filmschool where people may learn the basics on the topic handled there. To leave it out of the context doesn't help either. One of those is true anyway: 1) You're doing it on purpose just trying to succeed with the art *cough cough* of winning an argument... : D 2) Or you're just being picky because there's some portion of a line to actually escape you... Reading is a fuck* indeed. * For such level of material, the meaning of the stuff is hidden in the articulation of the subliminal text, between the lines and the like. It's not inside the post you'll definitely find the information you're looking for. There's a whole construction out there. Takes many years, experience of life, academics and so on. A whole lifetime almost invariably. But once you asked it: Expandir o espectro não significa necessariamente algo melhor. Muitas das vezes, apenas pior (= down). Infelizmente, este é o caso. Este é o drama real que o nosso medium vive hoje. Não esse alvoroço em torno da questão do número de fotogramas. A roda já está inventada. Did it help? I doubt whatever you'll add as your answer to the question. For a simple reason. There are concepts like mainstream, to make the audience wider, what it does mean (when the knwoledge spread allover the population is low), mass communication and so on. Let alone art itself. Yes, art, aesthetics... How many times they come to be written here? And, so what? Gilles Deleuze and Artavazd Peleshyan have been mentioned by myself. Have you ever been in touch with their work? Any contact with the meaning of their contribution in fact? :- )

LOL : ) A book requires a bit more though. Let alone those with different volumes... : P There's no book nor even a booklet without readers, so I think we should be all here honoured with your attention ; ) The finest example of it you have in that infamous thread mentioned up there which along these two weeks has already reached 16 pages so far... *cough cough* yet requires a bit more to be considered like that. There are books and books and different ones for very distinct readers who also speak volumes about the books they're used to read ;- )

Not exactly. We have two possible perwpectives on this one: Seeing democratization as something welcome. It really is. But not without flaws such as the one mentioned. When people have no structure, as for instance, knowledge in order to be able to manage such access. I meant instead though, when the wider the less. Because of that need to reach everyone, the more the better. In this case, it is often the more the lower. Communication becomes poorer. Standards come down from something higher, better, more sophisticated, not seen as something necessarily elitist but high-ranking content, complex to the other side of the coin for something capable to be absorbed by many. That's what mainstream means more invariably than it should. Wider doesn't necessarily bring anything better or higher. Lots of times, just down. Yes, unfortunately. This is the real drama our medium lives. (Not such frame rate uproar... the wheel is invented!) - EAG :- )

I stand corrected, obviously, 24 is a multiple of several ones but not of 5... LOL It is 'cause my mind lives in the PAL world... : D BTW, we use 25p because of the electricity and the frequency used here: 50Hz. So, still stands for 24: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12

The same way why you've chosen this one and not other individual to spend your lifetime with ; ) In this case, something had to be chosen as a standard. Nothing against standards. They comply a function. Would any of them be relevant to the equation? Well, 24 is a multiple of several ones (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12), 23 not ; ) Even 25 (1,5), a way less than 24. Human perception works with mathematical variables. Universe is math. https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html Human perception works with perspective. Isn't 30p or 60p farther, or further away from 24p as you wrote, so as you have even confirmed? ;- ) - EAG :- )

Communication is a bitch. The average of visual literacy of the audiences wordwide is usually lower than it should. So, mainstream standards have only to follow, unfortunately.

Widely accepted?! Oh God, where are you coming from? Are docs supposed to be "strictly journalism"??! I love these forums but I can hate them with the same intensity too for that perversion of democracy when we can see posters to write about something like they are an authority on some field when they have no clue about it, as far as they can show from their entries... I'm sorry but it is what it is : ) And if no one says anything, at a certain point becomes old school or science made when not mainstream! LOL ;- ) Nothing personal though, you look like a nice guy, just misinformed, that's it :- )

Indeed, it's a 'proof is in the pudding' thing... ;- )

(When you watch documentaries... Right. I get your point but) are you sure of the remainder part? ; ) I was there the first time I watched this piece, a year later, same screening room, with the filmmaker himself, talking to him (in English : D) through a physical human translator : P... perhaps *cough cough* the greatest name of the documentary cinema since Dziga Vertov: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/features/artavazd-pelechian-nature-seasons-poetic-montage https://www.artforum.com/columns/artavazd-peleshian-193439/ https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2012/great-directors/artavazd-pelechian/ https://artreview.com/artavazd-pelechian-visionary-cinema-nature-seasons/ About his work and contribution, experts are used to produce content of more than 1-hour only to talk about his bigger than life "visions" of real ; )

To place 'degenerate' and 'art' in the same line with the latter as consequence of the other one is the most funny part I've read over these lines... Almost as much as so many distinct definitionssssss of "art" à la carte! LMAO : ) Sounds the same when people are used to feel about "love" ; ) We are all experts of it, after all, ain't we? : D A science called 'love' everyone can be an expert about! LOL Amusing, only to say the least ;- )

True, RAM is never enough. - EAG :- )

Or if I write... 'doesn't mean whoever is entitled to be' ...will it be (a bit) clearer then? LOL :- )

I guess everyone (if not, they should ; ) appreciate @kye's entries. And I still really think (not idle words) you're being unfair with the remaining ones who have contributed along this thread. No, I don't beg for a distinct input nor become upset for your remarks on your unpleasant impression on my own. The same way I find not productive at all coming here with this level of judgment on ones over the others. It's not nice and it's not the only one case readers can read it through these pages. Japanese have a curious way to say thanks to an author than saying they've appreciated the work. To be a filmmaker, good one included, doesn't mean to entitle whoever to be an authority on aesthetics. The same to those who look like to gather camera technology expertise. The same way a thread is not a campus :- )

Correct. Territory of opinion ; ) You're entitled to an opinion like any other one here. Including those you ain't interested in, as well LOL : ) The problem there is a different one though (and it is even funny to come and read once again *sigh* the barrier language idiom argument... sounds clearly to me inscribed on that category Marty has left on his posting: "rude or triumphant"... : ) Such type of approach seems a typical complex of superiority or patronizing someone when looks like to pop up with some distinct standpoint or then hard to even understand. Again, it's not a problem with idiom, really ; ) In my particular case, I professionally use the English language since almost 30 years... (I even did part of my graduate and postgraduate studies for a long academic year with Hollywood bigwigs and they never complained, nevertheless, internet warriors as someone along this thread already called them, yes... WOW LOL) In a daily basis, today. For living! Or I am a bad learner : D or everyone outside understands it, just not a few people here : P Well, in the 1st year of law school on the introduction to law class, people were used to complain about the lessons of the lecturer... At the film shool, I recall colleagues of mine on sound technical terminology or when the subject of study was Deleuze... Yup, legal reasoning can happen to be a pain in the ass, very true. The same applies for art stuff. The fact you believe art can be produced by machines rather than human source doesn't make it true. Art is not subjective. It can be subjective but is not necessarily subjective. If any reader of this, is unable to realize that, I can only suggest to go to inform themselves on basics : ) As already said, that's what people do about getting some information when wish figure out a certain field. The access to knowledge is far to be democratic when people think it depends on opinion realm. I'm sorry, I don't want to look triumphant but does not for real :- )

Found Michio Kaku's approach particularly interesting indeed 'cause of that respectful interdisciplinary methodology exactly on the spot ;- )

Standards of evidence, yes, and from many distinct realms of knowledge, it's not an exclusive of one over another :- )

First off, the point is that book is not exactly about quantum computing but other fields connected with, which demand some knowledge other than that native one ; ) Means that to be called a science requires a scientific approach? For sure. This doesn't mean what we call science addresses answers to everything. On the opposite. There's a lot to lack a scientific explanation provided by... science, yes ; ) That is, science is unable to have a response to every single portion of universe. We know too little about it. That's the narcissistic observation made by Marty (aka @PannySVHS) and it's not much scientific to infer anything different... LOL :- )

You're entitled to believe what you want but as man of computers you are, give this book a try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Supremacy By https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku Take a look on the criticism over that work in specific... This is the problem of many people, they think they understand every other fields of the human knowledge ; ) «Some theorize that the universe itself acts as a vast quantum computer, “processing” the activity of its countless particles and forces from one end of reality to another. If so, as computers begin to more directly imitate nature’s own computations, new insights may open into physics, chemistry, and biology—even the architecture of the brain itself. Yet mankind has not proven the best steward of such knowledge. On our path to learning more about how God’s remarkable creation works, we inevitably come to various crossroads regarding how we choose to use what we learn. Understanding God’s design of matter and energy has allowed us to harness the power of the atom—both to power our cities and to destroy them. Understanding the strange, counterintuitive world of quantum mechanics will bring us to a similar crossroads. What decisions will we have to face when quantum computing is fully ours to wield however we wish? Will we have the character to properly apply what we learn from this aspect of God’s creation?» source

...which seems more connected between each other ; ) than people tend to think only 'cause some see the world from their own room/planet/universe, whatever they want (without thinking we see them or any -- not English basics LOL : P as lower level!) Just the experiences of ones don't match everyone's ;- )

Well, not all! : P Not risking to be confounded with narcissistic ones... LOL ; ) Seems pretty clear to me : D some other people have already mentioned it: original source, (real) innovation, expression of something from someone to reach a receiver... WOW What a bold statement! And are the other ones those to adopt nonsense?! Really?? haha : ) Don't ignore the experience of the other people only 'cause you haven't had it ; ) BTW sometimes something you call or infer not to be a science becomes one when a certain experience of yours certifies it yeah even with and following a scientific method too hard to enumerate on pages like this one... Happened to me today yup t-o-d-a-y, go figure, and no, no alien spaceship abducted me! LMAO :- )

What exactly easyrig-like you had it there?

Long story short: art is expression. Requires a living being and someone who may be able to. In legal language ; ) someone with legal personality... : P Since when machines have or will have it? : D

Who? Me? No. Correct. The point is that's not a matter to believe or not believe ; ) You guys still think art is subjective and technology is the one to provide the objective answers, isn't it? What else? Let's start to discuss science versus faith? ; ) Ah OK, first one: theology is not a science! LOL Philosophy (and psychology BTW) neither, so aesthetics is anything but something boring to death : X And those who understand the code behind the bits & bytes (or analog world applies the same but techie anyway : D) the most prones to be able to know what cinematic is! LMAO The same way you in general (not you in particular) need to go to learn the basics on anything techie-related, the same applies to what art is. Before you, me, whoever is, can come here or anywhere else to discuss things you surely show how far apart are people's eyes on the need of being versed in art things and educated about ; ) In a line: takes time, effort, vocation, devotion and will ;- ) - EAG :- )