But it is pretty inevitable. When discussing technology there are plenty of facts and figures we can bandy about. 4K has more pixels than 1080 or 2.5K. We can measure the difference in dynamic range between two cameras. We can measure how one lens has more chromatic aberration or barrelling than another. We can measure how codecs compare and can even coment in measurable terms on how one NLE performs certain tasks better than another.Lee Prescott wrote:The point I was trying to make is that surely Artistic Merit outweighs and comes before technology? So much time is spent on the latter and it seems to me, very little on the former. I think that is wrong.
But when it comes to Artistic Merit, we are talking about someting far less tangible. I've little doubt that I find artistic merit in things (not just films) in which others on this forum find none. And vice versa. I also supect that we (mainly being of an older age) are likely colletively to find less artistic merit in films made by younger folk - films which their peer group may consider contain much in the way of artistic merit.
Who are we to judge?
There does seem to be a small number of people here (and, I suspect a much larger number outside of this forum) who seem to think that if one has not cut his of her teeth on cine stock, then one cannot possibly produce anything of any artistic merit.
Which is a "good thing". It opens up film making to those creative and artistic people whose ideas previously might have remained no more than ideas.Lee Prescott wrote: Anyone can learn to push buttons et al even, as in my area, 90+ year olds courtesy of the local council!
And let's be clear, a lot of what we criticise as "lacking in artistic merit" can also be easily learned (camera craft and composition, effective edditing, sudio recording, lighting).