🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2ti7r1$cp9@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
Eric Hodges <hodges@news.NeoSoft.com> wrote:
>James Howard (jbhoward@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
>My partner is a video artist, and the "idiot" I think you are referring to
>is a very well respected artist  (who's name escapes me right now).  She
>didn't make a "pathetic documentary", she made a very powerful peice of
>artwork.  The toy camera windowboxes the image, reduces the resolution
>severely and records only in black and white.

 I saw the "pathetic documentary" and believe me when I say I am 
being kind in my description.  Utter *CRAP* is the review I would
give it if I weren't so kind.  Bouncy camera, blurry image, terrible
camera work, utter crap, crap crap.  If it wasn't based on a politically
correct theme the piece would have never seen the light of day.

>
>To acheive the same results through processing would cost more for 3
>hours of studio time than the price of the PixelVision!  THATS why many
>artists want them.

 What?  You must be joking.  Considering the current scalping price
for a pixelvision is approaching 300 bucks, you could *EASILY* buy
a 10 dollar filter to remove the chroma signal from any camcorder
in existence.  You want reduced resolution?  Put a diffuser lens
in front of it.   The image is cropped because the audio tape
doesnt have the bandwidth to produce an entire screen-full.  Just
put a matte box in front of the lens of any camcorder and there
you have it.

 People that love the pixelvision are the same kind of idiots who
enjoy new music that has "static and pops and hiss" inserted to
make it sound more "folksy, downhome, _honest_, real, etc."

 The pixelvision sucks, and any filmmaker or videomaker who relies
on its cheap gimmick effects for their work obviously has nothing
worthwhile to say.

 -James