Emanuel

(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 :- )

No, first off, it's not because technical issues are objective issues that art is subjective on its turn. That's a big mistake people make thinking art is (merely) subjective. (Not even 'merely', similar or close!... you've used outrageously the word "completely"... WOW : ) A lot of people misplace taste for aesthetics. The art I like is not necessarily good nor the one I dislike is bad. Aesthetics is an important field of knowledge as much as technology (distributed by different fields) is, beyond and despite their dissimilarities. The fact English is not my native language is not the issue about the hard time you say you spend to understand of what I say, as you wrote. That's not about the idiom also because language is much more than mere idioms. The art language is prone to be as much complex as any technical one. The problem here is that people tend to see a technical language as something objective and art as a matter of personal opinion. The latter is not. Taste, yes. Art as subject of aesthetics is not. This a most common error techie individuals have for the subject matter. Unfortunately. Really. Not show off from my own. Trust me : ) Better to focus on the stuff we're able to discuss on this topic instead, once this comes from the other thread indeed. The new chips by Apple. Isn't that a field of your specialty? CPUs design? The same way I respect the knowledge of engineers and chip designers as I read you've presented yourself, please save you and anyone else in order to avoid reading misplaced stuff about things aesthetes are used to study for a lifetime ; ) Filmmaking is NOT only technology but has a lot to do with aesthetics no less or maybe even more. A frequent misjudgement. And not, that's not subjective at all! EAG :- )

Indeed, I've arrived to the same conclusion without the level of expertise you look like to have on topic. Glad to read you to concur or realize we cannot be wrong when people like you confirm our humble impressions on it and act accordingly : ) Pity this is not reciprocal about some other topics... ; ) You know one of the sad misleading things I see for a certain other type of discussion we're used to follow on boards like this one? It is when we see people thinking why have knowledge about some field they're entitled to express any opinion they figure it as accurate ; ) This affects in particular people with a fair considerable level of knowledge on techie stuff... Only God knows why! LOL : ) Everyone acts like a psychologist 'cause has one mind, can be a bench coach 'cause love football/soccer and any people are able to talk about art when appreciate art. As simple as that. Unfortunately, it is not like that ;- )

*understood (the only silly part from my side is taking this discussion for serious and trying to make myself understood when there are here much distinct levels of understanding of the complex fields we're discussing here ; ) being art one of them... democracy doesn't work for the subject matter LOL : P)

Silliest because I left a laugh on your last post? ; ) You have no idea what art is and I am the one to produce silly stuff over and along this thread?! LOL : D Machines don't produce art. What part haven't you understand? :- )

Aside economics, art made by machines is not art. Period. Call it something else. Who doesn't understand that has no clue about what art is. :- )

What is a soul? Good question... It doesn't surprise me anything what we have today. Really : ) It's a natural technology evolution. So what? You mean consciousness will be hard work... Right : ) I meant unconscious and subconscious mind territories. Not tangible reading by physical means which includes machines is possible there at all. As said, I think ignoring human science lenses such as psychology or philosophy, among others, doesn't help... ; ) Let's see when we'll end up eating our words eventually or if ever ;- )

*Yes, the plural of species is species. We however are able to use it both with an "are" for plural as well "is" if used in the singular form. If we place an "a" before, it is not possible to use it as plural anymore ; ) The idea art can be not singular anymore is actually a contradiction of what the concept of art is. Is AI the killing procedure of art itself? Should we see AI as a threat to art then? I solidly don't think so. A mere tool. Just another one. No reinvention of the wheel : P Seems to me more a geeks meeting all this talk than anything else TBH. Looks like they've all been alerted about this thread LOL : D or then, filmmaking today is invaded by preachers of machines rather than those who realize what movies are really made of. Much distinct to write "made from" (I am on my English basics LMAO ; ) Not (only) technology per se, count on it! :- )

Sigh : ) To mimic human unconscious/subconscious?? Each man is unique. A machine is soulless. No binary digital language/system/world looks like to be able to match uniqueness. The same an animal species are able to be another one. Science estimates a range from 3 million to 100 million. Up, up. Only about 1.7 million species identified since last time the calculation has been shown/announced... Demographics say 109 billion people have lived in the course of 192,000 years. Has anyone ever succeeded to not distinguish one from another? Will it ever be possible? Singularity is part of the universe and this equation as much as art is impossible to impersonate as original when fake. Becomes a formula, no art anymore. I just guess you're watching so many Hollywood movies... : D - EAG :- )

*bother (but can be to worry me up once 'you' will spend a whole shooting day to hold 'the thing' in your hands)

So, I think you're giving solid grounds to your well balanced decision then : ) to fit your needs, taste and shooting style, you can only end fine : ) Hold one in hands in any case before to pull the trigger 'cause practice is a much different challenging reality as we all know :- ) More than size is the body weight to bothers me perhaps, I guess.