Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-14-2010, 01:12 PM   #196
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 82
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
My bad.
What do you mean by full 'pro', though? Is there a definition for a pro camera?
It won't have a label on the camera, saying 'professional dSLR'...
just looked at the E-5's press release. Heading- "the professional E-5". I just don't want k-5's press release to have "enthusiast" in it, like k-7's.

09-14-2010, 01:17 PM   #197
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
OT: Film criticism

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Obviously a terrible movie, which is why four decades later it still resonates and people bother remembering its characters, situations and ideas -- indeed are still quoting from it. A movie so terrible it has better effects than those today, has a soundtrack that will chill your heart and footage that anyone even approximating a photographer must bow down and worship.

Indeed 2001: A Space Odyssey is terrible, assuming of course you are using the word in the sense of "formidably great". I can't imagine anyone would parade their ignorance with any other definition, so I give you the benefit of the doubt.
Gosh, this seems a tad strong. Somebody tosses off a brief opinion, in connection with something that actually has to do with cameras, and you, disagreeing with the off-hand remark, feel called upon to declare the person an ignoramus.

In my judgment (and speaking here for myself, not the person who made the remark you object to), 2001: A Space Odyssey is indeed brilliant, memorable, captivating, and often beautiful. I watched it again not too long ago, and took pleasure in the experience. Also in my judgment, it's also a narrative mess, extraordinarily pretentious, and often downright silly—a film (I almost hesitate to say) designed to appeal to people who take themselves just half an ounce too seriously. In short, it's a great film but not a good one.

I respect that you disagree. Not sure why you find it difficult to take the same view in return.

Will

p.s. Is it me, or has the tone of this forum gotten a little less civil lately?
09-14-2010, 01:32 PM   #198
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Obviously a terrible movie, which is why four decades later it still resonates and people bother remembering its characters, situations and ideas -- indeed are still quoting from it. A movie so terrible it has better effects than those today, has a soundtrack that will chill your heart and footage that anyone even approximating a photographer must bow down and worship.

Indeed 2001: A Space Odyssey is terrible, assuming of course you are using the word in the sense of "formidably great". I can't imagine anyone would parade their ignorance with any other definition, so I give you the benefit of the doubt.

There are plenty of bad movies that are still watched, popular, and quoted today. The works of Ed Wood spring to mind, not that I'd put 2001 quite as far down the scale as that. (And on an unrelated point, Wood's stuff while painful to watch is unintentionally hilarious.)

There's always an element of personal taste, however I have watched a lot of movies of many genres, vintages, and languages, some good and some bad. For me, 2001 was closer to the lower end of the range than the top, simply because the overall product didn't work.

It's not that everything about it was bad -- it had some interesting features, but overall as a movie it simply didn't gel for me. (And incidentally, I try to take account of the age of movies when I rate them, so it's not that. I also try not to rate based on disappointment when a movie fails to live up to hype, so not that either.)

QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
I watched it again not too long ago, and took pleasure in the experience. Also in my judgment, it's also a narrative mess, extraordinarily pretentious, and often downright silly—a film (I almost hesitate to say) designed to appeal to people who take themselves just half an ounce too seriously.
Thanks, you summed that up my own thoughts quite nicely.
09-14-2010, 02:13 PM   #199
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 944
sounds like I will love the K-5 I will get one for my self and if the full HD video is good enough I will buy one for the studio as well.

looks like the K-5 and the DA 21mm LTD will be my standard kit for next year .
so if any one wants to sell me a 21mm for a good price please email .

09-14-2010, 02:47 PM   #200
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Also in my judgment, it's also a narrative mess, extraordinarily pretentious, and often downright silly—a film (I almost hesitate to say) designed to appeal to people who take themselves just half an ounce too seriously. In short, it's a great film but not a good one.

I respect that you disagree. Not sure why you find it difficult to take the same view in return.
No, you do not respect that I disagree. If you did, you would not make value judgements about me. For example, the ridiculous assertion that 2001 is "designed to appeal to people who take themselves just half an ounce too seriously." Do you honestly think that comment shows respect? And do you believe for one moment that Kubrick, Clarke and the rest of the team sat around thinking how they could make the film more appealing to those you seem to slight?

Not to mention that apparently you missed all the jokes in the film. I wonder who is too serious?

Yes, I have a lot of respect for people with opinions different from mine -- in fact I fill my life with such people. However, having any old unsupported opinion is not the same thing as having a considered and reasoned opinion. In other words, prevailing myths to the contrary, not all opinions are made equal. If they were you'd no doubt take your car to the dentist and ask your mechanic to advise on a root canal.

I am tired of people disparaging works of great thought and beauty while at the same time worrying over exactly how many auto-focus points this model of camera has, or whether that model will have an incrementally faster shutter speed. (To be painfully clear: I speak here not of any one individual, but of a trend in a community.)

In that context I believe my original post to be moderate.

Last edited by rparmar; 09-14-2010 at 02:56 PM.
09-14-2010, 02:55 PM   #201
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote
For me, 2001 was closer to the lower end of the range than the top, simply because the overall product didn't work.
No doubt because it wasn't designed as a product. (No wonder people don't understand 2001 -- it wasn't selling anything!)

QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote
It's not that everything about it was bad -- it had some interesting features, but overall as a movie it simply didn't gel for me.
I hardly know where to begin.

If it didn't work for you as a movie, might I ask if it worked for you as something else? A religious experience? A discourse on food consumption? A technological demonstration?

(But perhaps all this would be better in another thread?)
09-14-2010, 03:56 PM   #202
Senior Member
jeff knight's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 255
Robin, you are so right. I thank you for defending Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick.

Last edited by jeff knight; 09-14-2010 at 05:40 PM.
09-14-2010, 04:07 PM - 1 Like   #203
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
Sigh...

09-14-2010, 04:14 PM   #204
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Sigh...
It does get old, doesn't it?
09-14-2010, 05:16 PM   #205
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23
At this stage given the "rumors" I will be indulging in a K5 and I know that in 5 years it will be in the bottom drawer.

Whether it has a 7 or 8 FPS or has a whizzbanger on it will be irrelevant as it is an upgrade from my K10D, been waiting for a good quality higher ISO camera for a while. Seems we will get one soon (after the high price honeymoon period probably)

I guess Santa may be my friend in Feb..

My wonders are what will the SLR Still camera be in 5 years?

Fossil
09-14-2010, 05:21 PM   #206
Senior Member
jeff knight's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 255
QuoteOriginally posted by Fossil Quote
At this stage given the "rumors" I will be indulging in a K5 and I know that in 5 years it will be in the bottom drawer.

Whether it has a 7 or 8 FPS or has a whizzbanger on it will be irrelevant as it is an upgrade from my K10D, been waiting for a good quality higher ISO camera for a while. Seems we will get one soon (after the high price honeymoon period probably)

I guess Santa may be my friend in Feb..

My wonders are what will the SLR Still camera be in 5 years?

Fossil
Fossil I am thinking the same thing. What will SLR's be like in 5 years?
Upgrading from your K10d to a K5 should be a very pleasant experience though!
At least I hope.
09-14-2010, 05:47 PM   #207
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
No doubt because it wasn't designed as a product. (No wonder people don't understand 2001 -- it wasn't selling anything!)
Your definition of product and mine differ, is all.

QuoteQuote:
I hardly know where to begin.

If it didn't work for you as a movie, might I ask if it worked for you as something else? A religious experience? A discourse on food consumption? A technological demonstration?
Nope, didn't work as any of those things any more. Guess I used to many words for you. Is this better?

"It didn't work for me."

QuoteQuote:
(But perhaps all this would be better in another thread?)
Almost certainly, but frankly I can't be bothered to discuss it in another thread. It's more effort than the movie itself deserves. *removes tongue from cheek*

Can we simply agree that your opinion of it differs from mine, that we're both free people who are allowed to form our own opinions, and that we should just move on? It was a throwaway comment that I'm more than entitled to make, and I wasn't frankly expecting a diatribe in response to it.

QuoteOriginally posted by jeff knight Quote
Robin, you are so right. I thank you for defending Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick.
So your assertion is that anybody who disagrees with you has ADD? Interesting debating style.

I submit that were you to sit through some of the movies I've watched (and greatly enjoyed), you wouldn't claim I had ADD.

And at this point, I consider the topic to be closed, folks. I won't be taking the bait and replying to any more off-topic rants about 2001 on this thread. I'm entitled to my opinion, and I'm not trying to ram it down your throats. Do me the same courtesy. End of.
09-14-2010, 06:01 PM   #208
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Taylor, Texas
Posts: 1,017
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
No doubt because it wasn't designed as a product. (No wonder people don't understand 2001 -- it wasn't selling anything!)



I hardly know where to begin.

If it didn't work for you as a movie, might I ask if it worked for you as something else? A religious experience? A discourse on food consumption? A technological demonstration?

(But perhaps all this would be better in another thread?)
Let it go. The fact that the film was clearly not shot as an easy experience and/or easily marketed product is why it's art and not George Lucas, Steven Speilberg, or Quentin Tarantino. It is the fundamental difference between say that film and Star Wars or Fellini's 8 1/2 and Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Personally I can't sit through Star Wars or Pulp Fiction but that's just me but have no issues with anything by Kubrick, Fellini, Truffaut, Bergman, Kurosawa, or Welles. Whatever works for you.

I do think most of the directors working in Hollywood wish they were those filmmakers. As an instructive I might watch Stanley Kubrick A Life in Pictures. The cast of product makers (Speilberg, Lucas, et al) paying testimonial to his unique vision is quite impressive. It's really what seperates them. All of the are technically great filmmakers, but vision is a unique quality very few possess. In photographic terms it's what seperates us from Arbus, Frank, Eggleston, Adams, ect.
09-14-2010, 06:22 PM   #209
Senior Member
jeff knight's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 255
QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote

So your assertion is that anybody who disagrees with you has ADD? Interesting debating style.

I submit that were you to sit through some of the movies I've watched (and greatly enjoyed), you wouldn't claim I had ADD.

And at this point, I consider the topic to be closed, folks.
Thank you for being so kind to close the topic for all of us.

My assertion is this: The K5, even in these early days, is looking more and more like the truly significant upgrade we've been waiting for for so long. I certainly hope it lives up to our expectations.

I'm convinced Kubrick and Clarke would have wanted to own one.
09-14-2010, 06:48 PM   #210
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,795
QuoteOriginally posted by Fossil Quote
. . . . . . . My wonders are what will the SLR Still camera be in 5 years?

Fossil
QuoteOriginally posted by jeff knight Quote
Fossil I am thinking the same thing. What will SLR's be like in 5 years? . . . . . . . .
Ahh . . . . some satisfyingly astute comments, folks.

It is entirely possible that we're watching people feverishly discussing how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, when the pin may about to be replaced by a paper clip. This is not uncommon historically in technological advancement and often is termed the "clipper ship syndrome."

Jer

Last edited by Sailor; 09-14-2010 at 06:51 PM. Reason: forgot three words 'cause I'm an old geezer
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, k-5, pentax news, pentax rumors, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dust Alert false positive? Silverkarn Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 6 08-25-2010 10:45 PM
The Right's false equivalencies... Ratmagiclady General Talk 1 06-13-2010 06:45 AM
teaparty false beliefs shooz General Talk 34 05-21-2010 08:58 PM
False color sunset... heliphoto Post Your Photos! 4 08-16-2009 03:14 AM
Broadway Photo False Advertising AF540FGZ StevenLS Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 19 07-24-2008 08:02 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:52 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top