 |
| Screenshot taken by Dylan Cotter "meg" 10/29/2015 Public Domain Usage |
1. What are the key perspectives in your controversy?
There are two key thought groups in this controversy
The first one is that film is and always will be superior. Those who support this claim will point to the look and texture of film, also the technical ability to have a wider dynamic range.
The people who support film will most likely point to the cost effectiveness of it and the rapidly progressing abilities of shooting on digital.
2. What are the major points of contention or disagreement between the perspectives?
The argument is which is better to shoot your film on.
There are technical aspects that give film a slight advantage but that is rapidly changing. As digital is catching up with the advancement of programs and cameras. People know that soon digital and film will be equal and since digital is cheaper then people should be getting used to digital.
3. What are the possible points of agreement between these two standpoints?
The two standpoints agree on the fact that the two are now so similar that it is just a matter of opinion which you shoot on. However they argue on which opinion is right.
4. What are the ideological differences?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of differences based on ideology. Religion isn't ever mentioned. Level of education doesn't matter, neither does race. The only one that might comes into it is economic background, if they are able to afford film so that they can make the choice of shooting on film or digital.
5. What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?
This is a fairly simple answer. Those who believe that film is the way to shoot, want their audience to continue to shoot on film. Those who believe in digital, want their audience to move with the times and shoot on digital
6. What perspectives are most useful in supporting your claim?
Personal stories and preferences are most useful in supporting my claim. Also timelines of the progression of digital and the differences in cost will be effective for my argument.
7. Which do you think threaten your argument?
The fact that this is a matter of opinion will make it hard to change people's minds. This is a question where there is no correct answer, but it doesn't have to be an all out war, so to speak, in the film industry.
Reflection:
I read Morgan's blog and Kelly's blog, Morgan and I's context are similar in that it is based off of people opinions and stubbornness, Kelly has science to work with which helps her out massively. IT was interesting seeing how different our contexts were and thinking about what I would do if I were in her shoes.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting to read your contextual analysis. The major differences I saw between our analyses was that your controversy had no major ideological differences. With mine because it focuses on the environment it is a political differences where the issue is linked to specific political parties. Also, I thought it was cool to read that personal stories would be so useful in your argument. I think for my argument personal experience might help some, but my issue is more scientific concrete info is more useful.
My controversy is very similar in that it is a matter of who's side you take, film/digital or architect/client. I was a little confused at question number one when you talked about the const effectiveness of film when it seems like digital is more cost effective however your overall analysis is good.
ReplyDelete