Re: APOLOGIES

[Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Shab Levy wrote:
> 
> First my apologies to George Themelis, Eric Goldstein and Clifford Mugnier.

Shab-

Speaking only for myself... no apology needed...

You were discussing the merits of one film format versus another, raised some 
interesting points. I think we were merely flipping the coin around and mentioning a 
couple of "cons" to your "pros."

We do a lot of this kind of "bandying about" on the list... keeps things lively... hope 
no offense was taken... :-)


Michael K wrote:

>  And when talking about prices as you do below, you
> aren't talking about the format per se, but about the camera implementations
> of the formats. 

(Sensing that he was teetering upon the precipace of an incredibly arduous, tedious, 
and largely irrelevent metaphysical discussion which might drive large numbers of list 
members to take up a different hobby, he chose his words carefully...)

Michael-

Does a film format exist without the "camera implementations" of them? After all, 
without the camera implementations, there is no half frame, 5 perf, 7 perf, full frame, 
645, 66, 67, 69, or some of the unusual formats a couple of stereo cameras produce on 
120 film. They are all artifacts of the camera, or as you would say, "camera 
implemented."

(Incidently, I think RBT has offered a choice of two different film formats, depending 
upon the model one chooses...)


Eric Goldstein, Boston, Massachusetts
egoldste@xxxxxx  (Good suggestion, Shab!)


------------------------------