Computed PXL

[LORD HASENPFEFFER <MYKEC@delphi.com>]

Hey Paul!



I favour the Mac platform even though I've never used one.

I've read and heard so much about them from critics and users alike.

Dunno why they never seem to receive bad press about their performance! ;-)

Could it be... they're just better?



Um, what exactly is possible with Adope whatever it was you mentioned

with regards to PXL video editing?



I'm the guy doin' the Commodore thing.  Commodores do have one major

advantage over Macs.  Just last night I purchased two C64s, one 1541

disk drive, one MPS-801 printer, and an Amiga (Commodore compatible)

1080 colour monitor (!) (which makes a great TV set when you plug a

VCR into it!), along with some joysticks and some game software.

I paid a little over 9 dollars for all of it.  The monitor alone

sells normally on the used market for never less than $75!  The computers

and drives generally sell for $20 apiece.  These may not be able to

do what you're talking about doing to PXL footage with a Mac but you

will never buy a fully functioning Mac system so inexpensively.  :-)



I do a lot of used Commodore shopping to help friends and family members

who are new to computing become familiar with the basic concepts that

are common to all platforms (i.e. ASCII, word processors, spreadsheets,

databases, operating systems, telecommunications (especially on the 'net)

etc.).  They can always get a more expensive machine later if they wish,

of course.  I just cannot stand seeing complete newbies invest in a

high-end system with no knowledge of its capabilities or their own.

This forms sort of a buffer for them against the shock of abruptly

realizing what they've bought or what they don't know - especially when

I can answer every question they have and advise them about which software

really is best for their purpose before they buy it.



Anyway, back to your Mac...  I dunno about a lot of you in here but I

always enjoyed the garbage and distortion produced from using cassette

tapes outdoors in my old PXL.  I saw Nadja and thought the PXL parts

in it were done very well - however, they didn't really provide a real

picture of what kind of video noise a PXL is truly capable of making.

That actually would have been inappropriate for that movie, however,

even as I thought David Lynch's employment of a PXL camera in his movie

was a spectacular idea, the purity of the image on screen was sickmaking

to The Dark Side Of My Brain.



So I guess that sort of makes me David Lynch's evil twin?



Also, films aren't necessarily about telling stories.  I preferred to

use my PXL as more of a documentative tool.  Most of my PXL "films"

don't involve plots or storylines, but rather ideas or documentaries

of things that have actually occurred.  One of the sequences in my

upcoming VHS HiFi release features a friend of mine whom I'd known

since we were Cub Scouts together in the 70s.  We graduated high school

together and be later became my roommate for nearly a year, which is

why he's in one of my films to begin with.  He committed suicide five

years ago.  The PXL "film" with him in it has since become priceless

to me because of that even though it contains no real plot or story.

My main focus, however, in making films of this sort is simply to

break people of tired thinking - and to think that filmmaking is about

telling stories is nice and has its place, but to think that it's not

about anything else is one big tired thought that I seek to break.

I'm not saying you said that either, per se.  I'm just wanting to get

my point across and your statement inspired me.



Myke

http://people.delphi.com/mykec/