The digital revolution has disrupted most traditional media: newspapers, magazines, books, record companies, radio.
We've outsourced our memories to digital devices, and the result is that we no longer trust our memories. We see every small forgotten thing as evidence that they're failing us.
Because of the cumbersome nature of filmmaking, it's only recently that it has become available to the masses, with digital equipment and laptop computers. You can now actually make a pretty serviceable movie for very little money by yourself.
I've created a narrative of the world. I live in the world - tenuously, most times. I've avoided the digital world.
In the digital age of "overnight" success stories such as Facebook, the hard slog is easily overlooked.
I'm a bit of a caveman - I don't go out into the digital space very often. I lie facedown on the grass and count how many bugs I can find.
We didn't understand irony yet in the '80s; we just kind of existed at face value, so there was no nerd cool yet because the digital revolution was still in its infancy.
Social is a better way to interact with digital world. It is better than search. Implications for... everything. Total change.
[I'm] looking for a good balance between digital and creative work.
That's absolutely true, but one problem with the digital revolution, which may tie into what I said earlier, is that there can be a collapse of quality. You may not have liked the decisions made by publishers in the past, you may not have liked the decisions made by magazine editors or newspaper editors in the past. At least there was some quality control
I have control over every single frame on Blu-ray. If I want a scene bluer, I get that scene bluer. Originally, there was some fluctuation with the prints. If you made a thousand, or a few thousand prints, there is no control over any of that. But now I can make a master using the digital process.
It doesn't matter whether you shoot on celluloid or on digital, you better make a good film.
Otherwise [digital revolution] hasn't changed my way of filmmaking, I'm not nostalgic in postulating we should still make films on celluloid. I love celluloid but I don't need to continue on celluloid.
A theme of digital success is keeping it simple.
I like the film camera better because the film is still one hundred times better than any digital image at the moment. So, there are certain movies that you can't really do digitally.
I don't think there is any advantage to digital unless it's in a case like Slumdog Millionaire, where you have to get a shot and a big bulky film camera is out of the question.
I am not against digital at all.
You used to feed a piece of celluloid into an editor. [Digital] is not expensive and that is an advantage, but I must say that I don't love it.
People of all demographic categories and geographic regions will access a good digital library.
Usage tends to be global, while funding tends tobe local. When we allow it to happen, usage of a digital library is remarkably diverse and widespread.
The populations of most cities around the world continue to grow. The reasonspeople congregate in cities are various and complex, and the dawn of the digital age has not put much of adamper on the human urge to congregate.
Digital content and electronic networks have changed the basic environmental conditionsin which documents are created, distributed, and used.
We often hear that the digital age has resulted in a devaluing of time, space, and place. But I wonder if theseclaims are exaggerated.
Because nearly all digital libraries are tied to bricks-and-mortar institutions, the funding base tends to be quite localized.
Digital is a disaster. No digital radio has the correct time and they don't even agree with each other.
