<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Film vs. Digital: The IMAX Edition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/movies/2012/04/film-vs-digital-the-imax-edition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/movies/2012/04/film-vs-digital-the-imax-edition/</link>
	<description>Seeing today&#039;s cinema through the movies of the past</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:05:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: JP</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/movies/2012/04/film-vs-digital-the-imax-edition/#comment-387</link>
		<dc:creator>JP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:29:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/movies/?p=1185#comment-387</guid>
		<description>Apart from Mr. Freeman&#039;s untimely and tragic death, this is a great job. You get paid for telling a good story visually and get to travel. What&#039;s better than that? 
About the process, MacGillivray is correct in that the media are different and digital is easier to work with. However, I found that now most of the problems that occurred with equipment as little as five years ago have been attenuated by redundant cheaper hardware and cameras and software has really matured. Film however, is hard to beat. 

Nice article as usual. Keep up the good work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apart from Mr. Freeman&#8217;s untimely and tragic death, this is a great job. You get paid for telling a good story visually and get to travel. What&#8217;s better than that?<br />
About the process, MacGillivray is correct in that the media are different and digital is easier to work with. However, I found that now most of the problems that occurred with equipment as little as five years ago have been attenuated by redundant cheaper hardware and cameras and software has really matured. Film however, is hard to beat. </p>
<p>Nice article as usual. Keep up the good work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Farley Flavors</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/movies/2012/04/film-vs-digital-the-imax-edition/#comment-386</link>
		<dc:creator>Farley Flavors</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:31:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/movies/?p=1185#comment-386</guid>
		<description>&quot;Digital is required for 3D projection&quot;. This isn&#039;t true - IMAX have a dual-strip 3-D film camera and projection system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Digital is required for 3D projection&#8221;. This isn&#8217;t true &#8211; IMAX have a dual-strip 3-D film camera and projection system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
