> Baker Landers knows on which side of that divide she falls. "We mix and release the film for the best case scenario, saying, 'This is how it should be.' A lot of times, we'll hear people say, 'They're not going to be able to hear this in certain theaters in the Midwest, so should we do this louder?' But then you don't have a standard any longer. You have to say, 'This is the standard. We're doing it for the optimum viewing experience.' And hopefully theaters and everyone else rise to that."
That and other parts of the article seem like clear analogs to IT design issues: If we follow the standard, then we get a lot of failures by people not following the standard. Think of web design, for example.
IME, the answer in IT is: Deal with it. Appealing to the standard as an excuse for the failures is BS. If your website fails because some end-user platform doesn't implement standards properly, that's on you. You need to build for the messy real world, not for an idealistic, perfect, clean-room world of standards.
Not that. That would be much worse than the status quo.
I'm not unhappy technically with what's happening now, it seems to be an artistic decision from directors to fuck it up. Technically everything is set up nicely to have great sound.
If directors want to release shit audio on purpose there is nothing we can do but not pay for their movies.
That and other parts of the article seem like clear analogs to IT design issues: If we follow the standard, then we get a lot of failures by people not following the standard. Think of web design, for example.
IME, the answer in IT is: Deal with it. Appealing to the standard as an excuse for the failures is BS. If your website fails because some end-user platform doesn't implement standards properly, that's on you. You need to build for the messy real world, not for an idealistic, perfect, clean-room world of standards.
Is there no user-centric design concept in film?