I never claimed that what was made was better or even on par to more professional equipment, just that it gave more people more access. In fact, my very last statement was . . .

Naturally, as with anything in art and creativity, there will always be the discussion as to how the tools and equipment used will lead to better or worse final products and to how much that actually matters and why.

As a personal example, when I draw, I use cheap markers, pens, and pencils, because I don't want to spend the money on high quality stuff, even though I know they perform better, and I don't take drawing seriously. From moment one, when I started making books, I've spent countless hours researching techniques and materials, countless hours experimenting, coming across challenges, and figuring out how to over come them, and I buy good quality materials and pay close attention to how I use them and why because I actually care about making books in a way I'll probably never care about drawing.

There are arguments for using good equipment, proper techniques, and preserving the knowledge of art making. I understand them. There's also arguments as to why expenses can be problematic, for a lot of people unnecessary, and I understand them too.

There are also arguments for the making the means of creating and distributing art more accessible. Mostly, I agree with them and think they're good. I often like to point out that if it weren't for the printing press, we'd be living in a very different world today, from religion and philosophy, to science and knowledge, to economics and governance. The democratization of the written word because of the printing press literally helped to shape modern development.

I know where you're coming from. Wage suppression is bad. If consumers are going to spend good time and good money on a product, they deserve a good product. Not everyone is gonna be the next Spielberg and ego projects are often a fools errand. I think there's a lot in the details worth exploring there, but nothing really to argue.

As for working with phones, sometimes, knowing the limits of technology and working with them instead of against them can lead to really great art. For example, Nosferatu is an amazing horror film, because special effects were so limited at the time Murnau couldn't do out and out scary, so he had to make a film that had an emotionally haunting aura. Similarly, Metropolis has the feeling of the surreal bleeding out of it and really helping the film because of similar technological limitations.

Do I think that DSLR and Phone made films should be used for big cinema? No. Do I think they have limitations? Yes. Do I think if creators understood those limitations and worked both with them and within them they'd create better products? Yes. Do I think people who have a desire to create and experiment should be allowed to do so, even if the final product isn't top tier? Yes, for so many reasons. Do I think that they should necessarily think that it's gonna make them rich or famous or that they should expect people to love what they make? No.

I think what Soderbergh is doing is cool, because he's exploring new possibilities, and finding out the pros and cons of those possibilities will give us a lot to learn from. I haven't seen the film's, but I probably wouldn't like them visually much in the same way I didn't like seeing Public Enemies in theater because I found the high resolution, high frame rate, digital filming technique too harsh and jarring on the eyes. When a movie feels overly unnatural, or even worse uncomfortable to watch, it takes away from the viewing experience significantly.