- RSS /
Aeropress Or French Press?
My personal preference is the Aeropress, for the following reasons:
- Durability - The Aeropress is a hard, BPA free plastic. A french press is pretty fragile glass, and prone to shattering from an accidental tap in a small sink, which is likely in cleaning it in a dorm.
- Ease of Cleaning - Aeropress just requires a quick rinse, 5 seconds tops. The plunger removes most residue that would build up. A french press, in my experience, requires a couple rinses, then its best to actually clean with soap after every brew.
- Time - Aeropress is 30-45 seconds to complete once the water is up to temperature. French press is 3-5 minutes, depending on personal preference
- Versatiliy - The Aeropress is capable of producing multiple different styles of drink from a latte(not a true latte, but definitely not a bad drink) to something like drip, depending on grind, water temperature, steep time, speed of press. The french press is going to give you one type of coffee
Also of note, neither of these methods are going to be consistent until you have a good burr grinder. I use the Bodum Bistro, which is good but not amazing. It does seem to work well for just about anything other than espresso. It isn’t consistent enoug at very fine grinds for that. But that means very little to me because it’llbea while until I can afford a Rancilio Silvia
Disclosure: I used a french press for about 3 years, broke 2 beakers in the time, still use one from time to time. I currently use an Aeropress as my “daily driver”, and have done so since i purchased it about 3 months ago.
Digital Cinema And 3D
Recently, Christopher Nolan was interviewed on the topic of film vs digital and stereoscopic cinematography, or 3D. It’s no secret how he feels about both. And it’s the opposite of most of mainstream Hollywood right now.
Nolan makes comments on 3D that I think are at the heart of the issue:
3-D is a misnomer. Films are 3-D. The whole point of photography is that it’s three-dimensional. The thing with stereoscopic imaging is it gives each audience member an individual perspective. It’s well suited to video games and other immersive technologies, but if you’re looking for an audience experience, stereoscopic is hard to embrace. I prefer the big canvas, looking up at an enormous screen and at an image that feels larger than life.
Its entirely possible that something will change and this will no longer be true after some technological advancement. But as it exists right now, I’m in agreement with Nolan. I do not think 3D adds to the storytelling ability of the director.
He also discusses the debate of of film vs digital acquisition, and this is something I have a bit more of an opinion on.
It’s cheaper to work on film, it’s far better looking, it’s the technology that’s been known and understood for a hundred years, and it’s extremely reliable.
There are a few things going on there. Up until about 3 years ago, there was no argument. Film provided a different look that digital didn’t offer. But with the introduction of cameras like the RED ONE, which has been used on a number of feature films, and now the Arri Alexa, that’s up for debate. Some people may still prefer film, but it’s not necessarily better looking anymore.
Or other thing Nolan touches on is the manufacturers interests:
I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo.
Until a few weeks months ago, I worked for a Panasonic reseller. I can tell you with absolute certainty that they are trying to force technologies like 3D to happen. They don’t care that most 3d is crap. They just want to sell cameras.
All of that said, I think its important to have people who are adamant about not changing to a new technology until there are concrete reasons to do so.