As someone who has recently been an employee (contact and limited optical printer) at Colorlab, I can say that Super 8mm to 16mm are on the way out. IF they would agree to do it for you, it would unfortunately take a VERY long time for the project to be completed. I LOVE Colorlab for a lot of things, but if I were you I would look elsewhere.
mike rice On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 5:37 AM, David Tetzlaff <djte...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, first, the only way the scales are tipping in any venue is toward > digital projection. Setting up a 16mm micro-cinema requires finding a > working projector that won't eat prints, finding the increasingly rare > short and fast lenses that will fill a decent sized screen, and dealing > with beat-up rental prints... But that whine is just mere preface to my > central point... to wit: > > It strikes me that just as we have traditionally distinguished between > "acquisition" formats and "distribution" formats, we are now at the point > (if we haven't been already) where it makes sense to distinguish between > "post-production" formats and distribution formats, and the choice of the > former is best made based on aesthetic concerns, and ought to be relatively > agnostic toward the latter. > > A number of years ago at the Flaherty, I was surprised to learn that some > of the most visually striking experimental shorts I saw had been shot on > Super-8, gone through a high-res scan and a digital intermediate, and then > finished on 35mm. That was something I never would have thought people > would do, but the process produced what struck me as a unique and engaging > "look". And, though I don't know absolutely, I'm pretty sure we were > watching 16mm prints, since I don't think Vassar had a 35mm projector. So > my hypothesis is that regardless of how you screen the work, blowing up > Super8 to 35mm will produce a visibly different effect than blowing it up > to 16mm. Now, IFF that's an effect you want, and if, as Scott says, the > cost of going to 35mm is not significantly higher than going to 16mm, then > 35mm would seem to make more sense. > > Again, it all depends on your aesthetic goals. I know Roger, for instance, > is "all about" an integrated low-fi, low-budget > everything-has-to-fit-in-my-trunk 'praxis'. Give the man access to a Xerox > machine and he's in his element! But we all have different elements, (if we > have elements... I'm not sure I do... but I digress. > > djt > > > On Dec 7, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Beebe, Roger wrote: > > > Just wanted to say RE: 35mm vs. 16mm, that Scott's sentiments seem to > echo the traditional wisdom about the omnipresence of 35mm, but with the > rapid scrapping of 35mm projectors from almost every multiplex (and most of > the art houses) in the U.S., it seems the scales may be tipping back in the > direction of 16mm. If nothing else, it's easy to throw up a 16mm classroom > projector to convert any darkened room into a microcinema; not so easy to > do that with 35mm (even with my "portable" Chinese projectors that come in > 8 boxes & weigh hundreds of pounds). > > > > 2 cents, > > Roger > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
