Amanda, why did you choose a 2k scan, instead of a 4k? Strictly a cost savings?
Seems that TVs will be 4K before we know it. Even if you were lucky to afford a
DI and get a 35mm print, I've heard from several lab guys that 2K DIs were
always a little soft compared to a traditional contact print. But I would agree
that a DCP is a realistic way to finish the film.
While I'm a proponent of using film as a capture medium and even went to the
trouble of doing 16mm prints on my last few shorts. I am realistic that as an
exhibition medium its pretty dead and an unnecessary cost for a DIY artist
without major backing or funding. Printing my 3 minute shorts is a manageable
cost, but to make a print of a feature film, its just a huge cost for very
limited venues, hence my curiosity as to who is still going to such lengths.
On Friday, July 18, 2014 1:31:43 PM, Amanda Christie
<ama...@amandadawnchristie.ca> wrote:
speaking of 16mm films having longer life than 35mm....
i had been hoping to finish my latest project, Spectres of Shortwave, on
35mm... it's a 2 hour long landscape film of radio towers... but given that i
knew it would be at least 2 years in the filming process (as they were tearing
down the radio towers and i couldn't rush them, and i wanted all 4 seasons)...
and it was right when a lot of labs were closing their 35mm labs and theatres
were getting rid of projectors... even though i didn't care about commercial
theatres, i was still worried that if i pursued a 35mm finish, that by the
time i was ready to finish, that 35mm sound options would have dissappeared,
and i would be screwed over by the sound aspect, and have to scan it all and
finish digitally anyway... on a tight budget i couldn't afford risking the
expense of workprint AND a scan if 35mm sound went bust, so i decided to scan
everything 2k and finish to DCP... le sigh.... I'm at that stage right now...
logging and editing... dealing with
proxies, codecs, etc. etc.... while my 35mm intercine sites alone, unused and
bereft.
i will get this one done...
somehow...
but i swear... dammit!.... that my next one will be finished on a print... i
bought a 35mm camera while making this one (with everything that was happening
so fast in 2011 and 2012 in the industry, and with a project that would involve
2 years of filming... it was cheaper for me to buy than rent, and cameras were
going dirt cheap).... so i own an arri 35mm bl 4... and my next film will
finish to film... and it will be projected... well... wherever there is a 35mm
projector.
(this is the voice of one frustrated with codecs and proxies)
16mm too... i want some more of that.
xoadc
On 2014-07-18, at 4:17 PM, John Woods wrote:
Thanks for the many replies! I'm primarily interested in films produced in the
2010s. 45+ minutes in length, with an actual 16mm print struck.
>
>
>With the end of 35mm distribution in the past year, I've been wondering about
>how much longer 16mm prints will stick around. James Benning complained about
>the poor state of 16mm projection when he finished his last 16mm feature, RR,
>in 2007 and switched to video.
>
>
>With the abundance of compact projectors, it looks like 16mm prints will have
>a slightly longer life than 35mm, at least as an artist's medium. There is
>still a surprising amount of shorts being produced, but a 16mm feature seems
>like quite a passion project and its looking like Differently, Molussia is the
>most recent feature.
>
>
>John
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
