well john... 2K was a budget decision... made in 2011 as i was about to start shooting... and i was so scared and overwhelmed by this whole new area... i did what i could afford....
i also pulled back from frameworks a bit... and didn't ask for advice here... feeling somehow like ... not a traitor... that't not the right word at all... a defector maybe?.... i felt like asking this community for input would have been out of place... my last film didn't involve hand processing or optical printing, but it was still edited entirely on celluloid, neg cut and finished on 35mm, with no actors, and almost no action... destined for gallery exhibition on a loop.... but even so, some people said it wasn't "experimental" like my earlier films... and i probably took that too personally, and so i had a bit of an identity crisis... wondering if i had sold out by having a lab process that film instead of hand processing it myself... so i pulled back from frameworks.... and for this latest film, which has taken the last 4 years for my life... it's such a huge undertaking... a 2 hour landscape film on 35mm... no commercial audience (no talking heads, no narrative, no people, no action)... and i worried that maybe it also had no experimental audience given that not only am I working with a lab this time, but I'm also finishing on DCP, because sound is important to this film (it's all about radio!), and I was scared that 35mm sound would dissappear before I finished... so i worried it might not have any audience at all (neither experimental nor mainstream) like my last film because it was in between the two... but this film is really important to me, and I think it's an amazing historical subject (the demolition of one of the world's largest international shortwave radio tansmission sites thanks to conservative govt. budget cuts because they claim everyone has the internet now and shortwave radio is obsolete!... these towers served africa, europe, south america, and the arctic, from 1944 - 2012 and now they're gone!).... so yeah... i embarked on this film anyway... even if it meant having to finish digitally due to my fear of 35mm sound disappearing before i finished.... so yeah... i went for 2K (which I could barely afford).... and I pulled away from frameworks... feeling like a defector... now that i've jumped back in to reading frameworks... i'm shocked and surprised to be reading so many threads about codecs and such! i guess it makes sense, given all that's happened in the last few years... maybe i shouldn't have pulled away... it is nice to see the discussion of codecs integrated with the discussion of experimental film... i remember long debates of film vs. video and people trying to keep discussions related to video and quicktime files off this list altogether.... that's kind of why i pulled away... for fear that if i asked about how to proceed with scans and DCP output... that well... that this wouldn't be the place. anyhow... time passes.... 2K was all I could afford (and I'm still about 4000$ short of paying off my lab bills and the sound mix!... there are post-dated cheques in the hands of the labs as i type this and no money to pay them).... 4K would have been nice... but next time... it will be 4 perf.... not 4K. even if i have to find my own projector. xoadc On 2014-07-18, at 5:06 PM, John Woods wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
