Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Flick Harrison]

The fact that people have been wrongly declaring film dead for so long doesn't 
make it immortal.

What the filmados here are missing in their stampede to denounce Aaron is that 
film's possibilities in 1890, or in 1960, were much more open than the 
possibilities now.  Film cracked open the world when it was invented.  "Like 
writing history with lightning."  Experimental films have had a global network 
of projectors to inhabit, placed there and maintained by industrial forces 
which have long since left the format to the mercy of the elements.  Those 
elements are creeping in, slowly but surely. 
 
My 1970's grade-school memory of the whittering projector and its warbling 
soundtrack are inextricably tied to my appreciation of the medium. The clatter 
of the mechanism when the loop went awry is intrinsic to my approach to the 
form, as a viewer or maker.

No one going to school in the west today has that deep-seated sense of film as 
a social machine.  Their experience would be more about the internet going down 
when they want to watch a "movie," or the teacher being unable to get the 
computer to speak to the LCD projector.  Their budding artistic senses absorb 
these aesthetic accidents as part of their digital society.  What Bruce 
Sterling calls the "Gothic Chic" of the analog, mechanical world is but a retro 
steampunk fantasy to them.

Whole societies will skip over film and go straight to digital, the same way 
they've skipped over expensive landline infrastructure and gone straight to 
cellular phones.

Film's possibilities continually expanded until digital came along.  The 
resultant slow death of the celluloid industry is not the death of the artistic 
importance of film directly, but rather a severe logistical and social handicap 
on the future of the medium itself.  It's now an orphan at a dead end.  The 
effort to make a film will treble or quadruple when the big companies stop 
making stock, and that will discourage or prevent a lot of young artists from 
getting into it.

As photography disrupted portraiture (and perhaps identity itself), telegraph 
disrupted geography, etc etc, video (and now digital) has consistently moved 
into film's turf... the same way science has stepped on religion's toes.  The 
moving image was once entirely the territory of film (after motion pictures 
eclipsed zoetropes and such tinker toys) until video came along and drank its 
milkshake.  

What do I mean?  You could once explain everything you didn't understand by 
saying "god works in mysterious ways," but eventually science comes along and 
narrows the scope of things that can alone be explained by the supernatural, 
until that scope contains nothing but the philosophical and spiritual.  Film is 
almost there now.  It's a good place for an artistic tool to be, of course, but 
it's much smaller than the zone it used to occupy.

I mean really, do you think "The Kiss," "Workers Leaving the Factory," "The 
Sprinkler Sprinkled" etc needed film's formal qualities to work?  Wouldn't they 
have been perfectly fine on video?  I mean, most of early cinema was one long 
youtube party for a nickel.

How many people are donning the robe these days compared to the number signing 
up for science & tech?  That doesn't make the importance of spirituality any 
less - you could argue the opposite - but it means the field is getting thinner 
and the best and brightest are more likely to see the possibilities and reach 
their full potential in the scientific.
 
Film itself is but one clunky, beautiful, expensive, mechanical, risky, 
poisonous, painstaking method for capturing or creating moving images.  Every 
day, video gets easier, better and cheaper, and to think that this DOESN'T 
correspond to a decreasing artistic need / interest in film itself is wishful 
thinking.
 
An artist interested in moving images today can choose from dozens of tools and 
methods, including, as Aaron argues, a collapsing film infrastructure.  Lots of 
people LOVE film, and for good reasons, but many of the film oldies on this 
list came to love it when it was a much more significant player in art life. 

But for all that the members of this list love film's historical and aesthetic 
contexts, they seem to be in denial that its current context - or maybe, say, 
five minutes from now - is as a dead medium.  That's new, and it wasn't true 
15, 10, or even 5 years ago.  When I entered film school in 1994, film wasn't 
dead.  I remember how excited I was to shoot a student project on the new 
Vision stock.  Final Cut Pro arrived in 1999, but film continued to be the 
choice for mid-budget indie features for quite some time, especially for 
finishing.

Until recently mainstream festivals still demanded a film print, almost as a 
financial / logistical bulwark against the rising tide of product.  Good 
riddance to that aspect of film.

BTW, video has a history almost as long as film ( 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEi4Os3NNpM ) and both are but bli

Re: [Frameworks] maya deren quote help

[Adam Hyman]

Actually, I'd love to get that citation as well, please.

Best regards,

Adam


On 10/5/11 6:12 PM, "Jack Sargeant"  wrote:

> hi
> 
> a maya deren question:
> 
> has anybody got a full source for this quote:
> 
> "hollywood has been a major obstacle to the definition and development of
> motion pictures as a creative fine-art form." maya deren
> 
> if so please can they send it to me,
> many thanks
> 
> jack
> 
> jacksargeant.blogspot.com
> www.jacktext.net
> ___
> 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] maya deren quote help

[Jack Sargeant]

hi

a maya deren question: 

has anybody got a full source for this quote:

"hollywood has been a major obstacle to the definition and development of 
motion pictures as a creative fine-art form." maya deren

if so please can they send it to me,
many thanks

jack

jacksargeant.blogspot.com
www.jacktext.net
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Camera Problems

[Joe Gill]

I've had it before where the cartridge was to tight and it had to work for a 
bit before pulling the film, which sounds like this one...

On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Jason Halprin wrote:

> If I had to guess (and I am very much guessing here), the shop is likely 
> correct and the camera claw is having difficulty pulling the film down 
> (though that clip looked mighty stable...so it works splendidly for 6 seconds 
> at the end of the roll?). However, it's possible that this was a fluke and 
> that particular cartridge of film was defective. I've rarely come across a 
> super 8 camera that I couldn't find some technical or mechanical deficiency 
> with, but not all of them result in an unworkable camera.
> 
> Might it be cheaper to try and shoot a roll of B&W reversal, and get that 
> roll processed before declaring it unfit and giving a refund of any sort?
> 
> -Jason Halprin
> 
> From: Kevin Timmins 
> To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 5:31 PM
> Subject: [Frameworks] Camera Problems
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> I have a super 8 query regarding a camera I sold a while back. I'm trying to 
> figure out what's happened. Now I tested the camera before sending it out and 
> got images/the film pulled through fine. 
> 
> Here is what the buyer has said has happened after using a film cartridge 
> (100d, with correct settings, etc) developed by a lab in soho:
> 
> "they called to say that only a six second burst had come out. It so happened 
> to be the last 6 second burst that I did owing to the fact that the film 
> counter had reached 50ft. After getting the film back and looking the 
> exposure is great. I have taken it for a free look over by a pro camera shop 
> in soho. They have said that the film is not going through the gate, and that 
> the claw is not grabbing the notches on the film. They also said it was very 
> dry inside the camera. I understand what all of this means, I have a good 
> understanding of how cameras still and now moving work. They quoted £129.99 + 
> v.a.t for a full service and mend with a six month guarantee. This is lots of 
> money for what was supposed to be some fun."
> 
> Ok now like I said I tested the camera and it pulled through/developed fine. 
> Also what confuses me is he says the film is not going through the gate, the 
> claw is not grabbing the notches of the film? Why then did that 6 second 
> burst work?
> 
> Here is an online video of the footage that came out:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3C3Kcqn_Pg
> 
> Can anyone tell me what they think of this footage and the general situation 
> or come up with some explanation? If the camera is genuinely faulty I would 
> give the buyer at least a partial refund, however the buyer has told me that 
> the soho shop dismantled the camera (which makes me a little dubious about 
> sending a refund as it's not how I sent it out and there could be some 
> tampering going on). Also this soho shop sounds a bit steep with their 
> prices, does anyone know anything about this shop in soho?  
> 
> Sorry if anyone on here actually works at this soho shop, I don't want to 
> imply there is anything suspicious going on, I just want to get to the bottom 
> of this and come to a fair conclusion.  
> 
> Thanks
> Kev
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Frameworks] Camera Problems

[Jason Halprin]

If I had to guess (and I am very much guessing here), the shop is likely 
correct and the camera claw is having difficulty pulling the film down (though 
that clip looked mighty stable...so it works splendidly for 6 seconds at the 
end of the roll?). However, it's possible that this was a fluke and that 
particular cartridge of film was defective. I've rarely come across a super 8 
camera that I couldn't find some technical or mechanical deficiency with, but 
not all of them result in an unworkable camera.

Might it be cheaper to try and shoot a roll of B&W reversal, and get that roll 
processed before declaring it unfit and giving a refund of any sort?

-Jason Halprin




From: Kevin Timmins 
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 5:31 PM
Subject: [Frameworks] Camera Problems


 
 
Hi all, 

I have a super 8 query regarding a camera I sold a while back. I'm trying to 
figure out what's happened. Now I tested the camera before sending it out and 
got images/the film pulled through fine. 

Here is what the buyer has said has happened after using a film cartridge 
(100d, with correct settings, etc) developed by a lab in soho:

"they called to say that only a six second burst had come out. It so happened 
to be the last 6 second burst that I did owing to the fact that the film 
counter had reached 50ft. After getting the film back and looking the exposure 
is great. I have taken it for a free look over by a pro camera shop in soho. 
They have said that the film is not going through the gate, and that the claw 
is not grabbing the notches on the film. They also said it was very dry inside 
the camera. I understand what all of this means, I have a good understanding of 
how cameras still and now moving work. They quoted £129.99 + v.a.t for a full 
service and mend with a six month guarantee. This is lots of money for what was 
supposed to be some fun."

Ok now like I said I tested the camera and it pulled through/developed fine. 
Also what confuses me is he says the film is not going through the gate, the 
claw is not grabbing the notches of the film? Why then did that 6 second burst 
work?

Here is an online video of the footage that came out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3C3Kcqn_Pg

Can anyone tell me what they think of this footage and the general situation or 
come up with some explanation? If the camera is genuinely faulty I would give 
the buyer at least a partial refund, however the buyer has told me that the 
soho shop dismantled the camera (which makes me a little dubious about sending 
a refund as it's not how I sent it out and there could be some tampering going 
on). Also this soho shop sounds a bit steep with their prices, does anyone know 
anything about this shop in soho?  

Sorry if anyone on here actually works at this soho shop, I don't want to imply 
there is anything suspicious going on, I just want to get to the bottom of this 
and come to a fair conclusion.  

Thanks
Kev
___
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] Camera Problems

[Kevin Timmins]

Hi all, 
I have a super 8 query regarding a camera I sold a while back. I'm trying to 
figure out what's happened. Now I tested the camera before sending it out and 
got images/the film pulled through fine. 
Here is what the buyer has said has happened after using a film cartridge 
(100d, with correct settings, etc) developed by a lab in soho:
"they called to say that only a six second burst had come out. It so happened 
to be the last 6 second burst that I did owing to the fact that the film 
counter had reached 50ft. After getting the film back and looking the exposure 
is great. I have taken it for a free look over by a pro camera shop in soho. 
They have said that the film is not going through the gate, and that the claw 
is not grabbing the notches on the film. They also said it was very dry inside 
the camera. I understand what all of this means, I have a good understanding of 
how cameras still and now moving work. They quoted £129.99 + v.a.t for a full 
service and mend with a six month guarantee. This is lots of money for what was 
supposed to be some fun."
Ok now like I said I tested the camera and it pulled through/developed fine. 
Also what confuses me is he says the film is not going through the gate, the 
claw is not grabbing the notches of the film? Why then did that 6 second burst 
work?
Here is an online video of the footage that came out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3C3Kcqn_Pg
Can anyone tell me what they think of this footage and the general situation or 
come up with some explanation? If the camera is genuinely faulty I would give 
the buyer at least a partial refund, however the buyer has told me that the 
soho shop dismantled the camera (which makes me a little dubious about sending 
a refund as it's not how I sent it out and there could be some tampering going 
on). Also this soho shop sounds a bit steep with their prices, does anyone know 
anything about this shop in soho?  
Sorry if anyone on here actually works at this soho shop, I don't want to imply 
there is anything suspicious going on, I just want to get to the bottom of this 
and come to a fair conclusion.  
ThanksKev
  ___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Melissa]

The FU was pretty weak in my mind.  What was worse was slamming someones art 
work because you don't agree with their statements on technology changes etc... 
 How are we to create community where people feel safe to have heated 
discussions if we get abusive.  If we want more people to contribute we must 
think about this. Anger and passion are  fine but being mean just ain't cool

Sent from my Samsung Replenish

David Tetzlaff  wrote:

>Having, somewhat regrettably, dropped what was probably the first Frameworks 
>f-bomb directed at Aaron F. Ross last June, I am nevertheless (hypocritically, 
>I'll admit) disheartened by the devolution of this thread in schoolyard ad 
>hominem cursing. I think it's time to just stop feeding the trolls instead...
>
>___
>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

Re: [Frameworks] 16 and/or Super 8 viewers?

[Buck Bito]

It seems like I have tried almost all of them...
For Super-8 my favorite is the Braun SB-1 editor.

The brilliance of Braun's design are 3 'extra' rollers
- One which allows you to rewind from the middle of the reel without
pulling the film out of the gate, but with the film pulled away from the
follow-sprocket. The other two are under the lamp house to facilitate
rewinding unloaded film. All of the aluminum rollers are either shouldered
or dished to help protect the 'active' area of your film.

For 16mm, the Maier-Hancock MH-1000
(wow, I can't even find a link for that one - didn't realize how rare it is)
A Zeiss Moviscop will be just as gentle, but it has smaller screen and the
plastic (bakelite?) gate is prone to crack with age.

We've had the Braun and MH editors available for customer use for over 8
years and they have required little maintenance beyond weekly cleaning and
monthly lubrication. We used to use a rare 8mm Moviscop for regular-8 but
while it is probably the best R8 viewer around, it is for enthusiasts and
not viable in a moderately bright retail environment for use by
first-timers. We now offer an Elmo 912 dual for clients with regular-8.

More easily attainable Super-8 editors that might require a little more
attention/care during use would be the Elmo editors like the 912 R8/S8:

or the Goko G2002 and others:


10 years ago when I first got into small gauge film I fell in love with
the Minette editors because I thought it was so much more 'professional'
to have a proper gate with a pressure plate, but I soon learned how easily
such an arrangement can scratch film or hang on a nasty splice.

- Good Luck!
---Buck Bito
  -  vtc-sf.com


On Wed, October 5, 2011 12:22 pm, Ekrem Serdar wrote:
> Hey framers,
>
>   I've been generally warned off of them due to scratching! ah!
> scratching!,
> but considering getting a viewer or two for 16 and Super 8. Any
> recommended
> models to keep my eyes peeled for?
>
> --
> ekrem serdar
> austin, tx
> ___
> 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

Re: [Frameworks] 16 and/or Super 8 viewers?

[David Tetzlaff]

For Super 8 a Minette, and for 16mm a Moviscop. These are the 'standard' 
quality models - the 'Bolex's of the breed, if you will.

They don't scratch film (if you keep them clean). YOU might scratch the film 
while using them, but that's not the viewer's fault. The most important thing 
with moving film from one reel to another is to keep it wound tightly, and 
avoid cinching. That's what does the most scratch damege - layers of film 
rubbing against one another with foreign matter in between...


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

[Frameworks] 16 and/or Super 8 viewers?

[Ekrem Serdar]

Hey framers,

  I've been generally warned off of them due to scratching! ah! scratching!,
but considering getting a viewer or two for 16 and Super 8. Any recommended
models to keep my eyes peeled for?

-- 
ekrem serdar
austin, tx
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[David Tetzlaff]

Having, somewhat regrettably, dropped what was probably the first Frameworks 
f-bomb directed at Aaron F. Ross last June, I am nevertheless (hypocritically, 
I'll admit) disheartened by the devolution of this thread in schoolyard ad 
hominem cursing. I think it's time to just stop feeding the trolls instead...

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Bernard Roddy]

I've ignored almost every post under this subject heading.  But . . a little 
about this corner of the world.


In Oklahoma we are building a media program for artists that includes artists' 
approaches to traditional and digital photography, digital video, 16 mm and 
Super 8 film, and new media technologies (what is sometimes called robotics).  
No medium is enough for the artistic investigations of someone who is thinking 
with the changes we undergo.


As I see it, the first criterion for constructive discussion is a decent 
education in the history of media art, beginning with the circumstances under 
which seminal work in film, video, and performance took place, the nature of 
social changes experienced since then, the impact of the humanities on the arts 
(growth of film studies within academia, for example), and the importance of 
older media technologies (books and writing, for example, works in earlier 
formats, the continuing meanings of older technologies, etc.) for the creation 
and dissemination of important ideas and work today.  The next criterion for 
such a discussion would extend this context to include more popular media, such 
as the kind of filmmaking that most film theorists write about (budgeted, 
scripted, acted, what I see people like Shaviro addressing), the changing (and 
remaining) economics impacting what gets made, what can be said, who can say 
it, how long it resonates.  Individual
 creativity being a very high priority, a further criterion for constructive 
discussion would be a grasp of the dynamics of competition (the search for 
individual exposure under new media conditions, strategies for success as an 
independent artist, and such like).


There is no way to sustain such a constructive discussion without an 
educational context and orientation "on the ground" that Frameworks 
presupposes, a context that will always risk becoming homogeneous in the 
absence of new blood, a context that provokes will always require renewal and 
transformative disruption over passification and mere reproduction.


Bernie


School of Art and Art History

University of Oklahoma




From: Francisco Torres 
To: Experimental Film Discussion List 
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak




Aaron talks about "Constructive criticism" This is not Mrs. Hendersonn 6th 
grade home room, paly. 
Do not come in here with a knife clenched in your teeth and expect to be 
treated with silk gloves.
___
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

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Francisco Torres]

Aaron talks about "Constructive criticism" This is not Mrs. Hendersonn 6th
grade home room, paly.
Do not come in here with a knife clenched in your teeth and expect to be
treated with silk gloves.
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Adam Paradis]

To Aaron,
For somebody that boasts about keeping up to date on the cutting edge and what 
is going on. What you seem to fail to realize is that the demise of film has 
been an ongoing conversation for a very long time now. You are not presenting 
us with anything that we don't already know or are aware of. This has been a 
subject that has been at the front of just about everything "film" for the 
better part of a decade now, if not since the advent of video and digital 
imaging technologies. Stop writing like we have no idea that this is going on 
and that you are some kind of Nostradamus and we are just ignorantly diddling 
around while the walls are about to cave in on us. 
Just because your expertise will soon be outsourced and replaced by a robot or 
computer, and this will happen. Doesn't give you the right to come rain "truth 
bombs" on our community. Go back to designing the very things that will make 
you obsolete. In the meantime we'll keep enjoying making films and wait to piss 
in your face someday.
Get a fucking life,
Adam Paradis

--- On Wed, 10/5/11, Chris Kennedy  wrote:

From: Chris Kennedy 
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2011, 1:12 PM

I'm sorry, is there something wrong with playing the fiddle while Rome
burns? You've got your fire-resistant vest and you're happy. Some people are
choosing similar options and others are choosing to keep fiddling. We like
the warmth, but its awfully hard to finish our tunes when you keep aiming
the damn fire-hose at us.
C

On 10/5/11 1:01 PM, "frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com"
 wrote:

> The demise of film is
> inevitable. Labs are shutting down, stocks are 
being discontinued, Kodak
> itself is about to be placed on the 
chopping block. These are facts. What is
> your action plan? Shall we 
play the fiddle while Rome burns?

Aaron



___
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

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Alistair Stray]

I don't work in film, I haven't done since I was a kid, I'd already switched to 
analog video before I switched to a completely digital workflow. Are you 
actually talking to me here ? If you read the last paragraph of mine you'll see 
everyone here already knows the score, and they know what they're dealing with, 
and I'm pretty sure they know how they plan to adapt. What is the point of you 
being on this list exactly ? Seriously, what the fuck are you doing here ?  T
 
hese 'facts' of yours have not escapes anyone here. Are you just here to troll 
people using what is to you a dead medium ? Are you really that clueless about 
the history of the moving image ?
 
 


>
>From: Aaron F. Ross 
>To: Experimental Film Discussion List 
>Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 17:48
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
>
>The demise of film is inevitable. Labs are shutting down, stocks are 
>being discontinued, Kodak itself is about to be placed on the 
>chopping block. These are facts. What is your action plan? Shall we 
>play the fiddle while Rome burns?
>
>Aaron
>
>
>
>
>At 10/5/2011, you wrote:
>>So... you used an example of technology not quite there yet, and 
>>tech also still in the prototype stage. You may know what you're 
>>talking about but you're being a tad disingenuous about the current 
>>abilities of digital by using two not quite there yet examples of 
>>the technology. Saying 'these things are coming' is fine, but 
>>artists have to use whats there now. Some artists who want the look 
>>and abilities of film will never find that in the digital medium (my 
>>grandfather was an animator and experimental film maker who worked 
>>in 8mm and 16mm, he taught me a lot about film). As I said, I'm a 
>>digital artist, I make experimental films in the digital medium, and 
>>have done for over twenty years. I'm also a freelance compositor who 
>>uses Nuke, and a rigger and modeller who uses Maya (since version 
>>4.5). I Am well aware that you can create HDR images using multi 
>>bracketed exposures, but this is a film list containing film makers, 
>>who don't actually always want to make time lapse films. Plus as I 
>>said, you're missing the point here, more sensitivity/latitude being 
>>available in sensors is going to be more preferable (and good 
>>enough) for film makers than huge and unweildy HDR image sequences 
>>(such as the 14 stop range of the Arri Alexa, an incredible camera).
>>
>>On depth of field in post, yeah, but that technology is actually 
>>going to be more useful in making compositing elements with a 2D 
>>plate a lot easier (also it isn't going to be available for 
>>recording moving images for quite some time either). Digital is also 
>>not going to accurately recreate the bokeh of my 1966 Helios lens 
>>attached to my hacked digital Panasonic GH2 digital VDSLR either. 
>>Back to your losless argument, there you really don't seem to know 
>>what your talking about in general. Pretty much all digital 
>>procesess do create a generative loss upon the data, you may think 
>>thats a semantic argument, but if you were a compositor you would 
>>think very differently about it.
>>
>>Your list of experimental film essentials is quite short really. As 
>>a digital artist I understand my form and my work in terms of its 
>>place within the wider tradition of experimental film. For all 'the 
>>new' digital gives there are very few, if any tbh, experimental 
>>digital films out there that you can't trace back directly to 
>>experimental film (in terms of aesthetic, structure, the basic 'how 
>>it works'). This was also likewise true for video art.  This isn't 
>>so true in digital audio, where entirely new forms of music have 
>>emerged that couldn't have done prior to the digital domain. 
>>Overstating digital and its future is not contributing to any 
>>discussion here, so stop doing it. Also, there are a few filmmakers 
>>here who use both film and digital sources in their work and make 
>>hybrid works, they know all about the digital domain (as do 
>>filmmakers here who don't work in it). Digital will replace film 
>>evangelism, or as you call it 'the coming apocalypse', is not a new 
>>discussion here either. I for one remember seeing such discussions 
>>here when I was first subscribed in the 1990s, and the bottom line 
>>for me is the discussion hasn't actually fundamentally moved on 
>>although the technology has. This could be because its pointless, as 
>>the people here are artists first, technicians later, and mostly not 
>>gear heads chasing the next new shiny or software paradigm. But 
>>everyone here knows whats happening in their form. You're not saving 
>>people, or informing them, noone here will be 'twisting in the wind'.
>>
>>- Stray.
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Aaron F. Ross 
>>To: Experimental Film Discussion List 
>>Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 20:40
>>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
>>
>>Regarding the allegation t

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Chris Kennedy]

I'm sorry, is there something wrong with playing the fiddle while Rome
burns? You've got your fire-resistant vest and you're happy. Some people are
choosing similar options and others are choosing to keep fiddling. We like
the warmth, but its awfully hard to finish our tunes when you keep aiming
the damn fire-hose at us.
C

On 10/5/11 1:01 PM, "frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com"
 wrote:

> The demise of film is
> inevitable. Labs are shutting down, stocks are 
being discontinued, Kodak
> itself is about to be placed on the 
chopping block. These are facts. What is
> your action plan? Shall we 
play the fiddle while Rome burns?

Aaron



___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Aaron F. Ross]

The demise of film is inevitable. Labs are shutting down, stocks are 
being discontinued, Kodak itself is about to be placed on the 
chopping block. These are facts. What is your action plan? Shall we 
play the fiddle while Rome burns?

Aaron




At 10/5/2011, you wrote:
>So... you used an example of technology not quite there yet, and 
>tech also still in the prototype stage. You may know what you're 
>talking about but you're being a tad disingenuous about the current 
>abilities of digital by using two not quite there yet examples of 
>the technology. Saying 'these things are coming' is fine, but 
>artists have to use whats there now. Some artists who want the look 
>and abilities of film will never find that in the digital medium (my 
>grandfather was an animator and experimental film maker who worked 
>in 8mm and 16mm, he taught me a lot about film). As I said, I'm a 
>digital artist, I make experimental films in the digital medium, and 
>have done for over twenty years. I'm also a freelance compositor who 
>uses Nuke, and a rigger and modeller who uses Maya (since version 
>4.5). I Am well aware that you can create HDR images using multi 
>bracketed exposures, but this is a film list containing film makers, 
>who don't actually always want to make time lapse films. Plus as I 
>said, you're missing the point here, more sensitivity/latitude being 
>available in sensors is going to be more preferable (and good 
>enough) for film makers than huge and unweildy HDR image sequences 
>(such as the 14 stop range of the Arri Alexa, an incredible camera).
>
>On depth of field in post, yeah, but that technology is actually 
>going to be more useful in making compositing elements with a 2D 
>plate a lot easier (also it isn't going to be available for 
>recording moving images for quite some time either). Digital is also 
>not going to accurately recreate the bokeh of my 1966 Helios lens 
>attached to my hacked digital Panasonic GH2 digital VDSLR either. 
>Back to your losless argument, there you really don't seem to know 
>what your talking about in general. Pretty much all digital 
>procesess do create a generative loss upon the data, you may think 
>thats a semantic argument, but if you were a compositor you would 
>think very differently about it.
>
>Your list of experimental film essentials is quite short really. As 
>a digital artist I understand my form and my work in terms of its 
>place within the wider tradition of experimental film. For all 'the 
>new' digital gives there are very few, if any tbh, experimental 
>digital films out there that you can't trace back directly to 
>experimental film (in terms of aesthetic, structure, the basic 'how 
>it works'). This was also likewise true for video art.  This isn't 
>so true in digital audio, where entirely new forms of music have 
>emerged that couldn't have done prior to the digital domain. 
>Overstating digital and its future is not contributing to any 
>discussion here, so stop doing it. Also, there are a few filmmakers 
>here who use both film and digital sources in their work and make 
>hybrid works, they know all about the digital domain (as do 
>filmmakers here who don't work in it). Digital will replace film 
>evangelism, or as you call it 'the coming apocalypse', is not a new 
>discussion here either. I for one remember seeing such discussions 
>here when I was first subscribed in the 1990s, and the bottom line 
>for me is the discussion hasn't actually fundamentally moved on 
>although the technology has. This could be because its pointless, as 
>the people here are artists first, technicians later, and mostly not 
>gear heads chasing the next new shiny or software paradigm. But 
>everyone here knows whats happening in their form. You're not saving 
>people, or informing them, noone here will be 'twisting in the wind'.
>
>- Stray.
>
>
>
>From: Aaron F. Ross 
>To: Experimental Film Discussion List 
>Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 20:40
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
>
>Regarding the allegation that my last post was technically inaccurate--
>
>Altering exposure in post with no loss in quality is possible High
>Dynamic Range imaging. This type of sensor captures the entire range
>of brightness values visible to the human eye-- much greater latitude
>than any conventional camera, analog or digital. Exposure can
>literally be set in post. HDR sensors are not affordable yet, but
>they will be in a few years. Meanwhile, HDR still photos can be
>constructed from multiple bracketed conventional exposures.
>
>As for depth of field in post, that is also coming soon to a digital
>camera near you. Light field cameras work by capturing not just the
>wavelength and intensity of light, but also its direction vectors.
>Images can be focused after they are shot with no loss in quality.
>
>http://www.lytro.com/
>
>So actually, I do know what I'm talking about. I try to stay abreast
>of the latest technologies in image-m

[Frameworks] DuArt's Vault

[Bill Seery]

This was in DuArt's e-newsletter yesterday. Figured it would be of interest to 
a few folks here and be the source of some lively discussion, as always. 


> Film Lab Vaults
> We're in the process of clearing DuArt's long-term storage vaults.  If you 
> think you've got film or video elements here from projects past that you 
> would like to retrieve or find a home for, contact Steve Blakely at the lab. 
> Email him atsblak...@duart.com

Here's the link if you're interested:

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=r5cyk7dab&v=00153jkMsybZmiySrak8Qn2MiUtqh-cNZ-CcZ9PgeewgiX0aepErsNW36JEIjM3CQTs8CaVOCXIQHxzdjty9wWJEQdmF58yJOmCGJAeqHieJWY=

I know some filmmakers who have been there searching for things. Perhaps they 
want to share what they have come across. And how negotiable DuArt is at this 
point.


Bill Seery
b...@mercermedia.com
212.627.8070


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] MFJ 54 "Focus on Carolee Schneemann" guest editor Kenneth White

[MIllennium Film Journal]

We have reloaded the Google Code for the Carolee Schneemann issue of the 
Millennium FIlm Journal.
http://mfj-online.org/news/
Apologies for the problems!

MIllennium Film Journal
m...@mfj-online.org



On Sep 28, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Bruce McPherson wrote:

> Thanks!
> Unfortunately, when I tried to order an error message reared its ugly head. 
> Apparently some coding problem with Google Checkout. Could you let me know 
> when it's fixed?
> Bruce McPherson
> - Original Message -
> From: MIllennium Film Journal
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:04 PM
> Subject: [Frameworks] MFJ 54 "Focus on Carolee Schneemann" guest editor 
> Kenneth White
> 
> We are thrilled to announce the publication of Millennium Film Journal No. 54 
> "Focus on Carolee Schneemann." 
> 
> Please note that the guest editor of this issue is Kenneth White.
> 
> 
> http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ54/MFJ54TOC.htmlC.html
> 
> http://mfj-online.org/news/
> 
> 
> Grahame
> 
> 
> 
> Grahame Weinbren
> Senior Editor
> Millennium Film Journal
> http://mfj-online.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Chicago 8: A Small Gauge Film Festival - Programs Announced!

[JB Mabe]

*FRIDAY OCTOBER 21ST @ CINEMA BOREALIS
**1550 N Milwaukee Ave 4th Floor
*
*
*
*8 PM-SUPER 8 CHICAGO
**Adele Friedman, Bill Stamets, Jason Halprin, Karen Johannesen, Adam
Paradis & Lori Felker in Person!
*
Adele Friedman - Doug & His Plants
Saul Levine - Big Stick
Bill Stamets - Red Filter Goes to Cortes Island. Sees Dogs and Sun
Jason Halprin – All Night & All Day
Michael Robinson – Untitled
Karen Johannesen - Light Speed
Adam Paradis - Sun Dress
Lori Felker - I Own A Carousel
Jo Ann Elam – Lie Back & Enjoy It


*9:30 PM-Super 8 Filmmaker Jaap Pieters 2011 US Tour*
*Co-presented by Christy LeMaster of The Nightingale Theatre *

Dutch super 8 filmmaker Jaap Pieters will be in person with live musical
accompaniment by local musician Travis Bird! The Chicago 8 Festival is very
pleased to co-present this program with Christy LeMaster from the
Nightingale Theatre.  Jaap’s films are highly personal observations of his
surroundings. Limiting himself to the duration of the 3-minute Super 8 reel,
he uses minimal equipment and editing. Often filming from his apartment
window, he may focus on unusual people seen on the street, or on recurring
characters both known and unknown. In the manner of a home screening, Jaap
will be present at these shows to give commentary on his program, which will
be selected at each individual show. Travis will improvise accompaniment to
the silent films, incorporating both musical and nonmusical sounds to
interact with the visual environments presented in Jaap’s films.

Jaap Pieters has been taking photographs and making Super 8 films for the
last three decades, and is a well-known presence in Europe. Beginning with
his first solo program in Istanbul in 1997, he has shown regularly
throughout virtually all corners of Europe, including on tours of
Switzerland, Germany, and Spain, as well as in Paris, Athens, Copenhagen,
and many more. He is also a fixture at IFF Rotterdam, and has shown at all
manner of alternative venues along the way.

Travis Bird, is a guitarist, composer, and writer focused on both
songwriting and improvisation. Active in Chicago since 2007, he has worked
in a wide variety of musical environments and has played at venues across
the U.S. on several occasions, as well as pursuing an active release
schedule. In addition to his musical activities, he co-curates Notice
Recordings (est. 2010), a boutique cassette label that has released his own
work as well as that of other experimental musicians.


*
*
*SATURDAY OCTOBER 22ND @ CHICAGO FILMMAKERS *
*5243 N Clark St*


*6:30 PM-A TOWN CALLED TEMPEST
Janis Crystal Lipzin in Person!*

Brian Frye - Earth vs The Giant Spider vs The Witches
Steve Polta - Summer Rain for LMC-side B
Rob Todd - Castle
Chuck Kleinhans - Stopping by the Toll Road
Pablo Valencia - Films I
Chris Kennedy - Schuh Schnell Service
Janis Crystal Lipzin - Cracks Between the Stones
Alex Rogalski - Land of Living Skies
Tara Nelson - Snow
Tony Gault - Tabernacle
Alex Rogalski - Meditor
Brian Frye - Ladies Day


*8 PM-JANIS CRYSTAL LIPZIN- SMALL GAUGE WORKS*
*Janis Crystal Lipzin in Person!*

Right Eye/Left
Trepanations
Seasonal Forces Part 1 & Part 2
De Luce 1:  Vegetare

San Francisco–based Lipzin has been one of Super 8’s most passionate
American advocates for more than twenty-five years. Active as critic,
curator, and teacher (she was instrumental in founding and producing, Small
Windows, the San Francisco Art Institute 8mm Film Festivals), Lipzin’s own
films combine a sharp eye for cultural observation and social critique as
revealed through the personalizing small-gauge camera.  —Steve Anker, Dean,
CalArts Department of Film/Video

According to Grahame Weinbren, editor of Millennium Film Journal “Lipzin has
had an unmatched impact on the art of film through her generations of
teaching and her hundreds of students.”  She taught Film and
Interdisciplinary Studies at the renowned San Francisco Art Institute from
1978 to 2009 where she served as Chair of the prominent Film Department, and
before that, directed the influential Film/Photo Program at Antioch College.
 She received her Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Ohio University in
Painting and Photography. She also studied painting at New York University
and received her MFA in Film from the San Francisco Art Institute.

Lipzin’s films and photo work have been featured in numerous museum shows
including the Whitney Museum, the Museum of Modern Art, the New Museum of
Contemporary Art (NY), the Institute of Contemporary Art in London, the
Centre Pompidou in Paris, the Berkeley Art Museum, the Corcoran Gallery, the
Neuberger Museum at SUNY Purchase, and the Kunstmuseum in Berne,
Switzerland. Her many awards include three Fellowships from the National
Endowment for the Arts.  Her films and videos are distributed
internationally and her recent digital film, De Luce 1: Vegetare has been
shown in 22 venues in eight countries including at the Edinburgh Film
Festival, Videoex in Zurich, the San Francisco Film Festiva

Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 Frame Size question

[Kevin Timmins]

Indeed this all makes sense... thanks so much. I didn't have it transfered to 
mini DV tape (720 x 576) because I didn't want the interlaced frames. I emailed 
Blue Cine Tech to ask them about the codec and they said it was a "Panasonic DV 
codec".
Could you explain a few term to me that you used in your message, this would be 
extremely helpful for future reference. Although I got the gist of there 
meanings some clarification would be awesome:
Vertical Masking Pull Down

Also I am new to final cut studio and this will be my first time I'm using 
compressor to convert my super 8 film before editing in FCP. So I need to 
change the frame rate to 25fps and you say I should use ProRes 442? I actually 
have no idea how to do either of these at the moment but will hopefully figure 
it out as I potter around in compressor! You said:
"Compressor has different settings for how to do speed changes and frame 
blending, and does NOT default to the best quality, so you'll probably want to 
go in there and edit the presets."
Do you have any advice on what presets I should change for best quality in 
regards to using super 8/ square pixel footage? For example, if I'm using a 
DV-Pal kind of set up should I change field dominance (I kind of remember this 
using streamclip) to none or square rather than setting it to lower or higher 
(which I assume has something to do with interacting). Sorry I'm new to all 
this.
Thanks again though! Brilliant!Kevin

> From: djte...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 00:22:08 -0400
> To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 Frame Size question
> 
> >  I thought film was 4:3 just like SD video...
> 
> Wikipedia is your friend. The page below lists the gate sizes and both the 
> aspect ratio of the recorded image AND the aspect ratio as projected for more 
> film gauges than I ever knew existed:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_formats
> 
> The on-film aspect ratio of 16mm is 1.37 as is the projector ratio, thus a 
> tad wider than 4:3. 8mm is 1.32 on film and 1.33 in projection (meaning 
> there's some slight vertical masking, probably a good idea as providing a wee 
> bit of cover for shifting framelines / small registration errors. Super 8 is 
> 1.48 on film and 1.36 projected, so there's masking on the sides.
> 
> If you're getting any film transferred to SD, the aspect ratio of the video 
> image is 4:3, period. Different codecs will record this in different ways, 
> using different pixel grids. AVI is just a container, so that tells you 
> nothing about the codec that was used to capture your film.
> 
> 768x576 is PAL rendered in square pixels (it divides to 4:3). This is what a 
> graphics program such as Photoshop would expect. So I would guess your 
> 768x576 file is in some kind of codec mainly used for graphics or animation. 
> Most of the codecs used for PAL _video_ though are 720x576. Thus the pixels 
> are slightly wider than they are tall (as opposed, say, to DV-NTSC which is 
> 720x480 -- which means the pixels are narrower than they are tall).  I would 
> assume the lab used the graphics codec to preserve the 18 fps rate rate, so 
> one video frame = one film frame and the image runs in 'real time'. Since PAL 
> video is 25fps, period, had the lab used a PAL video codec, your image would 
> probably have been 720x576, and one video frame would equal one film frame, 
> but it would be running a good bit faster than 'real time.' 
> 
> Google is your friend... pretty much everything you could ever want to know 
> about pixel grids is explained in detail here:
> 
> http://lurkertech.com/lg/pixelaspect/
> 
> > I'm going to use apple compressor to set it at 25fps for editing so I just 
> > wondered if while I'm using compressor it was worth me scaling it down to 
> > 720 x 576 (if that is the original frame size)?
> 
> If you're using any PAL preset in Compressor, it should scale the image to 
> the right pixel grid by default, which will probably be 720x576.
> 
> The real questions are: 
> 1. What codec did the lab use? 
> 2. What video codec do you want to work in for editing? 
> 3. How are you going to handle the frame rate?. 
> 
> Regardless of #1, if you're working on a Mac the answer to #2 is probably 
> ProRes 422 standard (not HQ, which is overkill).
> 
> If you want the footage to play at the same speed as the original 18fps film, 
> you'll be slowing it down, adding pull-down and/or blending frames. The video 
> frames will no longer correspond to the film frames, but that's just the way 
> it goes. Individual frames of the output may look weird when you view them as 
> stills, but in motion they'll be fine. Compressor has different settings for 
> how to do speed changes and frame blending, and does NOT default to the best 
> quality, so you'll probably want to go in there and edit the presets.
> 
> ---
> 
> Going back to the video transfer, realize that there are possible variations 
> of how your Super 8 image gets into 

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Alistair Stray]

So... you used an example of technology not quite there yet, and tech also 
still in the prototype stage. You may know what you're talking about but you're 
being a tad disingenuous about the current abilities of digital by using two 
not quite there yet examples of the technology. Saying 'these things are 
coming' is fine, but artists have to use whats there now. Some artists who want 
the look and abilities of film will never find that in the digital medium (my 
grandfather was an animator and experimental film maker who worked in 8mm and 
16mm, he taught me a lot about film). As I said, I'm a digital artist, I make 
experimental films in the digital medium, and have done for over twenty years. 
I'm also a freelance compositor who uses Nuke, and a rigger and modeller who 
uses Maya (since version 4.5). I Am well aware that you can create HDR images 
using multi bracketed exposures, but this is a film list containing film 
makers, who don't actually always want to
 make time lapse films. Plus as I said, you're missing the point here, more 
sensitivity/latitude being available in sensors is going to be more preferable 
(and good enough) for film makers than huge and unweildy HDR image sequences 
(such as the 14 stop range of the Arri Alexa, an incredible camera). 
 
On depth of field in post, yeah, but that technology is actually going to be 
more useful in making compositing elements with a 2D plate a lot easier (also 
it isn't going to be available for recording moving images for quite some time 
either). Digital is also not going to accurately recreate the bokeh of my 1966 
Helios lens attached to my hacked digital Panasonic GH2 digital VDSLR either. 
Back to your losless argument, there you really don't seem to know what your 
talking about in general. Pretty much all digital procesess do create a 
generative loss upon the data, you may think thats a semantic argument, but if 
you were a compositor you would think very differently about it. 
 
Your list of experimental film essentials is quite short really. As a digital 
artist I understand my form and my work in terms of its place within the wider 
tradition of experimental film. For all 'the new' digital gives there are very 
few, if any tbh, experimental digital films out there that you can't trace back 
directly to experimental film (in terms of aesthetic, structure, the basic 'how 
it works'). This was also likewise true for video art.  This isn't so true in 
digital audio, where entirely new forms of music have emerged that couldn't 
have done prior to the digital domain. Overstating digital and its future is 
not contributing to any discussion here, so stop doing it. Also, there are a 
few filmmakers here who use both film and digital sources in their work and 
make hybrid works, they know all about the digital domain (as do filmmakers 
here who don't work in it). Digital will replace film evangelism, or as you 
call it 'the coming
 apocalypse', is not a new discussion here either. I for one remember seeing 
such discussions here when I was first subscribed in the 1990s, and the bottom 
line for me is the discussion hasn't actually fundamentally moved on although 
the technology has. This could be because its pointless, as the people here are 
artists first, technicians later, and mostly not gear heads chasing the next 
new shiny or software paradigm. But everyone here knows whats happening in 
their form. You're not saving people, or informing them, noone here will be 
'twisting in the wind'.
 
- Stray. 
 
 


>
>From: Aaron F. Ross 
>To: Experimental Film Discussion List 
>Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 20:40
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
>
>Regarding the allegation that my last post was technically inaccurate--
>
>Altering exposure in post with no loss in quality is possible High 
>Dynamic Range imaging. This type of sensor captures the entire range 
>of brightness values visible to the human eye-- much greater latitude 
>than any conventional camera, analog or digital. Exposure can 
>literally be set in post. HDR sensors are not affordable yet, but 
>they will be in a few years. Meanwhile, HDR still photos can be 
>constructed from multiple bracketed conventional exposures.
>
>As for depth of field in post, that is also coming soon to a digital 
>camera near you. Light field cameras work by capturing not just the 
>wavelength and intensity of light, but also its direction vectors. 
>Images can be focused after they are shot with no loss in quality.
>
>http://www.lytro.com/
>
>So actually, I do know what I'm talking about. I try to stay abreast 
>of the latest technologies in image-making. Anyone who has a 
>sentimental attachment to a particular technology is bound to be left 
>twisting in the wind when technology inevitably changes. Likewise, 
>anyone who buys into the myth of progress will find him or herself 
>saddled with a lot of useless gadgets.
>
>Thinking critically about tech