[Frameworks] Looking for 16mm Oxberry shuttle
Hi all, I'm looking for a regular 16mm or super 16mm shuttle... If anyone has any leads on one for sale please let me know!! Thanks in advance! -Jesse- ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs
Dear Dave Tetzlaff, It would be nice if you would stop attributing positions and opinions to people that those people don't have, or suggesting, by implication, that they do things they don't do. You have no idea who I charge and who I don't charge, or whether I ever "demand" anything at all. And one thing you are leaving out is that all people, in various walks of life, not just in the art world, but including in the art world, do have a "right" to charge other people for services provided. If time and money is being spent to provide a service, one has a "right" to charge for the service given (if one so chooses). If expertise and advice is wanted, one has the "right" to charge for that expertise and advice (if one so chooses). Fred Camper and I (sometimes) collect fees for a service that we provide. This has nothing to do with copyright law. However, as to the separate question of copyright and fair use, what is "fair use" is obviously determined in part by whether or not the use is "of a commercial nature" (vs research, criticism, teaching purposes), as well as by the nature of the work, the amount used, and "the effect of the use upon the . . . value of the copyrighted work." The original discussion here began over someone who was inquiring about how to obtain "high resolution images . . . for a book". Obviously there are sources and methods that are better or worse, for various reasons. But "permission" is another matter. -- People sometimes do, but often don't, ask my "permission" to use images. They are more likely to contact us simply to ask if we can provide them. However, while there are, of course, many things that one does not have to ask any permission for, I do appreciate the consideration of those people who do ask for permission for various different uses of Brakhage work. And if you are really of the general opinion that "asking permission of anyone for anything is ideologically regressive, and frankly irresponsible" -- well, I guess you live in a different universe than I do. No more time for this conversation I'm afraid. Much too busy (providing mostly free services). Marilyn Brakhage On 3-Oct-15, at 11:38 AM, Dave Tetzlaff wrote: If Marilyn deems it appropriate to charge 'small' fees that go to Fred for his labor in providing "high quality images to represent the films", that seems fair, but her 'small' could be a struggling PhD student or fan-blogger's bridge-to-far, and she has no right to exclude their ability to participate in discourse around the films by using any fee, or a demand for any aspect of reproduction, as a gateway obstruction. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs
Amen to Dave Tetzlaff’s remarks . And in response to an earlier comment about (thankfully a small number) critics who act like royal jerks—point well made. I have two further mall thoughts. 1. I personally have never thought that illustrations for a critical essay are anything but an “aide-memoire”—a note, a sketch to help the reader of the essay imagine or remember what the critic is describing. The critical essay can never be mistaken for the actual viewing of the original. (There are many variations of this for scholars/critics. I used to ask students if they had seen the original Star Wars and when they said yes questioned them further if they saw it in its original 70mm format, and if not if they could really say they had seen/experienced it. Was a 16mm print of a 35mm film ever an adequate representation of the original? Was a VHS or DVD edition ever adequate. BTW, at one point you could actually buy a Stan Brakhage approved WHS copy of Dog Star Man.) 2. I think that those artists closest to the big time art market are often much more concerned with high quality reproductions, which are after all one of the hallmarks of the art book trade. I think it’s a good thing that the Warhol Foundation, say, tries to control the quality of the reproductions available in various formats (art print, poster, coffee mug, etc.). And most of the time high end international exhibitions have really nice illustrated catalogues for the show as it travels from major museum to major museum. But the lowly critical essay in a journal, newspaper, or even art magazine is trying for something different than giving someone a nice coffee table book memorializing that show they attended at the Met, or the Tate, or whatever. (Snarky remark abut Millenmium edited out.) Chuck Kleinhans ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] opensource DCP program (all platorms)
hey folks, you may already be onto this but for those who aren't, sounds like it might be worth investigating http://dcpomatic.com/ anyone used it? any feedback? cheers moira moiratierney.net vimeo.com/moiratierney ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs
Thank you Dave for that valuable information. I'm wondering if this applies to filmmakers using found footage from university collections? I'm using low-res digitized found footage downloaded from the UW Library website with their acknowledgement. Now I'm being asked to fill out an "Application for Permission to use Moving Images" form, and to pay a licensing fee for each one minute clip of film used. Among the list of requirements is to agree not to alter the footage in any way, but there's a place where I can tell them in detail how I would alter it, and they would want to see the finished film. After making these requirements they acknowledge "University of Washington Libraries makes no representation of exclusive ownership of the rights to any footage." So how legal is this form? On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Dave Tetzlaff wrote: > > My concern in the matter of film stills is not making money, but having > the films reasonably well represented. > > This is kind of a moot point for images used to illustration a point in an > academic essay published in a journal or book. They will appear as a > halftone with a max screen of maybe 105 lpi. A still export from a DVD will > be good enough for that, and having a better source image likely won't > improve on what is a very crude printing technique. Esaay authors have no > control over the reproduction methods used by a press. > > > I'm sure others would feel likewise about their films. > > Chuck already noted there are plenty of exceptions, but let's say "having > the films reasonably well represented" was all any rights-holder cared > about. Even such an apparently innocuous and proper principle is open to a > wide variety of interpretations and could open "a can of worms" that stops > publication dead in its tracks. What if a rights-holder would demand > calibrated color images printed on coated paper for an essay to appear in > something like the old print version of Jump Cut? > > > an image to illustrate a point isn’t “plagiarism”. But the other > reasons are more then good enough to ask permission from the artist. > > Nope. The problem is the whole concept of 'permission' as opposed to say > 'cooperation', 'agreement', 'approval' etc. > > You have the absolute right to employ visual quotation under Fair Use > guidelines, a right copyright-holders have been trying to deny or limit for > decades, and you should NEVER concede any limit to that right by even > suggesting PERMISSION is required. > > Without getting into all the nitty-gritty details, Chuck was right that > even making an inquiry about permission puts an author into a potentially > dicey legal position. Is this going to happen most of the time? No. Is it > an unacceptable risk? Yes. > > But the issue goes beyond the individual author, and the individual rights > holder. Asking for permission is a tacit admission that copyright-owners > have rights they don't have, reproduces misconceptions and adds ideological > support to bad practices. > > But, again, I'm just talking about PERMISSION. Showing due respect to > artists, working with them (or their representatives) to find the most > representative or appropriate examples, to get the best reproductions > possible, paying reasonable fees for assistance, etc. etc. are all outside > of that question. They are matters of "How should you do it?" not "Are you > allowed to do it?" > > _ > > To elaborate on the above: > > Once artists present their work to the public, they have no moral right to > exercise any control over how anyone chooses to express response to it, and > in the U.S., Fair Use law is meant to enable the generation of new works > (scholarly or otherwise) that continue a 'conversation' which any previous > work may have entered, by liberal use of quotation. > > For example, First Amendment theory calls for "no prior restraint" on > speech, with a very few number of exceptions (e.g. "clear and present > danger"...). The law only provides mechanisms for punishment of those who > abuse the privileges of free expression. > > In practice, though, the history of copyright law shows a long and steady > campaign of rights-holders successfully gaining more and more control over > 'conversations' with new works via a wide variety of means, and academics > especially being more and more impinged in using visual references in > discussing visual works. Scholars, educators, and artists have had to fight > tooth and nail for every inch of fair use against this steady erosion, and > it's only quite recently that they have been able to stem the tide, and > gain back a bit of ground. Against this background, asking permission of > anyone for anything is ideologically regressive, and frankly irresponsible. > > HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that in a domain like experimental film > scholars and artists must be irrevocably hostile to or uncooperative with > one another. Marilyn has every right to request that Brakhage films be > "reasonably wel
Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs
> My concern in the matter of film stills is not making money, but having the > films reasonably well represented. This is kind of a moot point for images used to illustration a point in an academic essay published in a journal or book. They will appear as a halftone with a max screen of maybe 105 lpi. A still export from a DVD will be good enough for that, and having a better source image likely won't improve on what is a very crude printing technique. Esaay authors have no control over the reproduction methods used by a press. > I'm sure others would feel likewise about their films. Chuck already noted there are plenty of exceptions, but let's say "having the films reasonably well represented" was all any rights-holder cared about. Even such an apparently innocuous and proper principle is open to a wide variety of interpretations and could open "a can of worms" that stops publication dead in its tracks. What if a rights-holder would demand calibrated color images printed on coated paper for an essay to appear in something like the old print version of Jump Cut? > an image to illustrate a point isn’t “plagiarism”. But the other reasons are > more then good enough to ask permission from the artist. Nope. The problem is the whole concept of 'permission' as opposed to say 'cooperation', 'agreement', 'approval' etc. You have the absolute right to employ visual quotation under Fair Use guidelines, a right copyright-holders have been trying to deny or limit for decades, and you should NEVER concede any limit to that right by even suggesting PERMISSION is required. Without getting into all the nitty-gritty details, Chuck was right that even making an inquiry about permission puts an author into a potentially dicey legal position. Is this going to happen most of the time? No. Is it an unacceptable risk? Yes. But the issue goes beyond the individual author, and the individual rights holder. Asking for permission is a tacit admission that copyright-owners have rights they don't have, reproduces misconceptions and adds ideological support to bad practices. But, again, I'm just talking about PERMISSION. Showing due respect to artists, working with them (or their representatives) to find the most representative or appropriate examples, to get the best reproductions possible, paying reasonable fees for assistance, etc. etc. are all outside of that question. They are matters of "How should you do it?" not "Are you allowed to do it?" _ To elaborate on the above: Once artists present their work to the public, they have no moral right to exercise any control over how anyone chooses to express response to it, and in the U.S., Fair Use law is meant to enable the generation of new works (scholarly or otherwise) that continue a 'conversation' which any previous work may have entered, by liberal use of quotation. For example, First Amendment theory calls for "no prior restraint" on speech, with a very few number of exceptions (e.g. "clear and present danger"...). The law only provides mechanisms for punishment of those who abuse the privileges of free expression. In practice, though, the history of copyright law shows a long and steady campaign of rights-holders successfully gaining more and more control over 'conversations' with new works via a wide variety of means, and academics especially being more and more impinged in using visual references in discussing visual works. Scholars, educators, and artists have had to fight tooth and nail for every inch of fair use against this steady erosion, and it's only quite recently that they have been able to stem the tide, and gain back a bit of ground. Against this background, asking permission of anyone for anything is ideologically regressive, and frankly irresponsible. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that in a domain like experimental film scholars and artists must be irrevocably hostile to or uncooperative with one another. Marilyn has every right to request that Brakhage films be "reasonably well represented" in any form of quotation, to whatever standards she sees fit, and to condemn any use that fails to meet her criteria. Scholars can, and should, make inquiries about such things. As Pip notes, the rights-holder may be able and willing to provide better-quality sources than a frame grab from an SD DVD. A scholar might even have reason to seek approval or endorsement of quotations, which is quite different from asking for permission/authorization. If Marilyn deems it appropriate to charge 'small' fees that go to Fred for his labor in providing "high quality images to represent the films", that seems fair, but her 'small' could be a struggling PhD student or fan-blogger's bridge-to-far, and she has no right to exclude their ability to participate in discourse around the films by using any fee, or a demand for any aspect of reproduction, as a gateway obstruction. I would suggest that any rights-holder
Re: [Frameworks] Millennium Film Workshop
Rare flowers that germinated in the dark in that moldy old place will not come again. 2015-10-03 10:03 GMT-04:00 Bernard Roddy : > Hi Amanda! Good luck in Rochester tonight! > > (I remember when you posted asking for films that included car crashes.) > > Bernie > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Amanda Christie < > ama...@amandadawnchristie.ca> wrote: > >> I for one appreciated the poetic touch... >> >> >> I believe in the flowers that germinate and bloom from dark places. >> There is never just one. >> Dark soil is fertile ground. >> The crocus never blooms unless it has been frozen in the winter and kept >> in the dark underground and hidden from light... >> >> crocuses bloom every spring... >> it's not the same flowers, but it is the same soil. >> I believe in the flowers that geminate and bloom from dark places. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2015-10-02, at 9:16 PM, David Baker wrote: >> >> Your the boss Elizabeth. >> No poetry intended just the flawed way I write. >> Thanks for you help, >> lesson learned. >> >> One thing though, please be certain I need no good will from you >> nor was I trying to garner any from anyone else. >> I just was trying to find a form that fit. >> You win some you lose some. >> >> DB >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 2, 2015, at 7:42 PM, Elizabeth McMahon wrote: >> >> You had already said more than plenty. >> >> Your cryptic "poem" is such a distraction for a general listserv. Send >> stuff like this to the intended party and leave the public out of it. It is >> just embarrassing, and garners you no good will. >> >> Elizabeth McMahon >> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:26 PM, David Baker wrote: >> >>> Jay, >>> >>> Rare flowers that germinated in the dark >>> in that moldy old place >>> will not come again. >>> We will never be as free to play with all the potentialities >>> of projected light as we were there then. >>> Still it must go on. >>> >>> "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, >>> only light can do that." >>> >>> -Martin Luther KIng Jr. >>> >>> I will say no more on the subject. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 11:54 AM, Jay Hudson wrote: >>> >>> To Sasha, >>> >>> Your words are inappropriate, offensive, and abusive. I will not >>> tolerate it, and I demand that it stop. If this type of conduct is against >>> framework's terms of use, I ask Pip to remove Sasha from the list if this >>> continues. I have moved on and hold animosity towards no one. There was >>> no justification to bring me into it. >>> >>> To David, >>> >>> I think it is better to lower the tone on this because I think you are >>> speaking from the heart and with good intentions. It is better if you >>> consider that the situation with the Millennium followed a very common and >>> recognizable patterns in non-profits. I made my decisions based on >>> extensive research and speaking with non-profit experts, attorneys, and >>> other professionals. Every person that I spoke with was extremely direct >>> and unambiguous in saying that there was a serious problem that had to be >>> addressed immediately. A few even said that there was no point in trying >>> to correct it. I did what I thought was best and responsible. >>> >>> Those of use working at MFW inherited a situation where the organization >>> was more than $40K in debt with the landlord. Howard basically dropped out >>> of sight when he got sick and I had to step in to put out fires with the >>> landlord. When the archive thing was going on, MFW was trying to >>> negotiate a new lease. We were being served with papers. Almost >>> everything in the way that MFW functioned was so dependent on one >>> individual, that there were almost no established patterns to run things. >>> Naturally when he was not doing so, things fall apart. MFW was failing >>> what is called the risk assessment test, where an organization can not >>> function without a certain individual. This is unhealthy to an >>> organization, plus it makes it much more difficult to get funding. >>> >>> I prefer that this be the last of this thread of this communication. >>> What happened, happened. These issues have no pertinence to today's >>> events. There is no sense in unproductively dwelling on events that are >>> unresolvable. No one can be completely objective in this. >>> >>> It is much better to think about the current MFW for what it is. Times >>> and conditions have changed. It will not be the old MFW, but I do think >>> that it has an important role to play. Additionally, I wish people >>> wouldn't think so much about the MILLENNIUM, but more about what their own >>> needs are as filmmakers and what gaps exist in today's current situation >>> that MFW can fill. I am optimistic about the current MFW and have nothing >>> but full support and appreciation for those who are working hard or >>> providing support. I would hope that you and others who have negative >>> opinions would reconsider, be open minded, and be involved. If not, that's >>> ok too, bu
Re: [Frameworks] Millennium Film Workshop
Hi Amanda! Good luck in Rochester tonight! (I remember when you posted asking for films that included car crashes.) Bernie On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Amanda Christie < ama...@amandadawnchristie.ca> wrote: > I for one appreciated the poetic touch... > > > I believe in the flowers that germinate and bloom from dark places. > There is never just one. > Dark soil is fertile ground. > The crocus never blooms unless it has been frozen in the winter and kept > in the dark underground and hidden from light... > > crocuses bloom every spring... > it's not the same flowers, but it is the same soil. > I believe in the flowers that geminate and bloom from dark places. > > > > > > > > On 2015-10-02, at 9:16 PM, David Baker wrote: > > Your the boss Elizabeth. > No poetry intended just the flawed way I write. > Thanks for you help, > lesson learned. > > One thing though, please be certain I need no good will from you > nor was I trying to garner any from anyone else. > I just was trying to find a form that fit. > You win some you lose some. > > DB > > > > > On Oct 2, 2015, at 7:42 PM, Elizabeth McMahon wrote: > > You had already said more than plenty. > > Your cryptic "poem" is such a distraction for a general listserv. Send > stuff like this to the intended party and leave the public out of it. It is > just embarrassing, and garners you no good will. > > Elizabeth McMahon > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:26 PM, David Baker wrote: > >> Jay, >> >> Rare flowers that germinated in the dark >> in that moldy old place >> will not come again. >> We will never be as free to play with all the potentialities >> of projected light as we were there then. >> Still it must go on. >> >> "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, >> only light can do that." >> >> -Martin Luther KIng Jr. >> >> I will say no more on the subject. >> >> David >> >> >> On Oct 2, 2015, at 11:54 AM, Jay Hudson wrote: >> >> To Sasha, >> >> Your words are inappropriate, offensive, and abusive. I will not >> tolerate it, and I demand that it stop. If this type of conduct is against >> framework's terms of use, I ask Pip to remove Sasha from the list if this >> continues. I have moved on and hold animosity towards no one. There was >> no justification to bring me into it. >> >> To David, >> >> I think it is better to lower the tone on this because I think you are >> speaking from the heart and with good intentions. It is better if you >> consider that the situation with the Millennium followed a very common and >> recognizable patterns in non-profits. I made my decisions based on >> extensive research and speaking with non-profit experts, attorneys, and >> other professionals. Every person that I spoke with was extremely direct >> and unambiguous in saying that there was a serious problem that had to be >> addressed immediately. A few even said that there was no point in trying >> to correct it. I did what I thought was best and responsible. >> >> Those of use working at MFW inherited a situation where the organization >> was more than $40K in debt with the landlord. Howard basically dropped out >> of sight when he got sick and I had to step in to put out fires with the >> landlord. When the archive thing was going on, MFW was trying to >> negotiate a new lease. We were being served with papers. Almost >> everything in the way that MFW functioned was so dependent on one >> individual, that there were almost no established patterns to run things. >> Naturally when he was not doing so, things fall apart. MFW was failing >> what is called the risk assessment test, where an organization can not >> function without a certain individual. This is unhealthy to an >> organization, plus it makes it much more difficult to get funding. >> >> I prefer that this be the last of this thread of this communication. >> What happened, happened. These issues have no pertinence to today's >> events. There is no sense in unproductively dwelling on events that are >> unresolvable. No one can be completely objective in this. >> >> It is much better to think about the current MFW for what it is. Times >> and conditions have changed. It will not be the old MFW, but I do think >> that it has an important role to play. Additionally, I wish people >> wouldn't think so much about the MILLENNIUM, but more about what their own >> needs are as filmmakers and what gaps exist in today's current situation >> that MFW can fill. I am optimistic about the current MFW and have nothing >> but full support and appreciation for those who are working hard or >> providing support. I would hope that you and others who have negative >> opinions would reconsider, be open minded, and be involved. If not, that's >> ok too, but I do not want to see every posting regarding MFW to be met with >> this kind of communication. >> >> Jay >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:02 PM, David Baker wrote: >> >>> Jay, >>> >>> Because I, along with Margot Niederland and Howard helped Lili White
[Frameworks] writing on slide shows
On slide shows, see Darcie Alexander's catalog titled Slide Show (Amazon, Baltimore Museum, Walker, etc.) and perhaps google reviews of that show. Ron Green 356 W 7th Ave Columbus OH 43201 614.421.2131 J. Ronald Green Professor Emeritus of Film Studies Department of History of Art The Ohio State University ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
