Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Jeff Kreines]

> On Jul 14, 2016, at 12:01 AM, Dave Tetzlaff  wrote:
> 
> "Craft services is for wussies." And I said, guys, the market that needs 
> reversal, and you need for reversal, and that BW reversal stocks that were 
> doesn't even know what 'craft services' means… 

I still don’t know…  Kodak has always been brain-dead.

Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
j...@kinetta.com
kinetta.com


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

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Dave Tetzlaff]

> the vast majority of artists working in 16mm from the '40s through the '60s 
> did in fact use Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Color negative didn't even exist 
> in 16mm until 1964, and very few "experimental filmmakers" used it much until 
> the later '70s or even early '80s.

'Amateur' making was all reversal, as home movie makers always projected their 
camera original. My experience with film only dates back to the mid-70s, and I 
didn't use 16mm until 1979, in grad school at UW-Madison. All we used was 
'professional' 16mm color reversal stock, which was all one form of Ektachrome 
or another: the VNF stocks mostly, 7240 (nice) and 7250 (yuchh) for 16mm, and 
7244 for S8. (There may have been some people using ECO, I don't remember…) We 
got all our stock and supplies from the schools AV bureau, and it was processed 
by the Com Arts Dept. in the basement of Vilas Hall. (Mark Webber ran the lab…) 
Of course, the 16mm Ektachrome had edge numbers...

There was a consumer camera store on State Street that still carried Kodak 16mm 
reversal stock boxed in 100' daylight spools, as well as S8. I'm pretty sure 
they carried some form of 16mm Ektachrome, but I think it was only daylight, 
and wasn't the same, or as nice, as what we could get at school. But I could 
have that confused with the S8 stock. 

But this store definitely had tungsten Kodachrome, because I used it a film I 
made '80-'81. Very student-filmy: I used 4 different stocks, to give different 
sections different looks. I actually got the idea from stumbling across the 
Kodachome in the store, having gone in there for something else, and remembered 
Lipton had written about Fleshapoids being shot in Kodachrome. I don't think 
anyone at UW knew this store carried it, and afaik no one else at school had 
used Kodachrome 16mm for anything. The store was the only place I could get the 
Kodachrome, and the only way to get it processed (of course) was dropping it at 
the store, which sent it to Kodak. And I couldn't get edge numbers. I asked, 
because I knew I was going to get work print, then conformed the original and 
have a print made. So, when the Kodachrome original came back from the camera 
store, I ran it through a synchronizer, and scratched in edge markings every so 
many feet (a sort of roman numeral code, as I couldn't scratch tiny arabic 
numerals). Then I'd send it out for the work print, getting something I could 
conform later. I think the instructors and other students thought I was nuts to 
go through all that.

Ahh, thems were the days…



Jeff wrote:
> Kodak worked hard to shoot themselves in the foot (their area of expertise) 
> and kill off color reversal. 

Amen to that. At UFVA conferences in the early '00s, when Kodak was till a big 
sponsor, I spent many hours trying to explain this to their head Education 
Division guy, but they never showed any interest or even awareness of either 
experimental work or the kind of liberal arts or fine arts programs that taught 
it. They were all about the big industry-feeder schools, and their only concept 
of production education was 'cinematography', and as far as they were concerned 
that was BW reversal for 'intro' classes, and color negative after that. Their 
big Education initiative was reformulating 7266 to be more eco-friendly, 
instead of dropping it altogether. The came to UFVA all super-pleased with 
themselves, like 'we did this just for you, even though we won't make good 
money on it' and previewed a slick advertising and promotion campaign supposed 
targeted to 'indie' folks (you know, people who use Bolexes) that was so 
clueless I winced. They had t-shirts with one of the ad slogans: "Craft 
services is for wussies." And I said, guys, the market that needs reversal, and 
you need for reversal, and that BW reversal stocks that were doesn't even know 
what 'craft services' means… 

In the early 00s, I could still find color reversal short ends for my small 
biennial 16mm experimental class. By, I dunno '08 or so, Kodak no longer came 
to UFVA at all, and the only was my students could shoot color was to pool 
their funds and order 400' of 100D on cores, which I'd spool off onto 100' 
daylight spools so they could put it in our MOS 16mm cameras...
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Jeff Kreines]

For those overly interested in lab history in the late 70s, I just stumbled 
onto this:



http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7242420


Only geeks need apply.


> On Jul 13, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Jeff Kreines  wrote:
> 
> Color negative in 16mm was used in Europe, especially the UK, before it 
> caught on in the US.  The stock from 1968 - 1973 — 7254/5254, the last of the 
> ECN-1 stocks, was quite lovely.  Kodak replaced it with the hideous 
> 7247/5247, and really pushed 16mm “producers” to switch to it because it was 
> more “professional.”  It was easy to expose (just overexpose a stop) but you 
> lost many of the advantages of color reversal — easy supers and fades with 
> A rolls (if you like that sort of thing), fewer problems with 
> dirt/dust/scratches, and the ability to push film and shoot in very low 
> light.  (The right lab could push 7242 three stops to EI 1000 — whereas 7247 
> did not push well, which begat chemical flashing processes like TVC’s 
> Chemtone.)
> 
> One big advantage of reversal stocks was the ability to make dupe negatives 
> and release prints in two generations (interneg and release print) — color 
> neg required an interpositive, a dupe neg, and then a print — adding expense 
> and reducing quality.  (CRI is another tale — good idea poorly done — so save 
> a step by essentially using ECO to dupe negatives, but it was a disaster and 
> didn’t last.  But I digress.)
> 
> Pretty much all color theatrical documentaries, starting with Monterey Pop, 
> were shot on glorious Ektachrome, often a mix of 7255/7252 (ECO), and 7242.  
> Woodstock, Gimme Shelter too.  Color negative invaded this world around ’73 
> or so, slightly earlier in the UK.  (Gray Gardens was an early color neg 
> documentary.)
> 
> Kodak worked hard to shoot themselves in the foot (their area of expertise) 
> and kill off color reversal.  They lost the world of TV news after the Hunt 
> Brothers’ Silver Bubble — using it as an excuse to raise prices even after 
> the bubble burst — and TV embraced clumsy expensive video rigs earlier than 
> they would have.  Of course they also killed off all reversal print stocks…  
> don’t get me started.
> 
> There were other stocks, too.  Anscochrome, as Mark mentions, was a cheaper 
> alternative to Kodak stocks, and Geva’s color reversal stocks were 
> interesting because they were low contrast — their 16mm color print stock 
> Gevachrome 9.06 was great for printing Ektachrome 7242.  Kodak did not have 
> an equivalent low contrast color print stock until they did a little 
> industrial espionage at DuArt, a major Geva lab at the time.
> 
> And then there was a  much larger world of B stocks.  Agfa, Ansco, Dupont, 
> Ilford, Ferrania, and many more.  Back then, they slathered on the silver 
> with a trowel.  Today, not so much.
> 
> Jeff “remembers a lot of useless information” Kreines
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 13, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Mark Toscano  wrote:
>> 
>> My one counter to David's comments (if I'm reading you right) would be that 
>> the vast majority of artists working in 16mm from the '40s through the '60s 
>> did in fact use Kodachrome and Ektachrome, among other stocks.  Color 
>> negative didn't even exist in 16mm until 1964, and very few "experimental 
>> filmmakers" used it much until the later '70s or even early '80s.  And 
>> throughout some of this period, you could get your stocks edge numbered if 
>> you wanted, and plenty of people did.  Even Gimme Shelter was shot on 
>> Ektachrome.  Plenty of other filmmakers didn't bother workprinting, or did 
>> so without using edge numbers for matching (Brakhage never workprinted, for 
>> instance).
>> 
>> The basically forgotten Anscochrome was a popular stock in the '50s and '60s 
>> too.  Brakhage shot Window Water Baby Moving and several of his other early 
>> color films on it.  Kodak introduced a lower contrast stock called 
>> Kodachrome Commercial in 1946 specifically to target people wanting to shoot 
>> color more professionally.  Curtis Harrington shot The Assignation on it.  
>> It was replaced by Ektachrome Commercial (ECO) in 1958, which was a 
>> lower-contrast, slow Ektachrome designed to be printed rather than 
>> direct-projected.  ECO was absurdly widely used until the early '80s.
>> 
>> Mark T
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Dave Tetzlaff  wrote:
>>> I'm writing about the use of 16mm in experimental filmmaking of the 1970s 
>>> and am looking for texts that deal with the history of film technology, 
>>> scholarly sources that look, for example, at the emergence of 16mm as an 
>>> amateur/documentary/artists' medium.
>> 
>> Hmm. If we distinguish 'amateurs' from 'artists' 16mm emerged as an amateur 
>> medium decades before the 70s, and was all but submerged for amateurs by the 
>> 70s, in favor of Super-8. You'd be hard pressed to find any artists who 
>> worked with the 'amateur' 16mm cameras that were made at least 

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Scott Dorsey]

> Oh, those are so sad to look at now???.

The price lists or the surf movies?  

Nothing like a Bolex attached to a 6-foot PVC plumbing pipe with an
Aero-Ektar at the end for that razor-sharp look
--scott
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Jeff Kreines]

> On Jul 13, 2016, at 7:19 PM, Scott Dorsey  wrote:
> 
>  don't remember the silver bubble having a huge effect on film stocks
> other than the prices…

The prices went up 100% and only dropped 50% after the bubble burst.

Lower silver content happened later — but when I look at older B reversal I 
shot in the 70s, boy, it sure is silvery!

Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
j...@kinetta.com
kinetta.com


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

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Jeff Kreines]

> On Jul 13, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Scott Dorsey  wrote:
> 
>  You could save some money by getting B workprints
> of your color original, but shooting reversal allowed you to edit the
> camera original directly without having to go back and conform. 

Or you could do what we did — “cull” your original, and only workprint what you 
needed.

> I gave Scott Norwood a copy of the 1978 price list from W.A. Palmer films
> which I got when I was working on low budget surf films as a much younger
> person.  

Oh, those are so sad to look at now….

Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
j...@kinetta.com
kinetta.com


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

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Scott Dorsey]

I don't remember the silver bubble having a huge effect on film stocks
other than the prices... but I do remember that Kodabromide, a wonderful
printing paper with a lovely grey scale and deep blacks, along with shadow
detail that you could fall into... dropped off the Kodak catalogue because
it was apparently too expensive to make.  Medalist was "modified" to make
it a much crappier paper.  The name "Kodabromide" came back a few years
later for a lousy paper with much less silver in it.
--scott


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

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Scott Dorsey]

Anscochrome was Agfachrome in disguise.  What with the war and all, the
German parent split their US division apart and Ansco was what was left
in the US.  They stuck around for a good while.  Agfa themselves was
making their ball-and-chain-dye coupler film in Germany well into the
1980s and some filmmakers in the US were using it.  I think their last
customer was WGBH.

The original German Agfa plant was picked up by the Russians and taken
back home as war spoils, and the Sovcolor films of the fifties were made
with film from that plant (Svema).

No low-budget or amateur filmmaker would shoot color negative when they
had reversal, especially with a high shooting ratio, because workprinting
was so expensive.  You could save some money by getting B workprints
of your color original, but shooting reversal allowed you to edit the
camera original directly without having to go back and conform.  Your
chance of damaging the original was 100% but that's how it goes on a budget.
Given the choice of Kodachrome or ECO you could make a choice of whichever
evil you'd like.

I gave Scott Norwood a copy of the 1978 price list from W.A. Palmer films
which I got when I was working on low budget surf films as a much younger
person.  He scanned it and has it online somewhere, and it is worth looking
at because it is a guide to all the laboratory services that were once 
available and how much they cost back then.  Kodachrome prints... Opticals...
Lacquering... Peerless Treatment... 

By 1990 or so you could still get 100 ft. of Tri-X Reversal for $11.54
and 100 ft. of 7239 for $16.  Rafik was charging me four cents a foot
for short ends...  all of that is gone with the wind...
--scott

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

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Jeff Kreines]

Color negative in 16mm was used in Europe, especially the UK, before it caught 
on in the US.  The stock from 1968 - 1973 — 7254/5254, the last of the ECN-1 
stocks, was quite lovely.  Kodak replaced it with the hideous 7247/5247, and 
really pushed 16mm “producers” to switch to it because it was more 
“professional.”  It was easy to expose (just overexpose a stop) but you lost 
many of the advantages of color reversal — easy supers and fades with A rolls 
(if you like that sort of thing), fewer problems with dirt/dust/scratches, and 
the ability to push film and shoot in very low light.  (The right lab could 
push 7242 three stops to EI 1000 — whereas 7247 did not push well, which begat 
chemical flashing processes like TVC’s Chemtone.)

One big advantage of reversal stocks was the ability to make dupe negatives and 
release prints in two generations (interneg and release print) — color neg 
required an interpositive, a dupe neg, and then a print — adding expense and 
reducing quality.  (CRI is another tale — good idea poorly done — so save a 
step by essentially using ECO to dupe negatives, but it was a disaster and 
didn’t last.  But I digress.)

Pretty much all color theatrical documentaries, starting with Monterey Pop, 
were shot on glorious Ektachrome, often a mix of 7255/7252 (ECO), and 7242.  
Woodstock, Gimme Shelter too.  Color negative invaded this world around ’73 or 
so, slightly earlier in the UK.  (Gray Gardens was an early color neg 
documentary.)

Kodak worked hard to shoot themselves in the foot (their area of expertise) and 
kill off color reversal.  They lost the world of TV news after the Hunt 
Brothers’ Silver Bubble — using it as an excuse to raise prices even after the 
bubble burst — and TV embraced clumsy expensive video rigs earlier than they 
would have.  Of course they also killed off all reversal print stocks…  don’t 
get me started.

There were other stocks, too.  Anscochrome, as Mark mentions, was a cheaper 
alternative to Kodak stocks, and Geva’s color reversal stocks were interesting 
because they were low contrast — their 16mm color print stock Gevachrome 9.06 
was great for printing Ektachrome 7242.  Kodak did not have an equivalent low 
contrast color print stock until they did a little industrial espionage at 
DuArt, a major Geva lab at the time.

And then there was a  much larger world of B stocks.  Agfa, Ansco, Dupont, 
Ilford, Ferrania, and many more.  Back then, they slathered on the silver with 
a trowel.  Today, not so much.

Jeff “remembers a lot of useless information” Kreines




> On Jul 13, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Mark Toscano  wrote:
> 
> My one counter to David's comments (if I'm reading you right) would be that 
> the vast majority of artists working in 16mm from the '40s through the '60s 
> did in fact use Kodachrome and Ektachrome, among other stocks.  Color 
> negative didn't even exist in 16mm until 1964, and very few "experimental 
> filmmakers" used it much until the later '70s or even early '80s.  And 
> throughout some of this period, you could get your stocks edge numbered if 
> you wanted, and plenty of people did.  Even Gimme Shelter was shot on 
> Ektachrome.  Plenty of other filmmakers didn't bother workprinting, or did so 
> without using edge numbers for matching (Brakhage never workprinted, for 
> instance).
> 
> The basically forgotten Anscochrome was a popular stock in the '50s and '60s 
> too.  Brakhage shot Window Water Baby Moving and several of his other early 
> color films on it.  Kodak introduced a lower contrast stock called Kodachrome 
> Commercial in 1946 specifically to target people wanting to shoot color more 
> professionally.  Curtis Harrington shot The Assignation on it.  It was 
> replaced by Ektachrome Commercial (ECO) in 1958, which was a lower-contrast, 
> slow Ektachrome designed to be printed rather than direct-projected.  ECO was 
> absurdly widely used until the early '80s.
> 
> Mark T
> 
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Dave Tetzlaff  wrote:
> > I'm writing about the use of 16mm in experimental filmmaking of the 1970s 
> > and am looking for texts that deal with the history of film technology, 
> > scholarly sources that look, for example, at the emergence of 16mm as an 
> > amateur/documentary/artists' medium.
> 
> Hmm. If we distinguish 'amateurs' from 'artists' 16mm emerged as an amateur 
> medium decades before the 70s, and was all but submerged for amateurs by the 
> 70s, in favor of Super-8. You'd be hard pressed to find any artists who 
> worked with the 'amateur' 16mm cameras that were made at least through the 
> 1950s: Kodak K100, B+H 240, Reveres… and only spare use of 'amateur' 
> Kodachrome and Ektachrome stocks that didn't come back from the lab with edge 
> numbers.
> 
> The history of documentary tech is a whole 'nother creature -- all 16mm up to 
> the 70s -- but marked by advances in blipping, sound sync, battery power, 
> coaxial magazines, reflex finders, 

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Mark Toscano]

My one counter to David's comments (if I'm reading you right) would be that
the vast majority of artists working in 16mm from the '40s through the '60s
did in fact use Kodachrome and Ektachrome, among other stocks.  Color
negative didn't even exist in 16mm until 1964, and very few "experimental
filmmakers" used it much until the later '70s or even early '80s.  And
throughout some of this period, you could get your stocks edge numbered if
you wanted, and plenty of people did.  Even Gimme Shelter was shot on
Ektachrome.  Plenty of other filmmakers didn't bother workprinting, or did
so without using edge numbers for matching (Brakhage never workprinted, for
instance).

The basically forgotten Anscochrome was a popular stock in the '50s and
'60s too.  Brakhage shot Window Water Baby Moving and several of his other
early color films on it.  Kodak introduced a lower contrast stock called
Kodachrome Commercial in 1946 specifically to target people wanting to
shoot color more professionally.  Curtis Harrington shot The Assignation on
it.  It was replaced by Ektachrome Commercial (ECO) in 1958, which was a
lower-contrast, slow Ektachrome designed to be printed rather than
direct-projected.  ECO was absurdly widely used until the early '80s.

Mark T

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Dave Tetzlaff  wrote:

> > I'm writing about the use of 16mm in experimental filmmaking of the
> 1970s and am looking for texts that deal with the history of film
> technology, scholarly sources that look, for example, at the emergence of
> 16mm as an amateur/documentary/artists' medium.
>
> Hmm. If we distinguish 'amateurs' from 'artists' 16mm emerged as an
> amateur medium decades before the 70s, and was all but submerged for
> amateurs by the 70s, in favor of Super-8. You'd be hard pressed to find any
> artists who worked with the 'amateur' 16mm cameras that were made at least
> through the 1950s: Kodak K100, B+H 240, Reveres… and only spare use of
> 'amateur' Kodachrome and Ektachrome stocks that didn't come back from the
> lab with edge numbers.
>
> The history of documentary tech is a whole 'nother creature -- all 16mm up
> to the 70s -- but marked by advances in blipping, sound sync, battery
> power, coaxial magazines, reflex finders, etc. etc. (I have an AC-power
> only Yoder-style chop-top in my closet, if anyone wants one…). Only in the
> 70s did portable video emerge as a documentary medium, e.g. in the ½"
> open-reel 'Four More Years' by TVTV.
>
> Experimental filmmaking was not articulated to 'amateur' filmmaking as
> much as industrial/educational filmmaking. Experimental filmmaking was
> dependent on the wide availability of cameras, projectors, stocks, labs
> etc. primarily used by the 'A/V' market. Once that market moved to video,
> those sources began to dry up, posing ever-increasing difficulties to
> photo-chemical experimental work. A tech history of experimental film in
> the 70s should also look at it's intersections/oppositions to technologies
> used in 'video art', e.g. in Scott Bartlett's 'Off/On', and computer
> graphics, e.g. John Whitney.
>
> All that said, for the history of 'amateur' film, it would be remiss not
> to mention the work of FRAMEWORKER Patti Zimmerman, noted on the CHM site
> Buck linked.
>
> ___
> 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] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Albert Alcoz]

"Independent filmmaking" by Lenny Lipton could be a good reference:
https://www.amazon.com/Independent-filmmaking-Lenny-Lipton/dp/0879320109

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Dave Tetzlaff  wrote:

> > I'm writing about the use of 16mm in experimental filmmaking of the
> 1970s and am looking for texts that deal with the history of film
> technology, scholarly sources that look, for example, at the emergence of
> 16mm as an amateur/documentary/artists' medium.
>
> Hmm. If we distinguish 'amateurs' from 'artists' 16mm emerged as an
> amateur medium decades before the 70s, and was all but submerged for
> amateurs by the 70s, in favor of Super-8. You'd be hard pressed to find any
> artists who worked with the 'amateur' 16mm cameras that were made at least
> through the 1950s: Kodak K100, B+H 240, Reveres… and only spare use of
> 'amateur' Kodachrome and Ektachrome stocks that didn't come back from the
> lab with edge numbers.
>
> The history of documentary tech is a whole 'nother creature -- all 16mm up
> to the 70s -- but marked by advances in blipping, sound sync, battery
> power, coaxial magazines, reflex finders, etc. etc. (I have an AC-power
> only Yoder-style chop-top in my closet, if anyone wants one…). Only in the
> 70s did portable video emerge as a documentary medium, e.g. in the ½"
> open-reel 'Four More Years' by TVTV.
>
> Experimental filmmaking was not articulated to 'amateur' filmmaking as
> much as industrial/educational filmmaking. Experimental filmmaking was
> dependent on the wide availability of cameras, projectors, stocks, labs
> etc. primarily used by the 'A/V' market. Once that market moved to video,
> those sources began to dry up, posing ever-increasing difficulties to
> photo-chemical experimental work. A tech history of experimental film in
> the 70s should also look at it's intersections/oppositions to technologies
> used in 'video art', e.g. in Scott Bartlett's 'Off/On', and computer
> graphics, e.g. John Whitney.
>
> All that said, for the history of 'amateur' film, it would be remiss not
> to mention the work of FRAMEWORKER Patti Zimmerman, noted on the CHM site
> Buck linked.
>
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>



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

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Dave Tetzlaff]

> I'm writing about the use of 16mm in experimental filmmaking of the 1970s and 
> am looking for texts that deal with the history of film technology, scholarly 
> sources that look, for example, at the emergence of 16mm as an 
> amateur/documentary/artists' medium. 

Hmm. If we distinguish 'amateurs' from 'artists' 16mm emerged as an amateur 
medium decades before the 70s, and was all but submerged for amateurs by the 
70s, in favor of Super-8. You'd be hard pressed to find any artists who worked 
with the 'amateur' 16mm cameras that were made at least through the 1950s: 
Kodak K100, B+H 240, Reveres… and only spare use of 'amateur' Kodachrome and 
Ektachrome stocks that didn't come back from the lab with edge numbers.

The history of documentary tech is a whole 'nother creature -- all 16mm up to 
the 70s -- but marked by advances in blipping, sound sync, battery power, 
coaxial magazines, reflex finders, etc. etc. (I have an AC-power only 
Yoder-style chop-top in my closet, if anyone wants one…). Only in the 70s did 
portable video emerge as a documentary medium, e.g. in the ½" open-reel 'Four 
More Years' by TVTV.

Experimental filmmaking was not articulated to 'amateur' filmmaking as much as 
industrial/educational filmmaking. Experimental filmmaking was dependent on the 
wide availability of cameras, projectors, stocks, labs etc. primarily used by 
the 'A/V' market. Once that market moved to video, those sources began to dry 
up, posing ever-increasing difficulties to photo-chemical experimental work. A 
tech history of experimental film in the 70s should also look at it's 
intersections/oppositions to technologies used in 'video art', e.g. in Scott 
Bartlett's 'Off/On', and computer graphics, e.g. John Whitney.

All that said, for the history of 'amateur' film, it would be remiss not to 
mention the work of FRAMEWORKER Patti Zimmerman, noted on the CHM site Buck 
linked.

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

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Dominic Angerame]

The best that I have found is "A Technological History of Motion Pictures
and Television" by Fielding. It begins at the beginning and ends with the
cathode ray tube. Not 16mm in particular but the best book of film
technology that I have seen.



On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Kim Knowles 
wrote:

> Hi there Frameworkers,
>
>
> I wonder if anyone can help: I'm writing about the use of 16mm in
> experimental filmmaking of the 1970s and am looking for texts that deal
> with the history of film technology. Not technical manuals necessarily but
> scholarly sources - books or articles that look, for example, at the
> emergence of 16mm as an amateur/documentary/artists' medium.
>
>
> As always, any suggestions would be extremely gratefully received.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Kim
>
> ===
> KEEP IN TOUCH WITH EIFF
> Become a web member for FREE and receive news and offers:
> http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk/register
> Follow EIFF at: https://twitter.com/edfilmfest or
> http://www.facebook.com/edfilmfest
> ===
> t. +44(0)131 228 4051
> f. +44(0)131 229 5501
> w. http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk
> 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ Scotland, United Kingdom
> The Edinburgh International Film Festival Limited is a subsidiary of the
> Centre for the Moving Image. Registered in Scotland No: SC132453. VAT No:
> 502 548861. Registered Office: 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh.
>
> ___
> 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] Film Performance Event in Toronto at CineCycle Thursday 14th July

[Mary Stark]

Mary Stark and David Chatton Barker, artists based in Manchester, UK, are
visiting Toronto. Please join us from 7.30pm for a night of film
performance and sonic spells at the one and only CineCycle, the especially
specially fantastic cinema venue at 129 Spadina Avenue. We'll show
individual and collaborative films and performance works made over the last
two years, as well as fresh from the processing buckets of this year’s
Independent Imaging Retreat, otherwise known as Phil Hoffman’s Film Farm.
It will be a special treat to show some of our work on Martin Heath’s hand
crank 35mm projector which is 104 years old!! All this for just $5.

*More info and links….*

*Mary’s artist filmmaking practice is specifically informed by previous
training in textile practice. Since 2012 Mary has been exploring the
filmstrip as fabric through 16mm film performances with optical sound. Mary
works physically with a deconstructed skeletal frame of cinema, handling
reels of film sculpturally, involving unspooled film projectors to explore
the cinematic apparatus in relation to the human body, light and shadow. In
2014 she undertook an artist residency at LIFT, the Liaison of Independent
Filmmakers of Toronto. Recent shows include Contact Festival of New
Experimental Film and Video in London, UK, and a commissioned cameraless
35mm film in response to the Delia Derbyshire Archive. *

*David works with alchemical processes transmuting the mundane into the
mystical, combining mechanical and natural forms through analogue film,
homemade instruments and performance. Since 2011 David has led the
nationally acclaimed project Folklore Tapes encompassing experimental
music, film and performance. He has curated events and performed at the
Arnolfini Gallery, Café Oto and Spacex Gallery, as well as organizing a
sell-out national tour and programming a storytelling tent at Port Eliot
Festival. Early this year he undertook an international residency on the
island of Oro, Finland, investigating the changing landscape through
filmmaking and performance.*

http://www.marystark.co.uk/

http://www.folkloretapes.co.uk/

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

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Buck Bito - Movette]

Hi Kim,
I'd suggest Katelle's "Home Movies: A History of the American Industry,
1897 – 1979" and Tepperman's "Amateur Cinema: The Rise of North American
Moviemaking, 1923-1960". There are also a few other titles I'm not
familiar with listed on the CHM site:
http://www.centerforhomemovies.org/scholarship/

-Buck Bito - Movette Film Transfer

On Wed, July 13, 2016 8:11 am, Kim Knowles wrote:
> Hi there Frameworkers,
>
>
> I wonder if anyone can help: I'm writing about the use of 16mm in
> experimental filmmaking of the 1970s and am looking for texts that deal
> with the history of film technology. Not technical manuals necessarily but
> scholarly sources - books or articles that look, for example, at the
> emergence of 16mm as an amateur/documentary/artists' medium.
>
>
> As always, any suggestions would be extremely gratefully received.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Kim
>
> ===
> KEEP IN TOUCH WITH EIFF
> Become a web member for FREE and receive news and offers:
> http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk/register
> Follow EIFF at: https://twitter.com/edfilmfest or
> http://www.facebook.com/edfilmfest
> ===
> t. +44(0)131 228 4051
> f. +44(0)131 229 5501
> w. http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk
> 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ Scotland, United Kingdom
> The Edinburgh International Film Festival Limited is a subsidiary of the
> Centre for the Moving Image. Registered in Scotland No: SC132453. VAT No:
> 502 548861. Registered Office: 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh.
> ___
> 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] rephotographing 16mm (Morgan Hoyle-Combs)

[Robert Withers]

> List:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> From:rober...@earthlink.net
> Subject: 1. Rephotographing 16mm (Morgan Hoyle-Combs)
> Reason:  Post by non-member to a members-only list
>   
> 
> 
> Morgan,
> Do you wish to stay in film process and avoid digital processing, through 
> which these things are easily handled?
> You don't need to do optical printing--make a contact print made with 
> appropriate light settings ("timing") and choice of stock. Work with your lab 
> on this. Of course the contact print will be flipped left to right, and 
> emulsion side (it will be A wind not B wind).
> 
> Best wishes,
> Robert Withers
> New York City
> withe...@earthlink.net
> 
> Re:
>   1. Rephotographing 16mm (Morgan Hoyle-Combs)
> From: Morgan Hoyle-Combs 
> Subject: [Frameworks] Rephotographing 16mm
> Date: July 12, 2016 6:26:48 AM EDT
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List 
> 
> 
> Hello all, 
> 
> Not sure if my first message got through, but here it goes again:
> 
> One of my 16mm films came out a little too dense. It was a Double X roll 
> processed as a reversal but the end result was rather dark. There's still 
> images but they need to be blown out. Is there a way to rephotograph the roll 
> to give it more contrast? Could this be done via optical printer? 
> 
> Let me know whatever helps! 
> 
> -Morgan



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

Re: [Frameworks] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Jesse Pires]

Hi Kim, Duncan Reekie's *Subversion: The Definitive History of Underground
Cinema* has a good amount of information on this subject.
-Jesse

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Kim Knowles  wrote:

> Hi there Frameworkers,
>
>
> I wonder if anyone can help: I'm writing about the use of 16mm in
> experimental filmmaking of the 1970s and am looking for texts that deal
> with the history of film technology. Not technical manuals necessarily but
> scholarly sources - books or articles that look, for example, at the
> emergence of 16mm as an amateur/documentary/artists' medium.
>
>
> As always, any suggestions would be extremely gratefully received.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Kim
>
> ===
> KEEP IN TOUCH WITH EIFF
> Become a web member for FREE and receive news and offers:
> http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk/register
> Follow EIFF at: https://twitter.com/edfilmfest or
> http://www.facebook.com/edfilmfest
> ===
> t. +44(0)131 228 4051
> f. +44(0)131 229 5501
> w. http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk
> 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ Scotland, United Kingdom
> The Edinburgh International Film Festival Limited is a subsidiary of the
> Centre for the Moving Image. Registered in Scotland No: SC132453. VAT No:
> 502 548861. Registered Office: 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh.
>
> ___
> 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] Resources on history of 16mm technology

[Kim Knowles]

Hi there Frameworkers,


I wonder if anyone can help: I'm writing about the use of 16mm in experimental 
filmmaking of the 1970s and am looking for texts that deal with the history of 
film technology. Not technical manuals necessarily but scholarly sources - 
books or articles that look, for example, at the emergence of 16mm as an 
amateur/documentary/artists' medium.


As always, any suggestions would be extremely gratefully received.


All the best,

Kim

===
KEEP IN TOUCH WITH EIFF
Become a web member for FREE and receive news and offers: 
http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk/register
Follow EIFF at: https://twitter.com/edfilmfest or 
http://www.facebook.com/edfilmfest
===
t. +44(0)131 228 4051
f. +44(0)131 229 5501
w. http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk
88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ Scotland, United Kingdom
The Edinburgh International Film Festival Limited is a subsidiary of the Centre 
for the Moving Image. Registered in Scotland No: SC132453. VAT No: 502 548861. 
Registered Office: 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh.
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

[Frameworks] A Roll For Peter

[Mark Street]

Like so many in our community, we're devastated by Peter Hutton's death,
and would like to join together in commemorating his influence.  Peter
invited us to discover a new way of looking; his films and his aesthetic
ethos were suggestions and inspirations.



Please consider joining us in a group project that we think honors Peter's
memory.  Here's how it works: shoot a 100 foot roll of black and white
reversal film, process it, and send the entire (or a stand-alone portion of
the) roll to us by *October 1, 2016*.  We'll string them together with
black leader between the contributions, and screen them along with a couple
of Peter's films at a New York venue TBD.



Maybe you were his student, his colleague, a friend, or a filmmaker who
finds his work inspiring. Maybe you haven't shot film for many years; maybe
you've NEVER shot film this is your opportunity to try something new.
Photographing a single, silent roll (always the building block for Peter's
work) should allow us each to think about Peter and his work in solitude,
and then bring the results together in concert with our community.



Share this if you'd like to.



Sincerely,

Jenn Reeves & Mark Street



Please send your roll (100 feet or less), clearly labeled with your name,
address and contact information, by *October 1, 2016* to the following
address:



Mark Street

Visual Arts  LL423

 Fordham College Lincoln Center

113 W 60th St

New York, New York  10023



*A couple details:*



Your film belongs to you and will be returned after the screening(s).



If you would like to, you can indicate with an X or a hole punch the first
frame and last frame of your film contribution. In that case we will cut
where you have designated and splice the head and tail of your contribution
to the black leader that separates the rolls.



If you have questions, our emails are below.



mstreet...@gmail.comsparky...@gmail.com

www.markstreetfilms.com
www.facebook.com/jenniferreevesfilm/

> ___
> 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