Re: [Frameworks] Voice over

[f]

Tung, a tremendously great film, is, quite gloriously, silent.

Fred Camper
Chicago

Quoting Anderwald Grond :


Grant Gee's Patience (after Sebald)
Some of Alexander Kluge's films
Some of Bruce Baillie's , e.g.Tung or Mr Habayashi
David Perlov's Diaries
Melvin Moti's The Prisoner's Cinema







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

Re: [Frameworks] video playback mystery

[Aaron F. Ross]

There are many things that can cause this. Your 
hard drive could be fragmented. You could have 
other processes using the hard drive at the same 
time and not even know it. Operating systems and 
applications do a TON of stuff in the background, 
and it is a real challenge to get control of your 
computer to make it perform reliably. Quicktime 
is very, very old and inefficient; definitely 
give VLC player a try. If that doesn't work, then 
you will have to roll up your sleeves and do what 
you can to optimize disk performance.


This is one of many reasons why it is best to 
store your user data on a completely different 
physical drive from the operating system. I just 
bought a new laptop and configured it with two 
physical drives. That's probably not an option 
for you right now, but the next time you buy a 
computer I would strongly recommend isolating the 
OS on its own, dedicated, physical drive, preferably a solid state drive.


Aaron




At 4/6/2017, you wrote:
Friends, I have a file of video clips that I 
want to play and pause during a lecture. For 
convenience I prefer to store the file on my 
laptop’s internal hard drive rather than 
bringing an external drive, but the file 
stutters periodically when playing from the 
laptop  whereas it runs smoothly from an 
external drive. Can anyone advise why this might be so?


The file is Mpeg-4, 640 x 360
It stutters on both QuickTime 10.4 and QuickTime 
7.6.6. when played from internal SATA drive.

Codec is AAC, H.264
MacBook Pro, OS Sierra v. 10.12.4, with 8 GB RAM
The external drive is 500 GB solid state WD MyPassport.

Many thanks.


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



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] mental Problems

[Aaron F. Ross]

More Cronenberg: Videodrome, eXistenZ, Spider

Kaufman: Synecdoche, New York

Gilliam: Brazil

Fincher: Fight Club

Aronofsky: Black Swan

Amenábar: Open Your Eyes

Fassbinder: World On A Wire

Twilight Zone 1959: Perchance to Dream

And there is SO MUCH going on with prestige TV 
these days, especially Black Mirror.






At 3/24/2017, you wrote:

Ang Lee's Acid scene in Taking Woodstock is pretty good!

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:00 AM, 
<<mailto:frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com> 
wrote:

Send FrameWorks mailing list submissions to
       
<mailto:frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com


To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
       
<https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
       
<mailto:frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com


You can reach the person managing the list at
       
<mailto:frameworks-ow...@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks-ow...@jonasmekasfilms.com


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of FrameWorks digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: mental problems (Peter Conrad Beyer) 
(<mailto:undof...@email.de>undof...@email.de)

   2. Re: mental problems (Elizabeth McMahon)
   3. Re: mental problems (Dominic Angerame)
   4. Re: mental problems (Andy Ditzler)


-- Forwarded message --
From:Â <mailto:undof...@email.de>undof...@email.de
To:Â <mailto:frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Cc:Â
Bcc:Â
Date:Â Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:18:43 +0100
Subject:Â Re: [Frameworks] mental problems (Peter Conrad Beyer)
<http://lightcone.org/en/film-5142-de-dentro>http://lightcone.org/en/film-5142-de-dentro
Â
best regards, Peter
Â
UndoFilm - Platform For Experimental Moving Image / Cologne
Films distributed by Light Cone / Paris /// Atelier at Opekta / Cologne
Â
Â
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. März 2017 um 13:00 Uhr
Von:Â 
<mailto:frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com

An:Â <mailto:frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Betreff:Â FrameWorks Digest, Vol 82, Issue 26
Send FrameWorks mailing list submissions to
<mailto:frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
<https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
<mailto:frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
<mailto:frameworks-ow...@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks-ow...@jonasmekasfilms.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of FrameWorks digest..."
Today's Topics:

1. Re: Eulogy Films (Gene Youngblood)
2. mental problems (Gene Youngblood)
3. Re: mental problems (Elizabeth McMahon)
4. Re: mental problems (Fred Camper)
5. Re: mental problems (Michael D)
6. Re: mental problems (John Muse)
7. Re: Eulogy Films (Paul Dickinson)
8. Re: Eulogy Films (Toni-Lynn Frederick)
9. Re: mental problems (Dave Tetzlaff)
10. Re: mental problems (Gae Savannah)
11. Re: mental problems (Mark Street)
12. Re: mental problems (Gae Savannah)
13. Re: mental problems (John Muse)
14. Re: mental problems (Joey)
15. Re: mental problems (Tara)
16. Re: mental problems (lagonaboba)
17. Re: mental problems (lagonaboba)
18. Re: mental problems (Anderwald Grond)
19. Re: mental problems (Albert Alcoz)
20. Re: mental problems (Toni-Lynn Frederick)
21. Re: mental problems (lagonaboba)
22. Re: mental problems (<http://drawclose.com>drawclose.com)
23. Re: mental problems (Angelica Cuevas Portilla)
24. Re: mental problems (Jana Debus)
25. Re: mental problems (Gisèle Gordon)
26. Re: mental problems ( todd eacrett )
27. Re: mental problems (Hardin, Ted)
28. Re: mental problems (Pip Chodorov)
29. Re: mental problems (Gene Youngblood)
30. CALL FOR ENTRIES - international competition - Festival des
cinémas différents et expérimentaux de Paris (GRESARD Victor CJC)
___
FrameWorks mailing list
<mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


-- Forwarded message --
From:Â Elizabeth McMahon <<mailto:elizmcma...@gmail.com>elizmcma...@gmail.com>
To:Â Experimental Film Discussion List 
<<mailto:frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com>

Cc:Â
Bcc:Â
Date:Â Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:08:35 -0400
Subject:Â Re: [Frameworks] mental problems
Gene,

Don't forg

Re: [Frameworks] Motion graphics title using slit-scan....

[Aaron F. Ross]

If anyone really wants to geek out on slit-scan 
madness, of course the apex of the art came quite 
early with Doug Trumbull's stargate corridor 
sequence for 2001. This was an extremely baroque 
studio setup with multiple moving planes of 
room-sized artwork, front and back lighting, 
motion control, and, of course, slit scan photography.


In 2002, someone extracted the original 
production artwork by unwrapping the edited film footage:


http://seriss.com/people/erco/2001/

Nowadays live-action style slit scan is super 
easy to accomplish with After Effects and other 
2D applications. And of course, many of the 
slit-scan classics (such as the Dr. Who main 
title) are much more easily accomplished with 3D software.


Aaron


At 10/31/2016, you wrote:
John Whitney developed motion picture slit-scan 
photography, and though he didn't really use it 
in his own films, he did in his commercial 
work.  But it pretty quickly became a standard 
tool for effects houses, showing up in 
commercials, logos, special effects movies, 
etc., so there are probably lots of examples out 
there from a lot of effects people.  Robert 
Abel & Associates specialized in it.


Like here's one example from Abel:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsYFjITWXSo>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsYFjITWXSo


Mark Toscano

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:07 AM, George, 
Sherman <<mailto:sgeo...@ucsd.edu>sgeo...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
Every time the Enterprise goes into warp drive 
and the narrative scroll in 2001.

Here is a link that is a pretty good explanation:
<https://vimeo.com/71702374>https://vimeo.com/71702374
Hard work on film but there must be an easier way digitally.
Sherman

> On Oct 31, 2016, at 6:22 AM, Kasper Lauritzen 
<<mailto:byldorf.fi...@gmail.com>byldorf.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Dear Frameworkers,
>
> I remember reading about slit scan 
photography being used to make title sequences 
where the static title is turned into a rolling 
wave, by moving the printed title up and down. 
I thought it was John Whitney who did it (I 
could be wrong), but now I can't find it again, 
and I forgot the original source.
> So does anyone have a clue which film, TV 
series or advertisement that used this 
technique specifically to make the "wavy title"?

>
> Thank you very much
> Kasper
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> <mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Sherman George
<mailto:sgeo...@ucsd.edu>sgeo...@ucsd.edu
858-229-4368



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


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



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] Experimental films using Astronomy & Satellite imagery - recommendations

[Aaron F. Ross]

I made an astronomical fantasy...

http://www.dr-yo.com/video_unperturbed_hfr.html

Cheers

Aaron




At 9/13/2016, you wrote:
I'm working on programming a series around a 
theme of earth satellites & astronomy, for a 
museum that is doing an exhibition linked to JPL 
(Jet Propulsion Lab - the people behind our 
space probes, etc) This is supposed to be a more 
mainstream series, and there will be some 
Hollywood sci-fi features as part of it, so 
we're not going too far out (so to speak). But 
I'm looking for recommendations of experimental 
films that somehow involve/invoke astronomical 
imagery, or, perhaps even better, imagery of 
earth-orbiting satellites, and views of earth 
from satellites.  I hope to run one in front of 
each feature, or have one evening of them. I am 
thinking of: Films by Semiconductor ­ Brilliant 
Noise; Black Rain Films by Jeanne Liotta Films 
by Jordan Belson ­ Allures; Samadhi (1967); 
Cosmos (1969); World (1970) I have already been 
through Robert Haller's booklet on his series 
"Universe" but I think I am not going to stretch 
this series to include his time or other 
science-based films.  We're sticking with 
astronomy and satellites. Additional 
suggestions, please? Thank you for your help. 
Best regards, Adam -- Adam Hyman Los Angeles 
Filmforum a...@lafilmforum.org 
http://www.lafilmforum.org 
___ 
FrameWorks mailing list 
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] DPI

[Aaron F. Ross]

No, Gene, that's the absolute number of pixels, 
not the size of the image when  printed.


DPI is the number of dots per inch. It should 
actually be referred to as PPI or pixels per 
inch. (DPI is number of printer ink dots, which 
is different from the size of a pixel.)


PPI is a setting in the file header that tells a 
printer how big a pixel should be printed. The 
PPI setting is completely independent of the number of pixels.


Looking at an image on your screen, zoomed at 
100%, you will see the image pixels mapped 
one-to-one onto your display. You will not be 
able to visually ascertain how large that image 
will be when printed. When zoomed at 100%, a 300 
pixel image @ 300 ppi looks the same as a 300 pixel image @ 96 ppi.


The PPI setting also can be used to emulate the 
size of a printed page (Photoshop zoomed to 
actual size) but this is often wrong because 
the app doesn't know enough about the display device to be accurate.


An image that is 300 pixels wide @ 300 ppi will print out to be one inch wide.

An image that is 300 pixels wide @ 96 ppi will 
print out to 3 and 1/8 inches wide. ( 300 / 96 = 3.125 )


I wrote an article explaining this in more detail.

http://digitalartsguild.com/index.php/resources-menu/articles-resources-menu/71-digital-images-101?showall=start=3

Regards,

Aaron



At 7/1/2015, you wrote:
Friends, am I assuming correctly that when you 
“get info” about the properties of an online 
photo, “dimensions” (i.e., 400 x 500) refers 
to DPI? 
___ 
FrameWorks mailing list 
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] Experimental shorts with science-fiction themes?

[Aaron F. Ross]

I made this here found-footage piece, constructed from episodes of 
The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, and Star Trek [TOS].


http://www.dr-yo.com/video_lullabye_hfr.html

Regards,

Aaron



At 1/11/2015, you wrote:

Hello all,

I'm looking for recommendations for experimental film and animated 
works that have science-fiction/visionary themes, both overt (like 
La Jetee or Tribulation 99) and subtle (maybe more along the lines 
of Christopher MacLaine's The End or These Hammers Don't Hurt Us by 
Michael Robinson).


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



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] 2 new DVD releases from CVM: doc Baily and Robert Seidel

[Aaron F. Ross]

/BDVD.htm 
          Â

Richard “dr.” Baily and John Buchanan: experiments in spore
A Center for Visual Music Release
DVD. NTSC. Region-Free.
Available now. (Released Summer 2014.)
Price: US$25 Private Home Use; US$150 Educational Institutions and Libraries
Produced by Center for Visual Music

Â

* * *


Center for Visual Music (CVM) is a Los 
Angeles-based archive devoted to visual music, 
experimental animation and abstract media. 
CVM’s previous DVD releases include Oskar 
Fischinger: Ten Films and Jordan Belson: 5 
Essential Films. CVM‘s archive contains the 
world's largest collection of visual music 
resources, including the papers and films of 
Oskar Fischinger, and the research collection of 
film historian William Moritz. CVM’s HD 
three-screen Fischinger reconstruction, 
Raumlichtkunst, was recently exhibited at Tate 
Modern, London; Whitney Museum, New York; and Palais de Tokyo, Paris.Â



CVM's films, programs and lectures are featured 
in museums, archives, festivals and cultural 
centers worldwide including The Guggenheim 
Museum, New York; Centre Pompidou, Paris; 
Hirshhorn Museum, Washington, DC; Whitney 
Museum, New York; ZKM, Karlsruhe; Musée du 
Louvre, Paris; MOCA Los Angeles; Barbican 
Centre, London; Raven Row, London; Akademie der 
Künste, Berlin; Kunsthalle Zurich, Tate 
Liverpool, Kunsthalle Vienna; Fondazione Prada, 
Venice; Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane; 
National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., and others worldwide.



Â
For press inquiries and print resolution images 
please contact: cvmaccess (at) http://gmail.comgmail.comÂ
___ 
FrameWorks mailing list 
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] films using the optical printer

[Aaron F. Ross]

In my humble opinion, Pat O'Neill is the master 
of optical printing. Water and Power is a great 
film, as are all of his. My personal favorites 
are Trouble in the Image and The Decay of 
Fiction. The latter is perhaps the greatest 
single example of optical printer work ever 
produced, but as far as I know it's not available.


http://www.lookoutmountainstudios.com/store.php


Other optical printing wizards are Adam Beckett, Paul Sharits, François Miron.

--Aaron



At 8/6/2014, you wrote:

Dear Frameworkers,

If I were going to undertake a series of 
screenings showcasing optical printer 
techniques, what work would you recommend? Â 
What is the best work for understanding the 
cinematic potential in optical printing? Â Are 
there any texts that could be included? Â I'm 
asking for my own enlightenment and to take my 
own OP work to another level, but I might also 
try to put together a public screening at some point.


Many thanks, as always, for your thoughts and advice.

CC Â Â

--
Caryn Cline
Experimental Filmmaker  Teacher
http://vimeo.com/carynycvimeo.com/carynyc
Co-producer  cinematographer, Acts of Witness
http://www.actsofwitness.com/www.actsofwitness.com



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



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] another quicktime export question

[Aaron F. Ross]

Don't know why you're getting dropout, but all audio for video is 
supposed to be at 48 kHz sample rate. 44.1 kHz is supposed to be for 
audio CDs only.


Regarding video codecs: someone mentioned ProRes, but that is not an 
easy thing to accomplish on Windows without paying for an extra 
plugin. Motion JPEG is another fallback option if H.264 is being problematic.


Aaron



At 7/16/2014, you wrote:

getting audio dropout at the head of some of the quicktime exports from avid
audio settings i used are: uncompressed / 44.1 / sample size 16 / 2 channels
any words of wisdom ...?
thanks! moira

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



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] mov files from avid (pc) for quicktime projection (mac)

[Aaron F. Ross]

Same as source means that your footage is encoded with the same 
codec as your original footage, or perhaps the intermediate editing 
codec you've chosen in your timeline/sequence.


H.264 is actually your best option for festivals. The contrast issue 
is a bug in some versions of Quicktime and VLC for Windows. It 
happens because some clever broadcast engineers decided that the 
range of an 8-bit channel should be from 16 to 235, instead of the 
full range from 0 to 255. The encoder is supposed to restrict video 
levels to 16-235 (Studio IRE) at export time, and the decoder is 
supposed to expand those levels back to 0-255 at playback time. But 
sometimes the decoder does not expand the levels, and you get dark 
gray blacks and light gray whites.


On Windows you can fix this playback issue through the NVIDIA control 
panel (if you've got it). But it's almost certain that the venue will 
be playing back on OS X. Provided that the OS and Quicktime are up to 
date on that system, then your levels will be displayed correctly.


If you really don't trust H.264, then you can export to DNxHD, but 
there's an extremely low probability that your festival can actually 
play this back. The Animation codec is lossless if you crank the 
quality up to 100%, but then the file sizes are ginormous.


Bottom line: encode to H.264 at the bitrate appropriate to your 
format, and take it on faith that it will play back with the correct 
levels. I've been through this a zillion times; video editing on 
Windows is still markedly inferior to OS X, even after decades.


Aaron




At 7/14/2014, you wrote:

hey folks

tested some mov files today (exported 'same as source' from avid 3.0 
on a pc) on a mac, quicktime wouldn't open them  vlc played them 
back deinterlaced ( with a green line at the top, in one case)

any ideas what's up?

(cue bad jokes about 'mov'ing targets or 'mov'ing goalposts ...)

i've tried H264 exports but the colours/contrast get washed out, so 
i'm avoiding that option; thought that 'same as source' would be 
better than any form of compression ...?


cheers all round
moira

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



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking

[Aaron F. Ross]

Damn you kids, get off my lawn!!

This argument has been going on ever since the Sony Porta-pak video 
system became available in the late 60s. Lower cost and instant 
gratification has supposedly killed creativity. But of course, now 
there is an entire historical catalog of long form video art that is 
now in the experimental cinema canon, preserved in museums, part of 
the establishment.


Technology is not making things too easy, it's enabling people who 
previously couldn't make movies to be creative. They often do need 
guidance, and that guidance has to come from mentors who understand 
the art of cinema as well as its technological developments.


Rejecting the technology is a losing strategy. You can't put the 
genie back in the bottle. To stay relevant, instructors must adapt to 
the changing times. This is the fundamental issue with education 
across the board.


Aaron



At 4/23/2014, you wrote:
But with our students it actually is speed that's killing 
creativity, as they become more and more acclimated to working 
fast--digital cameras, digital editing systems, etc. Ah, it's just 
terrible--so much junk.


Shoot slow, edit slow, experience slow. ;]

Tim


--
From: fl...@flickharrison.com
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:29:52 -0700
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking

On Apr 18, 2014, at 15:26 , Tim Halloran 
mailto:televis...@hotmail.comtelevis...@hotmail.com wrote:


Slow=bad?!

Bah.

Tim


It's nice to work slowly if you are trying to do so; it's insanely 
annoying if you are not.


Imagine if a painter put a stroke on the canvas and couldn't see it 
for 30 seconds afterwards.  Not too many painters are striving to 
achieve that workflow.


;-)

--
* WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD? 
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrisonhttp://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison 



* FLICK's WEBSITE:
http://www.flickharrison.comhttp://www.flickharrison.comhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ZeroForConduct/~6/2 



http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/headlineanimator/install?id=90rffbei3nr88m9ci3u0qr9d14w=2$B,(B 
Grab this Headline Animator


Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison 
mailto:fl...@flickharrison.comfl...@flickharrison.com wrote:


...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively...

- Flick

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

___
FrameWorks mailing list
mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comFrameWorks@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



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] Screen Recorders

[Aaron F. Ross]

Camtasia is the gold standard for screen capture. I use it 
professionally on a daily basis. It *does* capture absolutely 
everything, picture and sound.


The main issue with screen capture software is the cursor. It is on a 
different plane overlaid on the rest of the desktop. Some software 
does not even capture the cursor at all. Camtasia works around this 
by capturing the cursor commands and generating its own cursor. So it 
does have minor issues. For example, if you zoom in on the screen 
using Magnifier, the cursor is the wrong size and place.


But generally, Camtasia is pretty foolproof. It uses a proprietary 
codec that is lossless and very, very efficient. It's worth the $300 
price tag if you use it regularly.


Aaron




At 4/23/2014, you wrote:
There are a number of screen recording products, like Bulent Screen 
Recorder for PC, that promise to capture anything that appears on 
your screen. Is that true? Anything? No exceptions?
___ FrameWorks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking

[Aaron F. Ross]

It's true, professors with tenure can ignore the changing times. 
There's no accountability and no consequences, so tenured professors 
can be rigid, inflexible, and anachronistic, and get away with it. 
But of course, that is doing the students a disservice. There's a 
huge disconnect between academia and the real world, and young people know it.


In a way, the decline of tenure and the expansion of adjunct hires is 
good for students. It's bad from a labor perspective, but at least it 
keeps fresh blood coming in. Adjuncts have to continually 
prove/improve themselves, and can't rest on their laurels. Ever.


Regarding technology, I'm a selective adopter. Just because something 
is new does not make it good. But the corollary to this is that just 
because something is familiar does not make it good, either. We all 
must think critically about technology if we are to be effective 
educators, makers, and even consumers. Control the tools, or they 
will control you.


The fresco analogy unintentionally makes the opposite point. Art 
schools don't teach fresco painting anymore, except as an extremely 
specialist subject. Oil painting is a widely adopted technique that 
has immediate application across the board. Fresco painting is, for 
the most part, a dead art. So, in fact, students should not be 
required to learn it.


If you want to piss off students, wasting their time and money, then 
by all means, make them learn some specialized, anachronistic subject 
that has little or no application in the real world.


Aaron



At 4/23/2014, you wrote:
But you _can_ reject the technology.  Not at all times, nor 
throughout the whole program.  But, just because oil painting exists 
does not mean that art students shouldn't learn how to make frescos. 
--scott ___ FrameWorks 
mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] Raw hdmi to projector, help!

[Aaron F. Ross]

Check the settings on the camera and projector and make sure neither 
is set to YCbCr. HDMI can be either YCbCr or RGB. Both devices should 
be set to the same color space.


-- Aaron





At 4/20/2014, you wrote:


Hello, frameworks!

I've a strange technical question that has been driving me to the 
depths insanity.


I am trying to port the raw hdmi output from my d800 into my 
projector hdmi input. I've successfully done this, BUT! the color 
space is entirely off. Yellow shows as purple, skin as red, and a 
lot of the other color is lost.


I've tried every cord I have, went through two different hdmi input 
selectors, plugged in straight, went through every setting on my 
projector and camera.


I have been reading the the d800 is actually not entirely raw hdmi 
out, with 4-2-2 rgb as opposed to true 4-4-4 rgb, I dont know if this matters.


I apologize that this is the anti-celluoid post, but any help would 
be appreciated.


Thanks,

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



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking

[Aaron F. Ross]

I would steer clear of iMacs for video editing, 
they are underpowered. If you want to render HD 
video, it's going to be slow and painful on even 
the high end iMacs. The Mac Pro is very fast, but 
very expensive. It is only available with small 
solid state drives, so you have to buy additional external hard drives.


Aaron


I disagree with $4000.  A 21 iMac - what a 
school would likely be running Final Cut on - 
starts at $1299.  I assume there are bulk 
discounts for schools, but they likely already have the computers.



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] FLAME ON!!!

[Aaron F. Ross]

Interesting idea, although there's no reason why it should be limited 
to 720p. Except cost, I guess. But yeah, there are a lot of really 
good Super-8 cameras out there that would be rejuvenated by such a gadget.


Aaron



At 2/19/2014, you wrote:

http://hayesurban.com/current-projects/2012/3/14/digital-super-8.htmlhttp://hayesurban.com/current-projects/2012/3/14/digital-super-8.html


Ken

http://www.maddancementalhealthfilmtrilogy.comwww.maddancementalhealthfilmtrilogy.com

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



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] HOW TO USE WITHOUT A BOX TO SUBMIT FILMS

[Aaron F. Ross]

WAB is not perfect, but it's much better than the 
old way of spending up to $100 per submission in shipping fees alone!


But festivals should all permit submission via 
artist website, Vimeo, YouTube, FTP. However, not 
all are that tech-savvy, and WAB makes it easy for them.


Aaron




At 2/16/2014, you wrote:
Yes, I hate it too. It takes forever on the 
filmmaker side and it generates a lot of 
unwanted submissions on the festival side of 
things. However, it does help a festival keep 
information organized AND it generates a lot of 
submission-fee revenue for all of those 
indie-makers blindly submitting to festivals 
that WAB and IMDB suggest is right for 
them.  WAB is not only boring, annoying,  and 
expensive, it creates ethical/political dilemmas for festivals and makers.


With that said, I'm sure there are many examples 
in which WAB has helped artists/filmmakers 
connect with an appropriate festival. But, 
there's gotta be a better way. I'm sure 
programmers are all ears if people have a alternative solutions.


- Warren




On Feb 16, 2014, at 10:15 AM, chris bravo 
mailto:iamdir...@gmail.comiamdir...@gmail.com wrote:


can we return to the WAB discussion for a 
moment? The settings you are describing are 
essentially a moot point because the WAB video 
system compresses whatever file you upload to a 
DISASTROUSLY crappy/tiny/offensive video frame 
of, if I am remembering correctly 480x360. This 
coupled with the service, overall, being 
extremely spammy, expensive, poorly designed, 
ineffectual, especially for independent makers, 
turns me off to the entire thing to the point 
where I won't apply to a festival if they 
require a WAB entry and don't offer an 
alternative of at least a vimeo link send-in. I 
understand that festivals need tools to help 
them manage data, etc. But WAB seems like the worst possible solution.


Are there more filmmaker friendly tools or 
projects out there to help with this problem? 
Do people know how we got so hooked on WAB hegemony?



On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Peter Snowdon 
mailto:pe...@redrice.netpe...@redrice.net wrote:

Aaron,
thanks! I guess my question was, what is the 
safest setting for multiple unknown 
computer/projector combinations...:) It seems 
720p would avoid a lot of problems in itself.

Peter

Envoyé de mon iPad

 Le 15 févr. 2014 à 09:55, Aaron F. Ross 
mailto:aa...@digitalartsguild.comaa...@digitalartsguild.com a écrit :


 It depends on what equipment will be 
screening the MP4 file. What is the native 
resolution of the projector? What is the 
computer that will be playing back the file? 
Encode the file to the maximum resolution and 
bitrate that the system can handle, and no more.


 Usually a 1080p master should be encoded at 
20 megabits per second, two-pass variable bit 
rate encoding. This is Blu-ray standard quality.


 Certain types of footage, especially fast 
motion or flicker, may benefit from setting 
the compression keyframe distance explicitly. 
There's no way to recommend what that distance 
should be, it's totally footage-dependent. I 
would do an encode without a specific keyframe 
distance and see if the result looks good. If 
you are seeing frame blending or other 
artifacts, set the keyframe distance to 24 or 
30, depending on source frame rate. That's one 
keyframe per second. If you still see 
artifacts, reduce the keyframe distance 
incrementally. If keyframe distance is set to 
the minimum of 1, then each frame is 
compressed individually (interframe) and there 
is no interpolation across frames 
(intraframe). This is an extreme setting that 
may cause more problems than it solves, but I'm describing options.


 The potential issue with high bitrate 
encoding is that the playback computer has 
issues playing it back. If the processor or 
hard drive is not fast enough, the playback 
will stutter and drop frames. This has 
happened to me personally, and it utterly 
sucks in ways I can't begin to describe. 
Therefore I suggest also encoding a 720p file 
as a backup in case the target playback system 
chokes on the 1080p file. Encode the 720p file 
at 10 megabits per second, two pass variable bit rate.


 Aaron



 At 2/15/2014, you wrote:
 While we're on this topic, I've just been 
asked for mp4 files for projection from a 
computer. Would any Frameworkers care to share 
settings they've used successfully? I'm 
working from 1080 masters, and I'm on a Mac, 
where I understand that all the mp4 presets 
sacrifice quality to compression. Thanks in 
advance, Peter Envoyé de mon iPad  Le 15 
févr. 2014 à 02:31, Aaron F. Ross 
mailto:aa...@digitalartsguild.comaa...@digitalartsguild.com 
a écrit :   Hey Sandra...   You need an 
MP4 file. That means it's encoded using H.264 
compression. Don't bother with Quicktime. 
Don't bother with any other compression types. 
They will take too long to upload.   If it's 
standard definition (DVD quality), make sure 
it's encoded with a bitrate of at least 3

Re: [Frameworks] HOW TO USE WITHOUT A BOX TO SUBMIT FILMS

[Aaron F. Ross]

It depends on what equipment will be screening 
the MP4 file. What is the native resolution of 
the projector? What is the computer that will be 
playing back the file? Encode the file to the 
maximum resolution and bitrate that the system can handle, and no more.


Usually a 1080p master should be encoded at 20 
megabits per second, two-pass variable bit rate 
encoding. This is Blu-ray standard quality.


Certain types of footage, especially fast motion 
or flicker, may benefit from setting the 
compression keyframe distance explicitly. There's 
no way to recommend what that distance should be, 
it's totally footage-dependent. I would do an 
encode without a specific keyframe distance and 
see if the result looks good. If you are seeing 
frame blending or other artifacts, set the 
keyframe distance to 24 or 30, depending on 
source frame rate. That's one keyframe per 
second. If you still see artifacts, reduce the 
keyframe distance incrementally. If keyframe 
distance is set to the minimum of 1, then each 
frame is compressed individually (interframe) and 
there is no interpolation across frames 
(intraframe). This is an extreme setting that may 
cause more problems than it solves, but I'm describing options.


The potential issue with high bitrate encoding is 
that the playback computer has issues playing it 
back. If the processor or hard drive is not fast 
enough, the playback will stutter and drop 
frames. This has happened to me personally, and 
it utterly sucks in ways I can't begin to 
describe. Therefore I suggest also encoding a 
720p file as a backup in case the target playback 
system chokes on the 1080p file. Encode the 720p 
file at 10 megabits per second, two pass variable bit rate.


Aaron



At 2/15/2014, you wrote:
While we're on this topic, I've just been asked 
for mp4 files for projection from a computer. 
Would any Frameworkers care to share settings 
they've used successfully? I'm working from 1080 
masters, and I'm on a Mac, where I understand 
that all the mp4 presets sacrifice quality to 
compression. Thanks in advance, Peter Envoyé de 
mon iPad  Le 15 févr. 2014 à 02:31, Aaron F. 
Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com a écrit 
:   Hey Sandra...   You need an MP4 file. 
That means it's encoded using H.264 compression. 
Don't bother with Quicktime. Don't bother with 
any other compression types. They will take too 
long to upload.   If it's standard definition 
(DVD quality), make sure it's encoded with a 
bitrate of at least 3 megabits per second.   
For 720p extended definition, go for 10 megabits 
per second.   For 1080p full high definition, 
the bitrate should be 20 megabits per 
second.   To give you an idea of resulting 
file sizes...   3 megabits per second will 
yield a file size of 23 Megabytes per minute of 
footage.   10 megabits/sec will be 75 
Megabytes per minute of footage.   20 
megabits/sec will be 150 Megabytes per minute of 
footage.   Let me know if you have more 
questions.   Aaron At 2/14/2014, you 
wrote:  This is embarassing...as a FILMmaker I 
finally got used to submitting on DVD, and 
now...its Withoutabox to submit to Edinburgh 
Black Box. I have attempted to weed my way 
through the application but the first thing I 
need to know is what specs to give to the person 
doing the video transfer - what type of file are 
we talking about.  Can someone help !?!?!?!? 
thank you, Sandra Davis 
___ 
FrameWorks mailing list 
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks 
/x-flowed
--  
   Aaron F. Ross, artist and 
educator   http://dr-yo.com  
http://digitalartsguild.com   
___  
 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



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] HOW TO USE WITHOUT A BOX TO SUBMIT FILMS

[Aaron F. Ross]

Hey Sandra...

You need an MP4 file. That means it's encoded using H.264 
compression. Don't bother with Quicktime. Don't bother with any other 
compression types. They will take too long to upload.


If it's standard definition (DVD quality), make sure it's encoded 
with a bitrate of at least 3 megabits per second.


For 720p extended definition, go for 10 megabits per second.

For 1080p full high definition, the bitrate should be 20 megabits per second.

To give you an idea of resulting file sizes...

3 megabits per second will yield a file size of 23 Megabytes per 
minute of footage.


10 megabits/sec will be 75 Megabytes per minute of footage.

20 megabits/sec will be 150 Megabytes per minute of footage.

Let me know if you have more questions.

Aaron



At 2/14/2014, you wrote:
This is embarassing...as a FILMmaker I finally got used to 
submitting on DVD, and now...its Withoutabox to submit to Edinburgh 
Black Box. I have attempted to weed my way through the application 
but the first thing I need to know is what specs to give to the 
person doing the video transfer - what type of file are we talking 
about.  Can someone help !?!?!?!? thank you, Sandra Davis 
___ FrameWorks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks /x-flowed



--

  Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator
  http://dr-yo.com
  http://digitalartsguild.com

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

Re: [Frameworks] HD cam 24 vs 25? vs DCP?

[Aaron F. Ross]

Another vote for Pioneer burners, they have the best reputation. If 
you're on a budget, LiteOn is OK. They are cheaper, but I've never 
had problems with them... under Windows. Really, the limiting factor 
is the quality of the optical media.


//

Aaron

/


At 12/14/2013, you wrote:
I second Marco's rec. of Pioneer optical drives. I don't have a 
Pioner BR burner, but I've had many, many DVD burners of different 
mfr., and the Pioneers have consistently produced the best burns and 
been the most reliable. I've had three LG BR-burners. One of them 
(older) died, but the latest one has been solid. Given the choice 
again though, I'd go with Pioneer... 
___ FrameWorks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild 


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

Re: [Frameworks] HD cam 24 vs 25? vs DCP?

[Aaron F. Ross]

-ray 
in favour of a ProRes file. Blu-ray is a pita 
for screenings. I've had discs that tested 
fine one day then wouldn't read the next. Even 
with a BR data drive and the software it's a 
slow and potentially lossy process to rip it back to a file.



If you're sending out a physical object 
(hard-drive/memory stick) with files on it, 
consider including multiple versions with 
different resolutions and/or bitrates. When I 
have the time to re-encode a file I'm pretty 
careful, but if I have to do so an hour before a screening, not so much.



You don't mention the running time, but a file 
that can be up//downloaded is theoretically 
cheaper/faster than shipping a tape or disc. At 
least it pushes the economic and environmental 
costs of the server farms onto the next generation.


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


---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild 


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

Re: [Frameworks] HD cam 24 vs 25? vs DCP?

[Aaron F. Ross]

Fascinating, that's great news. Thanks for the info. Cinec Pro is 150 
Euro for the noncommercial version, which is about US$200. Cheaper to 
go the open source route and deal with the inconvenience. But if you 
can deduct the expense from taxes, Cinec Pro might be worthwhile.


/

Aaron

/



At 12/13/2013, you wrote:
And as recently noted here, ProRes isn't available on PCs. Given 
what production houses charge for transfers, it might behoove PC 
based folks to invest in a used older Mac Pro (~$500) if only to 
make ProRes files.


I've been making ProRes files from a Win platform for ages now, no 
issues at all, try the trial Cinec software @


http://www.cinemartin.com/cinec/http://www.cinemartin.com/cinec/

Cheers,
Sean

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


---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild 


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

Re: [Frameworks] HD cam 24 vs 25? vs DCP?

[Aaron F. Ross]

I want to reiterate that the ProRes codec is lossy. ProRes  is 
the best, it's full 4:4:4 color sampling and can optionally preserve 
RGB color space if you're working with graphics. But if you're 
looking for a truly lossless mastering format, the best option is 
still Quicktime Animation at 100% quality. /// Aaron 
///





At 12/12/2013, you wrote:
I agree. HDCam-SR is a preferable tape master (but expensive to read 
from because only big labs have the players). A ProRes file is 
definitely more useful to work with, though a physical tape master 
is reassuring to have. 24PFS is the most compatible framerate for 
film original and HD projection including DCP. If you then make a 
downconverted SD version on beta or as an SD file then 25fps is the 
standard for that version. Watch out for DCP - this is an encoded 
file package like a DVD and certainly not a master element. It 
cannot be accessed or copied. It cannot even be read from in real 
time - it has to be ingested into the server. It is only useful for 
screenings in cinemas that are equipped. You are right to worry 
about servers and platforms - some DCPs don't play on all systems. 
But DCP has become the Hollywood standard to replace release prints. 
It is handy to have available for potential screenings an HD ProRes 
file, a Blu-Ray disc, and/or a DCP, an SD file, a beta, a DVD... But 
for preservation, archiving and future compatibility,the best master 
now is a 2K file, either in DPX or ProRes 4:4:4 or as tiff images. 
Down the road you will be able to convert that into anything you 
will need and you could even make a 35mm negative from it, which is 
the best solution of course. -Pip At 16:28 -0800 12/12/13, David 
Tetzlaff wrote: I'd recommend getting your film transferred to the 
highest quality codec available, then converting it to whatever you 
need on your own (or a friend's) computer (if you don't have a 
Mac).  HD-CAM IS NOT FULL 1080P RESOLUTION! It's a now 
technologically obsolete tape format that uses an anamorphic frame 
to get within the recording bandwidth of the 
tape apparatus.  You'll want your film outputted to a file on a 
hard-drive regardless, not to any form of tape. If the transfer 
service can't do that, f**k 'em, and find someone who 
can.  Assuming you have access to a Mac, I'd recommend ProRes 
4:4:4. Not that you'd ever send it out in that, but as a 
'best-quality' master. I assume DCP would be better (??) but I 
don't know of any software you could use to downconvert it.  If 
it's shot at 24fps, get it transferred at 24fps. If you need 
to send it out to PAL-land, they might have 24fps capability... And 
if they don't, you can do the 24-25 conversion yourself in 
software. That way you have the option of doing a 1frame=1frame 
conversion so every frame remains intact but it just runs a little 
faster, or you can do a transfer that preserves the running time, 
and uses some algorithm to blend frames to make up the difference. 
If you're using something like Apple Compressor to do that (24-25), 
there are lots of different settings you can manipulate to make 
sure you get the best possible quality, and it will take days to 
render as a result. So again, you'd want to only do this once, and 
use your 24fps master to create a 25fps 'master' in the best codec 
available, from which you would then create whatever 25fps 
distribution versions you would need...  
___ FrameWorks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks /x-flowed


---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild 


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

Re: [Frameworks] Premiere export for projection

[Aaron F. Ross]

Unfortunately, the Apple ProRes encoder is not available for Windows. 
There is a workaround involving ffmpeg, but it's a pain. You have to 
render your clip to a lossless format such as QT Animation, then 
convert using ffmpeg. This is a command line app, but there is a 
front end gui available.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gap6rkbJYIk

Barring ProRes, the next best thing is AVID DNxHD, which is supported 
under Windows. But it's doubtful that you'll see many festivals 
accepting that. SIGGRAPH requires it, but they're really technocratic.


Depending on your image content, you might be OK with h.264 at high 
bandwidth settings. I.e., ~24 megabits/sec for 1080p footage, ~5 
megabits/sec for 480p. If you're seeing artifacts, the old standby, 
motion JPEG, may be an acceptable fallback position.


Aaron





At 12/8/2013, you wrote:

Hey folk,

  Just curious about what the (presumably few) Premiere users among 
you do when you're exporting a file for projection, what you've had 
good experiences with etc. What say you?



--
--ekrem serdar
Austin, TX
(Sent from a toy)
___ FrameWorks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] Premiere export for projection

[Aaron F. Ross]

For the record, I don't think ProRes is strictly lossless. But yes, 
it's always a good idea to create a digital master from which you can 
strike compressed copies. I always master using a truly lossless 
codec, such as Quicktime Animation at 100% quality. That preserves 
the RGB color space and 4:4:4 color sampling, whereas most codecs 
will convert to YCbCr and subsample the color channels. The downside 
is that file sizes get very large... 20 GB for a three minute film at 1080p24!


 //  Aaron




At 12/8/2013, you wrote:
More and more people are asking for h264 nowadays - the Good Enough 
attitude which is fine for most of my work. From Premiere / Adobe 
Media Encoder I use the Vimeo hd 720p30 setting which is what I 
mostly shoot in.  Looked amazing on the big Vancouver Int'l Film 
Centre screen last week. There's 1080i and p also I think. 
Unfortunately, the projection booth is as varied as the edit suite 
these days, so you might want to make a ProRes or other lossless 
master and use that to produce versions as the need arises. Pumping 
out overnight-encodings of various kinds is what computers are for, 
after all... :-) http://www.flickharrison.com  On Dec 8, 2013, at 
1:51 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote:   
Unfortunately, the Apple ProRes encoder is not available for 
Windows. There is a workaround involving ffmpeg, but it's a pain. 
You have to render your clip to a lossless format such as QT 
Animation, then convert using ffmpeg. This is a command line app, 
but there is a front end gui available.   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gap6rkbJYIk   Barring ProRes, the 
next best thing is AVID DNxHD, which is supported under Windows. But 
it's doubtful that you'll see many festivals accepting that. 
SIGGRAPH requires it, but they're really technocratic.   Depending 
on your image content, you might be OK with h.264 at high bandwidth 
settings. I.e., ~24 megabits/sec for 1080p footage, ~5 megabits/sec 
for 480p. If you're seeing artifacts, the old standby, motion JPEG, 
may be an acceptable fallback position.   Aaron   At 
12/8/2013, you wrote:  Hey folk,Just curious about what 
the (presumably few) Premiere users among you do when you're 
exporting a file for projection, what you've had good experiences 
with etc. What say you?--  --ekrem serdar  Austin, 
TX  (Sent from a toy)  
___ FrameWorks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks   
---   Aaron F. Ross  
Digital Arts Guild   
___  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


---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] Premiere export for projection

[Aaron F. Ross]

The choice of tool depends on what you want to do. Windows is the 
platform of choice for 3D artists, so that's why I don't have a Mac. 
Anyway, Apple has pretty much abandoned the professional market. The 
new Mac Pro has a lot of people really disappointed. // Aaron




At 12/8/2013, you wrote:
You've got to wonder why people keep 'effing around with pc codecs 
and searching around endlessly in hidden directories for files when 
there is such a thing called a Mac. Add up your hours and I think 
you'll find a Mac would pay for itself within a month. Heave the 
cryptic multi-tasking Edsel into the bin, get a Mac and spend your 
time focussing on ideas. Just my thoughts, Peter Perth (way down 
south, not the bonnie one).


---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] getting through airport x-ray

[Aaron F. Ross]

Ugh. It's so highly variable from airport to airport.  Some inspectors will let 
you open the can and show the end of the reel. Some will force you to put the 
can through the x-ray. And there's no way to know in advance what the policies 
are or how the inspectors are feeling that day. It's probably best to mail the 
stock back home.

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

-Original Message-
From: Peter Hofstad ififif...@gmail.com
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Sent: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: [Frameworks] getting through airport x-ray

Hey all,

I'm traveling internationally with a bolex and 16mm film at the end of this
month. Any advice you have about getting through airport security/customs
intact would be appreciated.

Specifically I'm worried about the x-ray machines/ light exposure on the
film.Once I shoot over there, what's the best way to bring it back? Would
it be safer to mail it back the states?

Thanks,
Peter W. Hofstad
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Converting digital video to VHS using Premiere or something else

[Aaron F. Ross]

Why don't you just downsample it to 480p? Just export it to a lower 
resolution. No need to lay off to tape, that's just crazy talk.


Aaron



At 8/16/2013, you wrote:
Hey Im making a stopmotion video using adobe premiere and it looks 
terrible because its HD and looks too crisp.  You can see all the 
shitty blue screening and whatnot so I want to convert it to VHS so 
the mistakes don't look so obvious.  I also like the look of VHS 
better than HD.  I've done this before using a tape deck with a 
firewire cable but it was so long ago and I kind of forget how it 
was done.  I also don't have acces to such a tape deck.  Just 
wondering if anyone knew how to do this and/ or had that kind of 
tape deck available in the NYC area.  Thanks 
___ FrameWorks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] Proustian Cinema

[Aaron F. Ross]

A short experimental film by Anna Geyer:

http://www.dr-yo.com/loquat/oolite.html


Regards,

Aaron




At 6/7/2013, you wrote:

Hi, there,

I'm looking to compile a list of good points of reference for 
'Proustian' cinema (in terms of form and style relating to memory - 
not adaptations of Proust).

Both film makers/works and essays/writings.

Cheers,

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


---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] de-dusting scanned film footage

[Aaron F. Ross]

It is absolutely necessary to have full control 
over color spaces and codecs if you wish to move 
digital imagees back and forth between applications.


What is the format/codec of the source video?
What is the format/codec of the FCP editing timeline?
To what format/codec are you exporting the single frames?
What is the current color space in FCP?
What is the current color space in Photoshop?
How is Photoshop interpreting the incoming single 
frames? Is the embedded profile being applied?


The main bugaboo around this pipeline is that if 
your video footage is YCbCr, then if you save out 
an individual frame, it's likely to convert to a 
different color space such as sRGB.


Frankly, my advice would be to do the job in 
After Effects. It's very easy to touch up and 
rotoscope footage. Just make sure to set the 
color settings to match what you've got in FCP.


Regards,

Aaron





At 5/25/2013, you wrote:
Dear frameworkers, I have another question. This 
one is specific to de-dusting scanned film 
footage (e.g. S-8mm) in a digital workflow (e.g. 
final cut pro). Sometimes dust, hair and 
scratches are detrimental to the visual 
impression one tries to achieve. I have tried in 
the past to remove hair or other dust manually. 
This is, extracting the photogram from FCP, 
importing it into Photoshop, cleaning the 
photogram and re-importing that frame into the 
slot in the timeline where it was extracted 
from. This works in theory but in practice I 
sometmes ended up with that one photogram having 
a visible colour mismatch. I have not found a 
way to match the colour space of FCP and 
Photoshop, but must admit I haven't tried hard 
enough. I recently fiddled with another method. 
Importing a whole clip into photoshop. Photoshop 
CS5 extended can handle time-based images. Then 
it's pretty straightforward: locate the 
photogram and clean it in the image window as 
one would with a normal photograph. Then 
re-export the clip through Export - Render 
Video. I have played a bit with it but never 
really tried it for a project. Does anyone have 
experience with this, or an even better method 
to share? Thanks, Best, Marco -- Sent from my 
computer marco poloni usedomer strasse 8 d ­ 
13355 berlin gsm de +49.1633.6294080 gsm ch 
+41.78.6322028 skype marcopoloni 
___ 
FrameWorks mailing list 
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] Production Code

[f]

I agree with Jonathan. The places where experimental films were shown did
not care about the Production Code. They mostly would have hardly been
aware of it. The main problem, if there was one, might be the local
police.

In 1966, there was a Markopoulos film about to be shown in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, at a place called Odd Fellows Hall, in a screening to be
run by the late Tom Chomont. At the last minute the Cambridge police
stopped the showing. Apparently the last program Tom ran had had a film
(not by Markopoulos) in which a female breast was visible, or at least,
that's what I heard was the source of the trouble. We hosted the showing
for Tom and Gregory at MIT with no problem. The film Markopoulos showed,
Galaxie, did not even have any nudity. A few years later we showed
Eros, O Basileus, which did have nudity, but no sex, without any trouble
either. At least from 1966 on, I'm not aware of censorship affecting
Markopoulos in the US.

Also, there was a commercial theater in Manhattan, the 55th Street
Playhouse, that showed avant-garde films for a short time in early 1964.
They showed Twice a Man for a week. I'm not aware of them having had any
trouble either. Their main problem was a lack of audience.

Fred Camper
Chicago

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

Re: [Frameworks] Production Code

[f]

 But to return to the initial question:  Is any of it
 pornographic in any sense?

NO!

 Does it even show any sex other than lonely longing?

No sex that I can recall.

 To the extent is work wasn't shown it seems that was
 largely self-willed.  Could be wrong, though…

I don't think that there would have been ANY censorship problems with any
Markopoulos films after he withdrew them in the late 1960s.

Fred Camper
Chicago

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

Re: [Frameworks] Film and Digital for beginners

[Aaron F. Ross]

 lifespans of film and digital.

And so on and so forth. Though I do talk about things outside the 
realm of film aesthetics specifically (such as the cost of digital 
conversion, preservation issues, etc.), my main interest is in 
showing my students the concrete, appreciable consequences that 
attend the decision to do something in film or in digital. And to be 
able to demonstrate them in class with specific examples - using the 
16mm and digital projectors I have in the classroom - would be nice, 
so suggestions of such specific examples would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance for any ideas.
Best,
Jonathan

Jonathan Walley
Dept. of Cinema
Denison University

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

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] Media Player Quality?

[Aaron F. Ross]

Generally speaking, Quicktime is always better. It is 
memory-inefficient and not multithreaded, but highly accurate in 
terms of render quality and random access. There have been some bugs 
with H.264 video levels in Quicktime for Windows, but I believe those 
have been fixed. No problems on OS X or iOS as far as I know.

Windows Media Player is an embarrassment. Media Player Classic and 
VLC are mediocre replacements, but at least on Windows you get to 
tweak some of the options. For example, you may be able to choose the 
OS codecs, or the codecs internal to the player. In the hardware 
driver settings (display control panel), you may be able to 
enable/disable hardware acceleration. You may be able to choose a 
dynamic range, either 0-255 or 16-235 (studio IRE). These choices may 
make the difference between your video looking good or not.

Needless to say, it's crucial to calibrate your display device for 
brightness, contrast, gamma, and color temperature.

Aaron




At 7/6/2012, you wrote:
Hey framers,

   I remember hearing a couple months ago that certain media players 
 (and by media players, I mean quicktime, vlc, etc.) do a better 
 job then others in terms of quality of video (the specific rumor I 
 overheard was that an older version of Quicktime was did a better 
 job than a newer one or something along those lines.)

   I realize this is probably a gross generalization that is also 
 dependent on the video, not to mention the quality of the projector 
 itself, but was curious to hear more. I generally go to VLC at home 
 just because it can play a lot of different formats, but was 
 wondering specifically in the case of screenings; is there one that 
 you feel has shown more, let's say, accurate results?

--
http://ekremserdar.infoekremserdar.info
austin, tx
___ FrameWorks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] Architecture in Film

[Aaron F. Ross]

Here's the most amazing short film about architecture. This piece is 
100% computer generated, but you would never know it. It's a catalog 
of incredible modernist and postmodernist work, a marriage of 
architecture and photography.

--

http://www.thirdseventh.com/index.php?/4thdimension/film/

--

Enjoy,

Aaron






At 3/22/2012, you wrote:
Hello,

I'm looking for examples of architecture in film. Thinking about 
Alexander Kluge's Brutality in Stone 
(http://www.ubu.com/film/kluge_brutality.htmlhttp://www.ubu.com/film/kluge_brutality.html).
 


Do you have suggestions?

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

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] digital Bolex

[Aaron F. Ross]

Wow, that looks fantastic. Thanks for sharing.

Aaron



At 3/13/2012, you wrote:
Someone just sent this to me, and I was curious if anyone has seen it too.
The Digital Bolex.
www.kickstarter.com/projects/joedp/the-digital-bolex-the-1st-affordable-digital-cinem?ref=card
 


and if anyone has some thoughts on it.

best
Christian

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

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] Monitor options

[Aaron F. Ross]

Professional video/computer monitors from the likes of Ikegami, Sony 
and Panasonic are really expensive, in the range of $4000 each.

I've had good results with my trusty HP LP2465, it's been going 
strong for years and nary a dead pixel in sight.

Aaron



At 1/24/2012, you wrote:

  Good afternoon,

  I'm curious if there has been a thread, a respected study, or if 
 someone can recommend now a computer monitor for editing; strengths 
 being proper color matching, reputation for longevity, etc. Maybe 
 if I'm mentioning longevity, I should also mention that its 'easy on the eyes'

  Thank you for your time.

  Steve Cossman



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

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] Digitizing Super 8 at proper resolution

[Aaron F. Ross]

Jeff is absolutely right, there's no reason to capture footage at 
anything other than the maximum affordable resolution and color depth. ---

Consider this: everything looks better in the future. Literally. With 
vastly better technology available today, old footage looks better 
than on the day it was developed. All analog-to-digital transfers 
should be made at the best possible quality, in order to future-proof 
the material as much as possible. ---

And, of course, the larger the image is projected, the more obvious 
any sampling errors will be. ---

Aaron






At 12/27/2011, you wrote:
There is a common belief -- which, like a lot of common wisdom 
should be looked at skeptically -- that small format film lacks 
enough useful information to require scanning at resolutions 
greater than pillarboxed HD (1080 x 1440) or cropped HD (1080 x 
1920).  Some feel that for Super-8 and 8mm, NTSC, PAL, and 720P are, 
in the words of an engineer I know, good enough.

But I don't think anyone really tested this properly -- they just 
said what seemed logical enough to them.  It's fine to say that 
looks pretty good at 1080 x 1440 but those who say this probably 
did not try scanning the same film at higher resolutions to see if 
there was an appreciable difference.

I did some simple tests, and honestly was quite surprised at the 
results.  Even when the final release format is HD or less, the 
advantages of high resolution scans are obvious.

I put together a little PDF you can download, with both Super-8 and 
grainy 16mm samples scanned at different resolutions.  It was 
written in response to a report by the Swiss group Memoriav, which 
was doing tests of small format (for them this includes 16mm) scanning.

Here's a link:

http://db.tt/iriz5nyYhttp://db.tt/iriz5nyY

Here are links to full-res TIFFs of the files used -- zoom in on 
them and see what you are losing with lower resolution scans.  Note 
that the files are mostly over 20MB each, so don't try this on your cell phone.

http://db.tt/8cw0YUXUhttp://db.tt/8cw0YUXU

http://db.tt/xizfMgLq

http://db.tt/VvwuPSoghttp://db.tt/VvwuPSog

http://db.tt/LR0Phcy2

http://db.tt/BofN5ls8http://db.tt/BofN5ls8

http://db.tt/aPXrsxAf

http://db.tt/JSC7Vf2Chttp://db.tt/JSC7Vf2C

http://db.tt/SGYbJiWb

http://db.tt/X1flduqJhttp://db.tt/X1flduqJ

Let me know what you think.

Jeff Kreines


On Dec 23, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Ken Paul Rosenthal wrote:

Kevin,

For future reference, if you simply digitize your super 8 upfront 
at:  Pro Rez 422 HQ 1080p, 1920x1080, 23.98 fps,
you'll be entirely up to spec and not need to do any converting for 
your timeline. Furthermore, digitizing to a
compressed file will allow you to easily edit without freezing up 
your system. As for projection quality, I've been
on the road for a year a half with Crooked Beauty--which was 
transferred on the above specs--and have seen
it projected on a the best (and worst) systems, the former in a 
huge theater on a commercial sized screen
and it looked stunning. I spent 3 months researching tech options, 
and the consensus from all the folks I consulted
with was that uncompressed is overkill for super 8 because the 
frame size only contains so much 'information'.
So spend the money upfront during the transfer (I highly recommend 
sitting in with owner/operator Phil Vigeant at
Pro 8) and it will be smooth sailing down the line.

Ken
http://www.crookedbeautythefilm.comwww.crookedbeautythefilm.com  (Academic)
http://www.crookedbeauty.comwww.crookedbeauty.com  (Public)
http://www.kenpaulrosenthal.comwww.kenpaulrosenthal.com
___
FrameWorks mailing list
mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

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

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] film/digtial hybrid

[Aaron F. Ross]

I've used a hybrid technique in collaboration with filmmaker Anna 
Geyer. She manipulated celluloid in various ways, then we scanned it 
and I combined and processed it with digital animation.

The piece is called PHOSPHENES and it has screened at a few 
festivals including Big Muddy. You can watch it here:

http://www.dr-yo.com/video_phosphenes.html

Aaron






At 12/8/2011, you wrote:
Hi Frameworkers,

As part of my research, I've been compiling a group of contemporary 
filmmakers who have employed hand-processing of film and digital 
visual effects in hybrid ways.
The filmmakers I've caught up with thus far include Johanna Vaude, 
Stephanie Maxwell, Jurgen Reble (for Materia Obscura), Kerry Laitra. 
I'd like any of you to raise
more similar filmmakers who come to your mind, so that I will bring 
more cases together to my list.

Thank you in advance,

--
Ji-hoon Kim
Assistant Professor, Division of Broadcast  Cinema Studies
Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information
Nanyang Technological University
Room 02-08, 31 Nanyang Link
Singapore 637718
Office phone: (65) 6514-8351
Mobile: (65) 9720-8484

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

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] 35mm film will be dead by 2015 and News Corp

[Aaron F. Ross]

(Frankenstein's monster voice) Video bad! Film good! Grrr! GRR!




At 11/22/2011, you wrote:
Sounds painful, but of only limited relevance to the larger issue at 
hand. You haven't experienced real projection hell until you've sat 
though a feature projected from a color-faded 16mm print with a 
malfunctioning arc-lamp lightsource -- which is how I first saw 'The 
Third Generation' (great film BTW). The fact your DVD source was a 
poor transfer, and it was shown on a 1-chip DLP (the color wheel 
creates the moires) speaks only to those specific technologies, not 
to any generalizable distinction between all film projection and all 
digital projection. ___ 
FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] 35mm film will be dead by 2015 and News Corp

[Aaron F. Ross]

At 11/18/2011, Steven Gladstone wrote:
DLP projection is always on so there is no blackness in which the 
mind can chew over the image it just saw, which brings the experince 
out of the realm of cinema for me. Those two reasons are the most 
enduring reasons for film distribution: 1. The viewing state from 
film projection is different from Electronic Cinema. 2. In Film 
projection the bulb illumination can be off, but a good print is a 
good print, with electronic distribution (especially to the home) 
forget it, things will never look the way you intend. These two 
points are not enough to overcome the costs involved in making 
prints and shipping them. -- Steven Gladstone

-

So, the flicker of analog celluloid projection is a desirable 
feature? Get real. The fact that the screen is black half the time is 
somehow a good thing? That's preposterous. The rotating shutter was 
developed precisely because of the eyestrain of flicker, and it's 
only a partial solution.

Likewise, the idea that a good print guarantees a good projection is 
equally ridiculous. Come on, let's face reality. Analog projectors 
can have problems too. Xenon arc lamps are not perfect, invincible, 
idealized angelic entities that never fail. The bottom line is, 
things will never look the way you intend, regardless of the format.

So many of the comments on this list seem to be head-in-the-sand 
denials of reality, clearly cognitive dissonance reduction in full 
effect. Celluloid film's days are numbered, and that is sad because 
the unique properties of that medium will be lost. But what about the 
advantages of newer technologies? Why would a multi-billion-dollar 
industry want to abandon a tried-and-true technology?

Aaron
---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] 35mm film will be dead by 2015 and News Corp

[Aaron F. Ross]

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




--
40 FRAMES
Alain LeTourneau
Pam Minty

40 FRAMES
5232 N Williams Ave
Portland, Oregon 97217
USA

+1 503 231 6548
http://www.40frames.orgwww.40frames.org
www.16mmdirectory.org
http://www.emptyquarterfilm.orgwww.emptyquarterfilm.org

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

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Aaron F. Ross]

Definitely good points. However, don't forget that any film stock can 
now be emulated, given good enough digital source material. As I said 
before, the moment that HDR sensors become affordable, then celluloid 
will be irrelevant. If you start with 20 stops of latitude in a 
32-bit floating point color space, you can push or pull it wherever 
you want and the end result will be indistinguishable from footage 
shot on the stock of your choice. --

Screen printing may not be obsolete, but optical printing effectively 
is. A few diehards who love the medium will keep celluloid on life 
support forever, but the handmade stocks I've seen (Impossible 
Project) can't possibly compete with the quality offered by 
deep-pocketed corporations. When it's no longer profitable for 
corporations to make film stock, then artists will have to make their 
own stock. And it won't be as good as it was in the golden age of celluloid. --

It *is* about artistry, and sentimentality. But the art depends in 
large measure on the movements of global economic forces. --

Ten years ago I taught a university video production class. None of 
the students back then had ever seen a piece of celluloid before. 
Film had already effectively receded into a specialist medium. My 
students were amazed that it was possible to hold the film up to the 
light and actually see an image! They were even more shocked when I 
showed them a Bolex and explained to them that it was over 30 years 
old and had never been serviced despite fairly heavy use. A windup, 
clockwork mechanism built to last puts disposable plastic and silicon 
to shame! Truly a triumph of engineering. --

Mind you, although I don't shoot in film myself, I have collaborated 
with a film artist and I have a great love of celluloid. I guess the 
silver lining here is that film will inevitably be used for the 
properties that are unique to that medium. There's a kind of purity 
to that thought. --

Aaron



At 10/8/2011, you wrote:
Aaron- I know this is a few months late, my apologies on the 
tardiness, but I'd like to address what this thread was originally about...

my problem with your original post is not that film will eventually 
stop being produced (this may or may not happen, and Forbes should 
certainly not be our proof - this issue is bigger than a business 
model)  it was that digital cameras have surpassed the quality of 
most film stocks. The future of film will not be in its ability to 
provide more information, but rather in its antiquity, its glow, its 
physical and tangible characteristics, its craft, something that 
only celluloid can provide. When you claim the inevitable demise of 
film you sound like a best buy or radioshack salesman. As long as 
this list exists, as long as there are films being made outside of 
the industry, celluloid will exist.

I'd like to provide a different example: screenprinting. Why has 
that not become obsolete? Can digital printers not produce the same 
result... and yet artists have found a way to encorporate the 
medium into contemporary printing practice.

I am 22 years old, I was RAISED with digital and made the conscious 
decision to work with celluloid. I fully understand the technology, 
and for me, for the purposed of my art, I choose analog.


It is an issue of artistry not industry.

mike




On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Melissa Parson 
mailto:melissapar...@comcast.netmelissapar...@comcast.net wrote:
hey sore eyes,

  insults and negative facts about his art have nothing to do with 
 his arguments or assertions. try to argue the points and resist 
 your urge to lash out. critical analysis of art is important but 
 that's not what this thread was about...


On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Melissa 
mailto:melissapar...@comcast.netmelissapar...@comcast.net wrote:
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



But I did take a look at his Art. My eyes still sore. Pass the Visine,


Sent from my Gatorade Replenish
___
FrameWorks mailing list
mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


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


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

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Aaron F. Ross]

It's OK, I always wear a flame-retardant vest while on the Internet.  ;)

BTW, as I said before, I'm not a hater. I just think critically about 
technology. Cases in point: I don't have a smartphone. I still have 
my collection of vinyl records. And I'm still using the same email 
program, Eudora, that I used back in the 1990s during the first round 
of Flameworks posts that forced me off the list. And why do I cling 
to these old ways? Not because they're old, not because I resist 
change, but because I have evaluated my needs and decided that these 
older technologies are better for me. New is not necessarily good, 
and old is not necessarily good, either. But in the case of celluloid 
film, very soon it will be a moot point, because you won't be able to 
buy it for love or money. --

Aaron







At 10/5/2011, you wrote:
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 djte...@gmail.com 
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...  ___ FrameW 
orks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfactio 
n.com/listinfo/frameworks 
___ FrameWorks mailing 
list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

___
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 aa...@digitalartsguild.com
To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
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/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

[Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

[Aaron F. Ross]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crumbled/


Once again, the old guard clings to obsolete business models and is 
ultimately swept away by inevitable shifts in technology. The party's 
winding down, folks. CDs, newspapers, and now analog film are going 
the way of the wax cylinder. The canary in the coal mine dropped dead 
about ten years ago, now the roof is about to collapse.

35mm motion picture film will still keep hanging on for a few more 
years, despite the fact that high-end digital cameras have now 
surpassed the imaging quality of most 35mm film stocks. Anyone who is 
unwilling to adapt to digital imaging had better start hoarding film 
stock in their walk-in freezers. The day that HDR sensors become 
affordable is the day that analog film unequivocably becomes more 
trouble than it's worth. Sprocket holes seem increasingly quaint in a 
world where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in 
*POST* with no loss of quality.

I'm not a hater, I'm just pointing out a reality that may be painful 
for many on this list. Don't look to Fuji to save you, they're 
ultimately headed for the dumpster as well. Starting up another 
Impossible Project is a noble idea, but from what I've seen, these 
handmade stocks can't compete with the real deal.

Aaron
---

Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

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