Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com Definitely good points. However, don't forget that any film stock can now be emulated, given good enough digital source material. No it cannot, not remotely. I work in post, and have done for some time, with both film and digital source and this is not true. The mediums have a wholly different look, you can make digital look a lot like film, but you'll not get a true and accurate emulation. 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. -- Did you not read my post when you first started overstating the impact of HDR, and misrepresenting its purpose ? Yes the latitude of HDR will give you much more control in post but also you have to think about compression artifacts limiting what you can do. Yes you can work with uncompressed footage on the most expensive cameras, but as I said earlier in reply to another post of yours (also containing gross overstatements and misinterpretation) the switch to HDR sensors is a waaay off still. Surely as someone who works in Maya you can appreciate the difference in file size, and the difference in time that it takes to apply any processing at all working in a 32bit space,(assuming you've used a linear workflow and actually done some post other than tonemapping). Its a huge increase in production cost, even when the sensors become available large hollywood productions will not jump on a completely HDR workflow for quite a while (and when they do it'll probably be at 16bit, being as that is good enough). You're also kind of asking all filmmakers to shoot 'flat' to give the post guys all of that latitude too, HDR does have a start and end point you know, reality still has a wider dynamic range. One of the main advantages of digital film making is not really having to guess the final look with a video assist, but to be able to take the footage to a laptop on set and push and pull it there. With HDR that'll be a bit of a time sink without a considerably cash cost. Its not just the sensors that have to become affordable its the whole pipeline that has to become affordable, and also HDR has to be really advantageous at all stages in the pipeline too. Film is actually a much cheaper way to get a high dynamic range when you think about these issues. Most filmmakers here, if they do switch to digital will not be working with HDR footage or processes, their costs would actually increase dramatically. They'll be shooting on VDSLRs or P2s, or FS100s or equivalents thereof. More importantly your final remark that it will be 'indistinguishable from footage shot on the stock of your choice' is completely wrong, it won't. Also, the end delivery point of film is not, and will not be for a very long time, HDR projectors. You are still going to bring it down to a smaller dynamic range to ship and show it, so why not start working closer to the end result (as we do in DPX and Cineon formats at 16, 12 or 10 bit) to start with. HDR footage will mostly be used for VFX footage, to give compositors more latitude and control in post first with complex shots, its general use is some way off. Basically, even though HDR sensors/footage is coming, the audience are not going to be watching full dynamic range films for a very long time. Another point, motion, this is very important. The look of movement on film is wholly different (and much better) to digitally shot footage. Maybe you should look at the rolling shutter tests in the Zacuto great camera shootout someone posted a link to here. Shooting with very high speed cameras such as the Phantom solve this problem (but you're not seriously going to be shooting a feature on one of those). Even the most expensive digital cameras suffer from the rolling shutter problem. Yeah, alternative approaches are on the way to solve this, but they aren't here yet. I love shooting and working in digital. The flexibility it gives me is way beyond anything film could ever provide me. I know my medium very well and it will not, ever, look the same as film does and nor should it ever try to. It will replace film eventually, but it won't ever look, or respond, the same way that film can. Go talk to a good DP Aaron who works in both mediums. Shooting in digital requires a different way of lighting, a different way of thinking, and a different set of technical limits to film. These differences will actually be more easily understood, and adapted to, by someone from a video background. In that fact you'll get a hint as to how wholly different the two mediums actually are and why digital ultimately has its own look and will never accurately emulate film. From: Mark Longolucco
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
'Indistinguishable' is a very subjective call so maybe you're right there to most peoples eyes. But unless its escaped your notice this is an experimental film discussion list, and HDR is not something that even experimental digital filmmakers will have access to for more than a few years for the reasons I've described. SInging its virtues here is completely irrelevant. Also to underline it again, everyone here knows the score. Some of us too actually know more about the digital medium than you do judging from your commentary and predictions. From: Alistair Stray alistair.st...@yahoo.com To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011, 9:40 Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com Definitely good points. However, don't forget that any film stock can now be emulated, given good enough digital source material. No it cannot, not remotely. I work in post, and have done for some time, with both film and digital source and this is not true. The mediums have a wholly different look, you can make digital look a lot like film, but you'll not get a true and accurate emulation. 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. -- Did you not read my post when you first started overstating the impact of HDR, and misrepresenting its purpose ? Yes the latitude of HDR will give you much more control in post but also you have to think about compression artifacts limiting what you can do. Yes you can work with uncompressed footage on the most expensive cameras, but as I said earlier in reply to another post of yours (also containing gross overstatements and misinterpretation) the switch to HDR sensors is a waaay off still. Surely as someone who works in Maya you can appreciate the difference in file size, and the difference in time that it takes to apply any processing at all working in a 32bit space,(assuming you've used a linear workflow and actually done some post other than tonemapping). Its a huge increase in production cost, even when the sensors become available large hollywood productions will not jump on a completely HDR workflow for quite a while (and when they do it'll probably be at 16bit, being as that is good enough). You're also kind of asking all filmmakers to shoot 'flat' to give the post guys all of that latitude too, HDR does have a start and end point you know, reality still has a wider dynamic range. One of the main advantages of digital film making is not really having to guess the final look with a video assist, but to be able to take the footage to a laptop on set and push and pull it there. With HDR that'll be a bit of a time sink without a considerably cash cost. Its not just the sensors that have to become affordable its the whole pipeline that has to become affordable, and also HDR has to be really advantageous at all stages in the pipeline too. Film is actually a much cheaper way to get a high dynamic range when you think about these issues. Most filmmakers here, if they do switch to digital will not be working with HDR footage or processes, their costs would actually increase dramatically. They'll be shooting on VDSLRs or P2s, or FS100s or equivalents thereof. More importantly your final remark that it will be 'indistinguishable from footage shot on the stock of your choice' is completely wrong, it won't. Also, the end delivery point of film is not, and will not be for a very long time, HDR projectors. You are still going to bring it down to a smaller dynamic range to ship and show it, so why not start working closer to the end result (as we do in DPX and Cineon formats at 16, 12 or 10 bit) to start with. HDR footage will mostly be used for VFX footage, to give compositors more latitude and control in post first with complex shots, its general use is some way off. Basically, even though HDR sensors/footage is coming, the audience are not going to be watching full dynamic range films for a very long time. Another point, motion, this is very important. The look of movement on film is wholly different (and much better) to digitally shot footage. Maybe you should look at the rolling shutter tests in the Zacuto great camera shootout someone posted a link to here. Shooting with very high speed cameras such as the Phantom solve this problem (but you're not seriously going to be shooting a feature on one of those). Even the most expensive digital cameras suffer from the rolling shutter problem. Yeah, alternative approaches are on the way to solve this, but they aren't here yet. I love shooting and working
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
This also is a fallacy. Film is a choice more than ever today. 20 years ago it was an obvious choice but today it is a choice with a committment attached - an esthetic, political, poetic or personal committment. More and more young students are getting interested in working with super-8 for example, and Kodak has released new stocks, faced with new demand. Our federation of 26 film labs has grown to 32 over the past few years, with new artist-run labs springing up in new places (Athens, Vilnius, Reykjavic...) For the almost-complete list see www.filmlabs.org. You say the process is losing footing but I see it stable and growing: The chemicals are readily avaiable (they are used in other industries), cameras and projectors and editing equipment are everywhere and still coveted, snapped up on ebay as soon as they are made available, and most of that equipment is easy to fix with a little know-how - spare parts can always be made or found (not so with most digital technology). I have seen engaged artists resuscitate all kinds of equipment, and even refabricate the rare lens-mount or obsolete battery. Thanks to the digital revolution, we film artists can now get our hands on machines that we could never have even dreamt about in the past: Optical printers! Contact printers! Developing machines! 35mm projectors! Optical sound cameras! Six-plate Steenbecks galore! Even the mythical Nagra! L'Abominable has finally found, after ten years of searching, an Oxberry 16mm/Super-16mm/35mm optical printer, a machine that cost $20.000 just a couple of years ago, for free if we pick it up - we will be able to make all sorts of work in all three formats, from optical effects to release prints, for the cost of material. It is certainly not about deep pockets. L'Abominable got a call in 1996 from a friend in Bourges who found a Debrie contact printer in a junkyard for cars - we went and picked it up. Sure it took some time and effort and engineering know-how to get it working properly, but on that Matipo I eventually made over the past decade a half-dozen films that have shown in festivals around the world. Not only me but over 200 people have worked on that printer. We also found that festivals were overjoyed to receive 16mm prints as these have become rare occurrences. The production budget and the cost of prints are minimal - 10 cents/foot for developing, printing AND processing the print! My 22-minute filmPiltzer cost roughly $600 to produce. It has shown in dozens of festivals and is rented regularly from the film coops in Paris, New York and San Francisco. At $60 per rental, each print is reimbursed after five screenings. The film has made its money back several times over. Even if you disagree that this way of working is tenable or long-lasting, it exists, and the argument that film may not be a choice anymore is not an evidence at all. To Maya Deren's remark that she can make a film for the price that a Hollywood studio spends on lipstick, I say: I can make a film for the price that a videaste has to spend on a new hard drive! -Pip Chodorov At 23:21 -0400 8/10/11, Mark Longolucco wrote: It doesn't matter if digital looks like film or not. I would beg to differ that it is kind of the point- not as to why artists choose to work in film, but for why film may not be a choice for an artist anymore. This issue with film's struggle to stay vibrant is that it is the entire process that is losing footing. It's not just the celluloid production, it's the chemicals, it's physical cameras, it's the processing labs, it's projectors, the editors, it's everything. All of these individual parts have to fight with the idea that much of what can be done visually with film, can be mimicked with digital cameras. Not just buy the companies that produce these things but that the artist that will be using them. And while I understand artists now can see the value of film and its physical differences from digital film, I have a hard time believing future artists will feel the need to go through the processes of film or challenge an idea that they might need to. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
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 melissapar...@comcast.netwrote: 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 melissapar...@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 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
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
Interesting little videos, but what do they have to do with making film? When I saw your message I thought I was going to be linked to something about actually hand producing film stocks. Does anyone know of anybody who is doing this, or has thought of doing it? I guess you meant you could always make a film. No? Tim Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:17:20 -0700 From: dcinema2...@yahoo.com To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak I guess you could always make film? Matt http://www.youtube.com/user/oscarthepug1234 http://www.youtube.com/user/matthelme007 From: Pip Chodorov framewo...@re-voir.com To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak These are my sentiments exactly, and I also use Eudora. But let's see what happens - maybe film will surprise us and survive. Let's have this discussion in five years or so when instead of 6-8 companies making film perhaps there are only 2-3. -Pip At 10:18 -0700 6/10/11, Aaron F. Ross wrote: 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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
I meant you could always make film.Not sure what would be involved in doing that. Matt http://www.youtube.com/user/oscarthepug1234 http://www.youtube.com/user/matthelme007 From: Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.com To: dcinema2...@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 10:03 AM Subject: RE: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak Interesting little videos, but what do they have to do with making film? When I saw your message I thought I was going to be linked to something about actually hand producing film stocks. Does anyone know of anybody who is doing this, or has thought of doing it? I guess you meant you could always make a film. No? Tim Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:17:20 -0700 From: dcinema2...@yahoo.com To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak I guess you could always make film? Matt http://www.youtube.com/user/oscarthepug1234 http://www.youtube.com/user/matthelme007 From: Pip Chodorov framewo...@re-voir.com To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak These are my sentiments exactly, and I also use Eudora. But let's see what happens - maybe film will surprise us and survive. Let's have this discussion in five years or so when instead of 6-8 companies making film perhaps there are only 2-3. -Pip At 10:18 -0700 6/10/11, Aaron F. Ross wrote: 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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
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
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/ So actually, I do know what I'm talking about. I try to stay abreast of the latest technologies in image-making. Anyone who has a sentimental attachment to a particular technology is bound to be left twisting in the wind when technology inevitably changes. Likewise, anyone who buys into the myth of progress will find him or herself saddled with a lot of useless gadgets
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
The demise of film is inevitable. Labs are shutting down, stocks are being discontinued, Kodak itself is about to be placed on the chopping block. These are facts. What is your action plan? Shall we play the fiddle while Rome burns? Aaron At 10/5/2011, you wrote: So... you used an example of technology not quite there yet, and tech also still in the prototype stage. You may know what you're talking about but you're being a tad disingenuous about the current abilities of digital by using two not quite there yet examples of the technology. Saying 'these things are coming' is fine, but artists have to use whats there now. Some artists who want the look and abilities of film will never find that in the digital medium (my grandfather was an animator and experimental film maker who worked in 8mm and 16mm, he taught me a lot about film). As I said, I'm a digital artist, I make experimental films in the digital medium, and have done for over twenty years. I'm also a freelance compositor who uses Nuke, and a rigger and modeller who uses Maya (since version 4.5). I Am well aware that you can create HDR images using multi bracketed exposures, but this is a film list containing film makers, who don't actually always want to make time lapse films. Plus as I said, you're missing the point here, more sensitivity/latitude being available in sensors is going to be more preferable (and good enough) for film makers than huge and unweildy HDR image sequences (such as the 14 stop range of the Arri Alexa, an incredible camera). On depth of field in post, yeah, but that technology is actually going to be more useful in making compositing elements with a 2D plate a lot easier (also it isn't going to be available for recording moving images for quite some time either). Digital is also not going to accurately recreate the bokeh of my 1966 Helios lens attached to my hacked digital Panasonic GH2 digital VDSLR either. Back to your losless argument, there you really don't seem to know what your talking about in general. Pretty much all digital procesess do create a generative loss upon the data, you may think thats a semantic argument, but if you were a compositor you would think very differently about it. Your list of experimental film essentials is quite short really. As a digital artist I understand my form and my work in terms of its place within the wider tradition of experimental film. For all 'the new' digital gives there are very few, if any tbh, experimental digital films out there that you can't trace back directly to experimental film (in terms of aesthetic, structure, the basic 'how it works'). This was also likewise true for video art. This isn't so true in digital audio, where entirely new forms of music have emerged that couldn't have done prior to the digital domain. Overstating digital and its future is not contributing to any discussion here, so stop doing it. Also, there are a few filmmakers here who use both film and digital sources in their work and make hybrid works, they know all about the digital domain (as do filmmakers here who don't work in it). Digital will replace film evangelism, or as you call it 'the coming apocalypse', is not a new discussion here either. I for one remember seeing such discussions here when I was first subscribed in the 1990s, and the bottom line for me is the discussion hasn't actually fundamentally moved on although the technology has. This could be because its pointless, as the people here are artists first, technicians later, and mostly not gear heads chasing the next new shiny or software paradigm. But everyone here knows whats happening in their form. You're not saving people, or informing them, noone here will be 'twisting in the wind'. - Stray. From: Aaron F. Ross 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
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
I'm sorry, is there something wrong with playing the fiddle while Rome burns? You've got your fire-resistant vest and you're happy. Some people are choosing similar options and others are choosing to keep fiddling. We like the warmth, but its awfully hard to finish our tunes when you keep aiming the damn fire-hose at us. C On 10/5/11 1:01 PM, frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com wrote: The demise of film is inevitable. Labs are shutting down, stocks are being discontinued, Kodak itself is about to be placed on the chopping block. These are facts. What is your action plan? Shall we play the fiddle while Rome burns? Aaron ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
I don't work in film, I haven't done since I was a kid, I'd already switched to analog video before I switched to a completely digital workflow. Are you actually talking to me here ? If you read the last paragraph of mine you'll see everyone here already knows the score, and they know what they're dealing with, and I'm pretty sure they know how they plan to adapt. What is the point of you being on this list exactly ? Seriously, what the fuck are you doing here ? T hese 'facts' of yours have not escapes anyone here. Are you just here to troll people using what is to you a dead medium ? Are you really that clueless about the history of the moving image ? From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 17:48 Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak The demise of film is inevitable. Labs are shutting down, stocks are being discontinued, Kodak itself is about to be placed on the chopping block. These are facts. What is your action plan? Shall we play the fiddle while Rome burns? Aaron At 10/5/2011, you wrote: So... you used an example of technology not quite there yet, and tech also still in the prototype stage. You may know what you're talking about but you're being a tad disingenuous about the current abilities of digital by using two not quite there yet examples of the technology. Saying 'these things are coming' is fine, but artists have to use whats there now. Some artists who want the look and abilities of film will never find that in the digital medium (my grandfather was an animator and experimental film maker who worked in 8mm and 16mm, he taught me a lot about film). As I said, I'm a digital artist, I make experimental films in the digital medium, and have done for over twenty years. I'm also a freelance compositor who uses Nuke, and a rigger and modeller who uses Maya (since version 4.5). I Am well aware that you can create HDR images using multi bracketed exposures, but this is a film list containing film makers, who don't actually always want to make time lapse films. Plus as I said, you're missing the point here, more sensitivity/latitude being available in sensors is going to be more preferable (and good enough) for film makers than huge and unweildy HDR image sequences (such as the 14 stop range of the Arri Alexa, an incredible camera). On depth of field in post, yeah, but that technology is actually going to be more useful in making compositing elements with a 2D plate a lot easier (also it isn't going to be available for recording moving images for quite some time either). Digital is also not going to accurately recreate the bokeh of my 1966 Helios lens attached to my hacked digital Panasonic GH2 digital VDSLR either. Back to your losless argument, there you really don't seem to know what your talking about in general. Pretty much all digital procesess do create a generative loss upon the data, you may think thats a semantic argument, but if you were a compositor you would think very differently about it. Your list of experimental film essentials is quite short really. As a digital artist I understand my form and my work in terms of its place within the wider tradition of experimental film. For all 'the new' digital gives there are very few, if any tbh, experimental digital films out there that you can't trace back directly to experimental film (in terms of aesthetic, structure, the basic 'how it works'). This was also likewise true for video art. This isn't so true in digital audio, where entirely new forms of music have emerged that couldn't have done prior to the digital domain. Overstating digital and its future is not contributing to any discussion here, so stop doing it. Also, there are a few filmmakers here who use both film and digital sources in their work and make hybrid works, they know all about the digital domain (as do filmmakers here who don't work in it). Digital will replace film evangelism, or as you call it 'the coming apocalypse', is not a new discussion here either. I for one remember seeing such discussions here when I was first subscribed in the 1990s, and the bottom line for me is the discussion hasn't actually fundamentally moved on although the technology has. This could be because its pointless, as the people here are artists first, technicians later, and mostly not gear heads chasing the next new shiny or software paradigm. But everyone here knows whats happening in their form. You're not saving people, or informing them, noone here will be 'twisting in the wind'. - Stray. From: Aaron F. Ross 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
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
To Aaron, For somebody that boasts about keeping up to date on the cutting edge and what is going on. What you seem to fail to realize is that the demise of film has been an ongoing conversation for a very long time now. You are not presenting us with anything that we don't already know or are aware of. This has been a subject that has been at the front of just about everything film for the better part of a decade now, if not since the advent of video and digital imaging technologies. Stop writing like we have no idea that this is going on and that you are some kind of Nostradamus and we are just ignorantly diddling around while the walls are about to cave in on us. Just because your expertise will soon be outsourced and replaced by a robot or computer, and this will happen. Doesn't give you the right to come rain truth bombs on our community. Go back to designing the very things that will make you obsolete. In the meantime we'll keep enjoying making films and wait to piss in your face someday. Get a fucking life, Adam Paradis --- On Wed, 10/5/11, Chris Kennedy ch...@signaltoground.com wrote: From: Chris Kennedy ch...@signaltoground.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2011, 1:12 PM I'm sorry, is there something wrong with playing the fiddle while Rome burns? You've got your fire-resistant vest and you're happy. Some people are choosing similar options and others are choosing to keep fiddling. We like the warmth, but its awfully hard to finish our tunes when you keep aiming the damn fire-hose at us. C On 10/5/11 1:01 PM, frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com wrote: The demise of film is inevitable. Labs are shutting down, stocks are being discontinued, Kodak itself is about to be placed on the chopping block. These are facts. What is your action plan? Shall we play the fiddle while Rome burns? Aaron ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
Aaron talks about Constructive criticism This is not Mrs. Hendersonn 6th grade home room, paly. Do not come in here with a knife clenched in your teeth and expect to be treated with silk gloves. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
I've ignored almost every post under this subject heading. But . . a little about this corner of the world. In Oklahoma we are building a media program for artists that includes artists' approaches to traditional and digital photography, digital video, 16 mm and Super 8 film, and new media technologies (what is sometimes called robotics). No medium is enough for the artistic investigations of someone who is thinking with the changes we undergo. As I see it, the first criterion for constructive discussion is a decent education in the history of media art, beginning with the circumstances under which seminal work in film, video, and performance took place, the nature of social changes experienced since then, the impact of the humanities on the arts (growth of film studies within academia, for example), and the importance of older media technologies (books and writing, for example, works in earlier formats, the continuing meanings of older technologies, etc.) for the creation and dissemination of important ideas and work today. The next criterion for such a discussion would extend this context to include more popular media, such as the kind of filmmaking that most film theorists write about (budgeted, scripted, acted, what I see people like Shaviro addressing), the changing (and remaining) economics impacting what gets made, what can be said, who can say it, how long it resonates. Individual creativity being a very high priority, a further criterion for constructive discussion would be a grasp of the dynamics of competition (the search for individual exposure under new media conditions, strategies for success as an independent artist, and such like). There is no way to sustain such a constructive discussion without an educational context and orientation on the ground that Frameworks presupposes, a context that will always risk becoming homogeneous in the absence of new blood, a context that provokes will always require renewal and transformative disruption over passification and mere reproduction. Bernie School of Art and Art History University of Oklahoma From: Francisco Torres fjtorre...@gmail.com To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak Aaron talks about Constructive criticism This is not Mrs. Hendersonn 6th grade home room, paly. Do not come in here with a knife clenched in your teeth and expect to be treated with silk gloves. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
Having, somewhat regrettably, dropped what was probably the first Frameworks f-bomb directed at Aaron F. Ross last June, I am nevertheless (hypocritically, I'll admit) disheartened by the devolution of this thread in schoolyard ad hominem cursing. I think it's time to just stop feeding the trolls instead... ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
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... ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
The fact that people have been wrongly declaring film dead for so long doesn't make it immortal. What the filmados here are missing in their stampede to denounce Aaron is that film's possibilities in 1890, or in 1960, were much more open than the possibilities now. Film cracked open the world when it was invented. Like writing history with lightning. Experimental films have had a global network of projectors to inhabit, placed there and maintained by industrial forces which have long since left the format to the mercy of the elements. Those elements are creeping in, slowly but surely. My 1970's grade-school memory of the whittering projector and its warbling soundtrack are inextricably tied to my appreciation of the medium. The clatter of the mechanism when the loop went awry is intrinsic to my approach to the form, as a viewer or maker. No one going to school in the west today has that deep-seated sense of film as a social machine. Their experience would be more about the internet going down when they want to watch a movie, or the teacher being unable to get the computer to speak to the LCD projector. Their budding artistic senses absorb these aesthetic accidents as part of their digital society. What Bruce Sterling calls the Gothic Chic of the analog, mechanical world is but a retro steampunk fantasy to them. Whole societies will skip over film and go straight to digital, the same way they've skipped over expensive landline infrastructure and gone straight to cellular phones. Film's possibilities continually expanded until digital came along. The resultant slow death of the celluloid industry is not the death of the artistic importance of film directly, but rather a severe logistical and social handicap on the future of the medium itself. It's now an orphan at a dead end. The effort to make a film will treble or quadruple when the big companies stop making stock, and that will discourage or prevent a lot of young artists from getting into it. As photography disrupted portraiture (and perhaps identity itself), telegraph disrupted geography, etc etc, video (and now digital) has consistently moved into film's turf... the same way science has stepped on religion's toes. The moving image was once entirely the territory of film (after motion pictures eclipsed zoetropes and such tinker toys) until video came along and drank its milkshake. What do I mean? You could once explain everything you didn't understand by saying god works in mysterious ways, but eventually science comes along and narrows the scope of things that can alone be explained by the supernatural, until that scope contains nothing but the philosophical and spiritual. Film is almost there now. It's a good place for an artistic tool to be, of course, but it's much smaller than the zone it used to occupy. I mean really, do you think The Kiss, Workers Leaving the Factory, The Sprinkler Sprinkled etc needed film's formal qualities to work? Wouldn't they have been perfectly fine on video? I mean, most of early cinema was one long youtube party for a nickel. How many people are donning the robe these days compared to the number signing up for science tech? That doesn't make the importance of spirituality any less - you could argue the opposite - but it means the field is getting thinner and the best and brightest are more likely to see the possibilities and reach their full potential in the scientific. Film itself is but one clunky, beautiful, expensive, mechanical, risky, poisonous, painstaking method for capturing or creating moving images. Every day, video gets easier, better and cheaper, and to think that this DOESN'T correspond to a decreasing artistic need / interest in film itself is wishful thinking. An artist interested in moving images today can choose from dozens of tools and methods, including, as Aaron argues, a collapsing film infrastructure. Lots of people LOVE film, and for good reasons, but many of the film oldies on this list came to love it when it was a much more significant player in art life. But for all that the members of this list love film's historical and aesthetic contexts, they seem to be in denial that its current context - or maybe, say, five minutes from now - is as a dead medium. That's new, and it wasn't true 15, 10, or even 5 years ago. When I entered film school in 1994, film wasn't dead. I remember how excited I was to shoot a student project on the new Vision stock. Final Cut Pro arrived in 1999, but film continued to be the choice for mid-budget indie features for quite some time, especially for finishing. Until recently mainstream festivals still demanded a film print, almost as a financial / logistical bulwark against the rising tide of product. Good riddance to that aspect of film. BTW, video has a history almost as long as film ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEi4Os3NNpM ) and both are but blips in the long
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
wow, speaking as a digital artist that is quite an uneducated and illinformed post I've read arguing the benefits of the digital medium over film. where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in *POST* with no loss of quality. Thats just bollocks isn't it ? Or do you really believe that there is no loss of quality altering exposure in post ? You're not very technically savvy in relation to concepts such as dynamic range if you do. Do you also believe DOF alterations in post accurately mirror the look of lenses ? Also, building a Zdepth channel to perform DOF changes is hardly a simple, and rarely a completely accurate, or indeed a fast procedure. Out of interest are you also one of these people who use the term 'film look' when talking about digital cameras, lenses etc ? As others have said Kodak were extremely important in driving a lot of the changes towards digital.Also, artists choose their medium for the aesthetics and the control they want among other things. Digital does not look like or respond like film does, and vice versa (just keep adding more stops of sensitivity to those sensors, HDR Sensors ? haha.. you're missing the point), both mediums have their place and role to artists. - Stray. From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 1:41 Subject: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak 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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
What's important about the Forbes piece is not the precise details (Kodak Park may not be shuttered, but it was more or less a ghost town as of 5 or 6 years ago), but the fact that a major business publication is looking at Kodak's stock collapse as a sign of 'the end.' Forbes is not going to print anything like that if Kodak has real chance of pulling out of it's tailspin. There's really nothing new here... The questions remain: - What will happen to Kodak's motion picture stock business? - If Kodak's film unit is just shut-down, rather then sold etc., what limitations will be imposed by whatever appears in it's place to provide small gauge filmmakers with material (SOMETHING will, but what?) Strangely, for Frameworks, Aaron Ross seems to view things from the standpoint of the mainstream entertainment media biz, and from that perspective, he's no doubt correct. 35mm will hold on for a number of years, mainly because small theaters cannot afford the capital outlay to go to digital projection. But once that obstacle gets overcome, the 'movie biz' will be essentially all-digital. I don't go out to 'the movies' much any more, but I did go see 'Drive' last night. The multiplex seems to have converted all or almost all of it's screens to DLP. I have been going to this theater over the course of 10 or 11 years now, and had many poor-quality viewing experiences there: films out of focus; uneven focal planes; multitudes of bad audio issues... 35mm projection is pretty complicated technology, and requires people who know what they're doing to be presented properly. And as we all know, the exhibitors cast aside professional projectionists long ago, leaving their multiple screens on some kind of automation system under the supervision of a single minimum-wage teen-age employee who had no idea how to handle any kind of problems, which happened pretty regularly... I realized last night that digital fixes all that. No mechanical issues. No film to handle. No analog audio path to get messed up with ground loops. No deterioration of the print. The corporations have what they want now: dutiful machines do all the real work, and a minimal staff of disposable low-wage workers is all that's required to run the show. For the average moviegoer, this is an improvement. However 'cold' or 'dead' or whatever digital projection may seem to some in comparison to film, most people aren't going to care, and at the retail end out in the suburbs and towns it's going to work a lot better and more reliably. Me, I'd MUCH rather watch a nice print projected properly (but then, I like real newspapers, magazines, books... you know, on paper...), but, really, over the years it's been like a 50/50 proposition at best that that's what you'll get for your $10. 'Product' continues to be separated not just from 'art' but from human craft more generally. This should not come as a surprise. (For a good account of this process as history and concept, read Harry Braverman's 'Labor and Monopoly Capital'. Don't be scared by the title or cover, which evoke fears of thick academic jargon and proclamations of doctrinaire Marxist cant. It's actually an engaging read, and the politics aren't shouty at all...) ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
I found Aaron's post to be very succinct, and brought up some good points. And a hearty 'fuck yourself' a fine follow-up to get the rowdy discussion going. To me, Aaron's post highlighted the focus on debating image quality in the capture process of film and video, but seldom to I hear discussion about the consistent quality image projection. From my experience, this is where video is inconsistent and lacking, and where film projection truly *shines*. I never experience eye fatigue watching film projected, and I hope that film persists as a medium, or that more attention is paid to developing affordable, high quality consumer video projection systems. The faint glow of the LCD projectors in the 1K-3K range just don't cut it - at all. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David Tetzlaff djte...@gmail.com wrote: What's important about the Forbes piece is not the precise details (Kodak Park may not be shuttered, but it was more or less a ghost town as of 5 or 6 years ago), but the fact that a major business publication is looking at Kodak's stock collapse as a sign of 'the end.' Forbes is not going to print anything like that if Kodak has real chance of pulling out of it's tailspin. There's really nothing new here... The questions remain: - What will happen to Kodak's motion picture stock business? - If Kodak's film unit is just shut-down, rather then sold etc., what limitations will be imposed by whatever appears in it's place to provide small gauge filmmakers with material (SOMETHING will, but what?) Strangely, for Frameworks, Aaron Ross seems to view things from the standpoint of the mainstream entertainment media biz, and from that perspective, he's no doubt correct. 35mm will hold on for a number of years, mainly because small theaters cannot afford the capital outlay to go to digital projection. But once that obstacle gets overcome, the 'movie biz' will be essentially all-digital. I don't go out to 'the movies' much any more, but I did go see 'Drive' last night. The multiplex seems to have converted all or almost all of it's screens to DLP. I have been going to this theater over the course of 10 or 11 years now, and had many poor-quality viewing experiences there: films out of focus; uneven focal planes; multitudes of bad audio issues... 35mm projection is pretty complicated technology, and requires people who know what they're doing to be presented properly. And as we all know, the exhibitors cast aside professional projectionists long ago, leaving their multiple screens on some kind of automation system under the supervision of a single minimum-wage teen-age employee who had no idea how to handle any kind of problems, which happened pretty regularly... I realized last night that digital fixes all that. No mechanical issues. No film to handle. No analog audio path to get messed up with ground loops. No deterioration of the print. The corporations have what they want now: dutiful machines do all the real work, and a minimal staff of disposable low-wage workers is all that's required to run the show. For the average moviegoer, this is an improvement. However 'cold' or 'dead' or whatever digital projection may seem to some in comparison to film, most people aren't going to care, and at the retail end out in the suburbs and towns it's going to work a lot better and more reliably. Me, I'd MUCH rather watch a nice print projected properly (but then, I like real newspapers, magazines, books... you know, on paper...), but, really, over the years it's been like a 50/50 proposition at best that that's what you'll get for your $10. 'Product' continues to be separated not just from 'art' but from human craft more generally. This should not come as a surprise. (For a good account of this process as history and concept, read Harry Braverman's 'Labor and Monopoly Capital'. Don't be scared by the title or cover, which evoke fears of thick academic jargon and proclamations of doctrinaire Marxist cant. It's actually an engaging read, and the politics aren't shouty at all...) ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- Perfectly white cats with blue eyes are always, or almost always, deaf. -Engels ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
You have Fuji,for now? Matt http://www.youtube.com/user/oscarthepug1234 http://www.youtube.com/user/matthelme007 From: David Tetzlaff djte...@gmail.com To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2011 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak What's important about the Forbes piece is not the precise details (Kodak Park may not be shuttered, but it was more or less a ghost town as of 5 or 6 years ago), but the fact that a major business publication is looking at Kodak's stock collapse as a sign of 'the end.' Forbes is not going to print anything like that if Kodak has real chance of pulling out of it's tailspin. There's really nothing new here... The questions remain: - What will happen to Kodak's motion picture stock business? - If Kodak's film unit is just shut-down, rather then sold etc., what limitations will be imposed by whatever appears in it's place to provide small gauge filmmakers with material (SOMETHING will, but what?) Strangely, for Frameworks, Aaron Ross seems to view things from the standpoint of the mainstream entertainment media biz, and from that perspective, he's no doubt correct. 35mm will hold on for a number of years, mainly because small theaters cannot afford the capital outlay to go to digital projection. But once that obstacle gets overcome, the 'movie biz' will be essentially all-digital. I don't go out to 'the movies' much any more, but I did go see 'Drive' last night. The multiplex seems to have converted all or almost all of it's screens to DLP. I have been going to this theater over the course of 10 or 11 years now, and had many poor-quality viewing experiences there: films out of focus; uneven focal planes; multitudes of bad audio issues... 35mm projection is pretty complicated technology, and requires people who know what they're doing to be presented properly. And as we all know, the exhibitors cast aside professional projectionists long ago, leaving their multiple screens on some kind of automation system under the supervision of a single minimum-wage teen-age employee who had no idea how to handle any kind of problems, which happened pretty regularly... I realized last night that digital fixes all that. No mechanical issues. No film to handle. No analog audio path to get messed up with ground loops. No deterioration of the print. The corporations have what they want now: dutiful machines do all the real work, and a minimal staff of disposable low-wage workers is all that's required to run the show. For the average moviegoer, this is an improvement. However 'cold' or 'dead' or whatever digital projection may seem to some in comparison to film, most people aren't going to care, and at the retail end out in the suburbs and towns it's going to work a lot better and more reliably. Me, I'd MUCH rather watch a nice print projected properly (but then, I like real newspapers, magazines, books... you know, on paper...), but, really, over the years it's been like a 50/50 proposition at best that that's what you'll get for your $10. 'Product' continues to be separated not just from 'art' but from human craft more generally. This should not come as a surprise. (For a good account of this process as history and concept, read Harry Braverman's 'Labor and Monopoly Capital'. Don't be scared by the title or cover, which evoke fears of thick academic jargon and proclamations of doctrinaire Marxist cant. It's actually an engaging read, and the politics aren't shouty at all...) ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
While Koda's financial struggles are interesting on many levels, and certainly having some affect on this group. Please G-d, No more Film Versus Video (Electronic Capture) because really: WHY DOES IT MATTER TO ANYONE ELSE IF SOMEONE CHOOSES TO USE FILM OR OTHER MEDIA TO CREATE THEIR WORK? Personally I'm dumfounded by why anyone would want to shoot Super 8 or 9.5mm, but that is just me. The fact that I don't understand why anyone would want to use that medium with all the other choices doesn't stop me from appreciating the work in it. I can't stand 30 fps, and prefer 24 fps. That's how I phrase it, you want to shoot at 30 fps, or any frame rate, that is your choice, enjoy. My dream (probably unfulfilled) is to make a still frame with the Niepce process. Anyone who wants to tell me what medium I can or cannot use should go BLEEP themselves. -- Steven Gladstone New York Based Cinematographer Gladstone films Blog - http://indiekicker.reelgrok.com/ http://www.blakehousemovie.com http://www.gladstonefilms.com 917-886-5858 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
I seen your vimeo page Pretty bad. -Original Message- From: frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com [mailto:frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com] On Behalf Of Aaron F. Ross Sent: October 4, 2011 2:40 PM To: Experimental Film Discussion List Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak Regarding the allegation that my last post was technically inaccurate-- Altering exposure in post with no loss in quality is possible High Dynamic Range imaging. This type of sensor captures the entire range of brightness values visible to the human eye-- much greater latitude than any conventional camera, analog or digital. Exposure can literally be set in post. HDR sensors are not affordable yet, but they will be in a few years. Meanwhile, HDR still photos can be constructed from multiple bracketed conventional exposures. As for depth of field in post, that is also coming soon to a digital camera near you. Light field cameras work by capturing not just the wavelength and intensity of light, but also its direction vectors. Images can be focused after they are shot with no loss in quality. http://www.lytro.com/ So actually, I do know what I'm talking about. I try to stay abreast of the latest technologies in image-making. Anyone who has a sentimental attachment to a particular technology is bound to be left twisting in the wind when technology inevitably changes. Likewise, anyone who buys into the myth of progress will find him or herself saddled with a lot of useless gadgets. Thinking critically about technology is a necessary condition for success in this postmodern world. Aaron At 10/4/2011, Alistair Stray alistair.st...@yahoo.com wrote: wow, speaking as a digital artist that is quite an uneducated and illinformed post I've read arguing the benefits of the digital medium over film. where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in *POST* with no loss of quality. Thats just bollocks isn't it ? Or do you really believe that there is no loss of quality altering exposure in post ? You're not very technically savvy in relation to concepts such as dynamic range if you do. Do you also believe DOF alterations in post accurately mirror the look of lenses ? Also, building a Zdepth channel to perform DOF changes is hardly a simple, and rarely a completely accurate, or indeed a fast procedure. Out of interest are you also one of these people who use the term 'film look' when talking about digital cameras, lenses etc ? As others have said Kodak were extremely important in driving a lot of the changes towards digital.Also, artists choose their medium for the aesthetics and the control they want among other things. Digital does not look like or respond like film does, and vice versa (just keep adding more stops of sensitivity to those sensors, HDR Sensors ? haha.. you're missing the point), both mediums have their place and role to artists. - Stray. From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 1:41 Subject: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crumbled/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 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
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
Wasn't me writing.(shared space) Multiple people reading Aaron's pieces. To Aaron: Raise a glass of digital mead at your next guild meeting, you have won! You have successfully cast a spell of disrespect on your fellow artists. Re: Kodak Film is in no danger of being wiped out completely. Kodak film may take on other forms, such as being more of a boutique style product. I would be interested to see more handmade stocks etc. It could be really interesting to see how filmmakers adapt to a world without Kodak (I don't believe this to be the case) Let the company needs to make changes, and will. There is no need to claim that the filmic sky is falling. A 3.5 earthquake isn't the sign of the apocalypse. -Original Message- From: frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com [mailto:frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com] On Behalf Of Mike Maryniuk WFG Sent: October 4, 2011 2:59 PM To: 'Experimental Film Discussion List' Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak I seen your vimeo page Pretty bad. -Original Message- From: frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com [mailto:frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com] On Behalf Of Aaron F. Ross Sent: October 4, 2011 2:40 PM To: Experimental Film Discussion List Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak Regarding the allegation that my last post was technically inaccurate-- Altering exposure in post with no loss in quality is possible High Dynamic Range imaging. This type of sensor captures the entire range of brightness values visible to the human eye-- much greater latitude than any conventional camera, analog or digital. Exposure can literally be set in post. HDR sensors are not affordable yet, but they will be in a few years. Meanwhile, HDR still photos can be constructed from multiple bracketed conventional exposures. As for depth of field in post, that is also coming soon to a digital camera near you. Light field cameras work by capturing not just the wavelength and intensity of light, but also its direction vectors. Images can be focused after they are shot with no loss in quality. http://www.lytro.com/ So actually, I do know what I'm talking about. I try to stay abreast of the latest technologies in image-making. Anyone who has a sentimental attachment to a particular technology is bound to be left twisting in the wind when technology inevitably changes. Likewise, anyone who buys into the myth of progress will find him or herself saddled with a lot of useless gadgets. Thinking critically about technology is a necessary condition for success in this postmodern world. Aaron At 10/4/2011, Alistair Stray alistair.st...@yahoo.com wrote: wow, speaking as a digital artist that is quite an uneducated and illinformed post I've read arguing the benefits of the digital medium over film. where exposure and depth of field can be entirely controlled in *POST* with no loss of quality. Thats just bollocks isn't it ? Or do you really believe that there is no loss of quality altering exposure in post ? You're not very technically savvy in relation to concepts such as dynamic range if you do. Do you also believe DOF alterations in post accurately mirror the look of lenses ? Also, building a Zdepth channel to perform DOF changes is hardly a simple, and rarely a completely accurate, or indeed a fast procedure. Out of interest are you also one of these people who use the term 'film look' when talking about digital cameras, lenses etc ? As others have said Kodak were extremely important in driving a lot of the changes towards digital.Also, artists choose their medium for the aesthetics and the control they want among other things. Digital does not look like or respond like film does, and vice versa (just keep adding more stops of sensitivity to those sensors, HDR Sensors ? haha.. you're missing the point), both mediums have their place and role to artists. - Stray. From: Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 1:41 Subject: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crumbled/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
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Mike Maryniuk WFG m...@winnipegfilmgroup.com wrote: I seen your vimeo page Pretty bad. About that Vimeo page... But that been the problem with most of the Digital artists since the 80s. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. Like those guys I saw near the ST. Mark's cube one evening back in 1997, they had rigged an early webcam into a minitaure motorized rig that looked a lot like Snow's La Region Central machine. When I approached them and tried talking to them about Snow and his film they just looked at me like children caught with their web browser (Netscape most likely) in the cookie jar... It was obvious they did not know one byte about experimental cinema or its history, they thought they were inventing the wheel or something. No culture at all. Those Whole Earth guys should have used as a motto Access to tools- and their historic/cultural background About the whole end of Kodak issue I believe that if I was a producer of a big budget film I would make sure to end with a negative and good print elements. It would be a pity to spend $100 million US and find out ten years later that your movie has sunk down a file sinkhole, like what happened to NASA a few years back. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
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
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
Go fuck yourself. Silly old film is going to be around long after your obsolete digital files have disappeared into the 'cloud.' Wherever that is. The article is also filled with tons of errors. Kodak invented much of digital photography, which is why its patents are so valuable. Kodak batteries failed because they were TOO GOOD. They lasted too long. And Kodak Park was never shuttered. Etc. Etc. Such as the fact Kodak's film division still sells more merchandise than most American companies. He ignore this continuing success, btw. The typical lamebrain cynicism. In a message dated 10/3/2011 5:42:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, aa...@digitalartsguild.com writes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/10/02/what-i-saw-as-kodak-crum bled/ 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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
Trollolololol Sent from my iPhone On Oct 3, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote: 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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak
+1 From: carli...@aol.com Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:16:32 -0400 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak Go fuck yourself. Silly old film is going to be around long after your obsolete digital files have disappeared into the 'cloud.' Wherever that is. The article is also filled with tons of errors. Kodak invented much of digital photography, which is why its patents are so valuable. Kodak batteries failed because they were TOO GOOD. They lasted too long. And Kodak Park was never shuttered. Etc. Etc. Such as the fact Kodak's film division still sells more merchandise than most American companies. He ignore this continuing success, btw. The typical lamebrain cynicism. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
