Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup
Thought I'd mention that there just happens to be an all 35mm experimental film screening tonight in London, Ontario - http://www.lomaa.ca/lomaa-blog/altering-perceptions-march-18 Given the interesting dialogue around this, I'm glad to note that there are still (rare though they may be), exhibition opportunities for experimental films in this lovely gauge :) -C. -- Forwarded message -- From: charlotte Lipman calip...@earthlink.net To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Cc: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:49:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup (from Ross Lipman) Hi Mark, Ross here (writing from Charlotte's account) - as always you make many excellent points! However I thought it important to write, because I fear that some of the opinions expressed here veer dangerously to thou shall not! which I'm sure is not your intent. I'll stay away from engaging in a point-by-point debate (especially as I agree with a lot of what you say), but will clarify my own take, stated simply: there are occasions when blow-up is desired, and others where it's not. the fun of course, is determining what those cases might be.. my (hopefully non-elitist) two cents. and good luck with your project! Ross www.corpusfluxus.org www.filmbysamuelbeckett.com From: Mark Toscano mrkt...@gmail.com Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:21 AM To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup Hi Chris, I'm glad you asked, as it's a subject I feel fairly passionately about. I'll first just clarify that the super 8 to 35mm blowup I'm seeking is purely for a project of my own which has to do with the large stretch between the two formats (i.e. it's a film which has specifically to do with the extra large blowup). As soon as I have the details hammered out on that, I'd be happy to say more about it... As for blowups in general, though - since it's no longer possible to do run-of-the-mill contact printing in 8mm or super 8, and since there's already a decades-long tradition of blowups of 8 to 16, I think it's a less problematic way to make smaller gauges viewable on film, when duplication is necessary. It's still a translation, though. Some filmmakers shot super 8 with the express intention of blowing up (as with some of Brakhage's films, James Otis's films, and many others), some shot and printed super 8 with only that intention, no blowup in mind, but then decided later on to blow up to 16 for whatever reasons (usually a matter of making the work more accessible, preserving it, etc.) Blowing up 16mm to 35mm on the other hand has nearly always seemed a really problematic step to me (unless of course the artist has that specifically in mind). From a preservation standpoint, it can cost twice or even 3-4 times as much as doing the work in 16mm, it's inherently changing the nature of the film in terms of scale, grain structure, etc., and it makes, I think, a somewhat elitist political statement that only venues capable of showing 35mm will now have access to that film. I've been saying (here and there, to whomever would let me blather about it) for a dozen years that, on top of these aesthetic/political concerns, the preservation question of 35mm being somehow more archival or likely to have increased longevity over 16mm was almost certainly going to be totally false. In terms of archival stability, the stocks in 16 and 35 are the same in these purposes, and would have the same chemical longevity, more or less. And preserving in a gauge not the film's own changes its essential nature, so that very aspect of its identity (its gauge) is lost in the preservation. Plus I've never followed the logic that primarily commercial archiving entities make, that bigger/sharper/faster/etc. is better, because it's clearly bullshit. What's better is preserving a film as unfussily in its original format as is possible. And as for 35 outlasting 16, we've seen where that's gone - only a handful of devoted cinephiliac venues and museums can handle 35mm now, and a lot of those handle 16mm too. PLUS, any number of classrooms, galleries, microcinemas, backyards, whatever, can and do show 16mm on any number of projectors kicking around out there. The 35mm projection knowledge base (especially regarding maintenance) is supremely limited, whereas a ton more folks have figured out how to run and even maintain, to some degree, the 16mm projectors they have. Anyway, I'm ranting. But bottom line, my feeling is to preserve 16mm as 16mm as long as it's possible! Mark Toscano On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, direc...@lift.on.ca wrote: Mark, Since we're on the subject, is there a reason you're going to 35mm rather than 16mm
Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup
Hi Chris, I'm glad you asked, as it's a subject I feel fairly passionately about. I'll first just clarify that the super 8 to 35mm blowup I'm seeking is purely for a project of my own which has to do with the large stretch between the two formats (i.e. it's a film which has specifically to do with the extra large blowup). As soon as I have the details hammered out on that, I'd be happy to say more about it... As for blowups in general, though - since it's no longer possible to do run-of-the-mill contact printing in 8mm or super 8, and since there's already a decades-long tradition of blowups of 8 to 16, I think it's a less problematic way to make smaller gauges viewable on film, when duplication is necessary. It's still a translation, though. Some filmmakers shot super 8 with the express intention of blowing up (as with some of Brakhage's films, James Otis's films, and many others), some shot and printed super 8 with only that intention, no blowup in mind, but then decided later on to blow up to 16 for whatever reasons (usually a matter of making the work more accessible, preserving it, etc.) Blowing up 16mm to 35mm on the other hand has nearly always seemed a really problematic step to me (unless of course the artist has that specifically in mind). From a preservation standpoint, it can cost twice or even 3-4 times as much as doing the work in 16mm, it's inherently changing the nature of the film in terms of scale, grain structure, etc., and it makes, I think, a somewhat elitist political statement that only venues capable of showing 35mm will now have access to that film. I've been saying (here and there, to whomever would let me blather about it) for a dozen years that, on top of these aesthetic/political concerns, the preservation question of 35mm being somehow more archival or likely to have increased longevity over 16mm was almost certainly going to be totally false. In terms of archival stability, the stocks in 16 and 35 are the same in these purposes, and would have the same chemical longevity, more or less. And preserving in a gauge not the film's own changes its essential nature, so that very aspect of its identity (its gauge) is lost in the preservation. Plus I've never followed the logic that primarily commercial archiving entities make, that bigger/sharper/faster/etc. is better, because it's clearly bullshit. What's better is preserving a film as unfussily in its original format as is possible. And as for 35 outlasting 16, we've seen where that's gone - only a handful of devoted cinephiliac venues and museums can handle 35mm now, and a lot of those handle 16mm too. PLUS, any number of classrooms, galleries, microcinemas, backyards, whatever, can and do show 16mm on any number of projectors kicking around out there. The 35mm projection knowledge base (especially regarding maintenance) is supremely limited, whereas a ton more folks have figured out how to run and even maintain, to some degree, the 16mm projectors they have. Anyway, I'm ranting. But bottom line, my feeling is to preserve 16mm as 16mm as long as it's possible! Mark Toscano On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, direc...@lift.on.ca wrote: Mark, Since we're on the subject, is there a reason you're going to 35mm rather than 16mm? Although 35mm is definitely more robust and beautiful (with a great soundtrack potential), my sense now is that a 16mm print might have longer life than a 35mm print. Now that so many places have taken out their 35mm projectors, its less of a presentation medium for many places. 16mm, on the other hand, is still very portable, so you can always bring the projector in if there's interest. My 35mm prints sit on the shelf. My 16mm prints occasionally get taken for a spin. Do you have a more positive take on the future of 35mm vs 16mm? thanks Chris ___ 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] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup
And as for 35 outlasting 16, we've seen where that's gone - only a handful of devoted cinephiliac venues and museums can handle 35mm now, and a lot of those handle 16mm too. Thanks Mark. That's my feeling, too. Just wanted to make sure you didn't have some other observations that I was missing out on. Thanks for the developed explanation! best Chris ___ 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] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup (from Ross Lipman)
Hi Mark, Ross here (writing from Charlotte's account) - as always you make many excellent points! However I thought it important to write, because I fear that some of the opinions expressed here veer dangerously to thou shall not! which I'm sure is not your intent. I'll stay away from engaging in a point-by-point debate (especially as I agree with a lot of what you say), but will clarify my own take, stated simply: there are occasions when blow-up is desired, and others where it's not. the fun of course, is determining what those cases might be.. my (hopefully non-elitist) two cents. and good luck with your project! Ross www.corpusfluxus.org www.filmbysamuelbeckett.com From: Mark Toscano mrkt...@gmail.com Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:21 AM To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup Hi Chris, I'm glad you asked, as it's a subject I feel fairly passionately about. I'll first just clarify that the super 8 to 35mm blowup I'm seeking is purely for a project of my own which has to do with the large stretch between the two formats (i.e. it's a film which has specifically to do with the extra large blowup). As soon as I have the details hammered out on that, I'd be happy to say more about it... As for blowups in general, though - since it's no longer possible to do run-of-the-mill contact printing in 8mm or super 8, and since there's already a decades-long tradition of blowups of 8 to 16, I think it's a less problematic way to make smaller gauges viewable on film, when duplication is necessary. It's still a translation, though. Some filmmakers shot super 8 with the express intention of blowing up (as with some of Brakhage's films, James Otis's films, and many others), some shot and printed super 8 with only that intention, no blowup in mind, but then decided later on to blow up to 16 for whatever reasons (usually a matter of making the work more accessible, preserving it, etc.) Blowing up 16mm to 35mm on the other hand has nearly always seemed a really problematic step to me (unless of course the artist has that specifically in mind). From a preservation standpoint, it can cost twice or even 3-4 times as much as doing the work in 16mm, it's inherently changing the nature of the film in terms of scale, grain structure, etc., and it makes, I think, a somewhat elitist political statement that only venues capable of showing 35mm will now have access to that film. I've been saying (here and there, to whomever would let me blather about it) for a dozen years that, on top of these aesthetic/political concerns, the preservation question of 35mm being somehow more archival or likely to have increased longevity over 16mm was almost certainly going to be totally false. In terms of archival stability, the stocks in 16 and 35 are the same in these purposes, and would have the same chemical longevity, more or less. And preserving in a gauge not the film's own changes its essential nature, so that very aspect of its identity (its gauge) is lost in the preservation. Plus I've never followed the logic that primarily commercial archiving entities make, that bigger/sharper/faster/etc. is better, because it's clearly bullshit. What's better is preserving a film as unfussily in its original format as is possible. And as for 35 outlasting 16, we've seen where that's gone - only a handful of devoted cinephiliac venues and museums can handle 35mm now, and a lot of those handle 16mm too. PLUS, any number of classrooms, galleries, microcinemas, backyards, whatever, can and do show 16mm on any number of projectors kicking around out there. The 35mm projection knowledge base (especially regarding maintenance) is supremely limited, whereas a ton more folks have figured out how to run and even maintain, to some degree, the 16mm projectors they have. Anyway, I'm ranting. But bottom line, my feeling is to preserve 16mm as 16mm as long as it's possible! Mark Toscano On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, direc...@lift.on.ca wrote: Mark, Since we're on the subject, is there a reason you're going to 35mm rather than 16mm? Although 35mm is definitely more robust and beautiful (with a great soundtrack potential), my sense now is that a 16mm print might have longer life than a 35mm print. Now that so many places have taken out their 35mm projectors, its less of a presentation medium for many places. 16mm, on the other hand, is still very portable, so you can always bring the projector in if there's interest. My 35mm prints sit on the shelf. My 16mm prints occasionally get taken for a spin. Do you have a more positive take on the future of 35mm vs 16mm? thanks Chris ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo
[Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup
I'm surprised no one mentioned the master; Bill Brand. Here's his website: http://www.bboptics.com/biography.html Ken www.kenpaulrosenthal.comwww.maddancementalhealthfilmtrilogy.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup
Bill didn't, to my knowledge, do 35mm. And unfortunately he's actually no longer doing optical work, last I spoke to him (month or two ago). Mark On Mar 15, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Ken Paul Rosenthal kenpaulrosent...@hotmail.com wrote: I'm surprised no one mentioned the master; Bill Brand. Here's his website: http://www.bboptics.com/biography.html Ken www.kenpaulrosenthal.com www.maddancementalhealthfilmtrilogy.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
Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup
Tommy Aschenbach at Video Film Solutions (next door to Colorlab) can do beautiful 5K digital scans and 5K filmouts to both 16mm and 35mm. There are many virtues to a proper digital blowup, including the ability to deal with differing gammas in the originals on a frame by frame or shot by shot basis. Yes, I love film opticals, but they are quickly disappearing. Cineric in NYC is stopping doing them soon. Jeff Kreines Kinetta On Mar 15, 2015, at 10:44 AM, mrktosc mrkt...@gmail.com wrote: Bill didn't, to my knowledge, do 35mm. And unfortunately he's actually no longer doing optical work, last I spoke to him (month or two ago). Mark On Mar 15, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Ken Paul Rosenthal kenpaulrosent...@hotmail.com mailto:kenpaulrosent...@hotmail.com wrote: I'm surprised no one mentioned the master; Bill Brand. Here's his website: http://www.bboptics.com/biography.html http://www.bboptics.com/biography.html Ken www.kenpaulrosenthal.com http://www.kenpaulrosenthal.com/ www.maddancementalhealthfilmtrilogy.com http://www.maddancementalhealthfilmtrilogy.com/___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
