Re: [Frameworks] Article: The Last film camera
The problem is what kind of film will Kodak be making? No reversal print stocks. No fast color reversal stocks. No Plus-X anything. Soon, no 35mm Estar based color interneg stock with remjet backing (meaning no blow-up internegs from 16mm reversal originals). But lots of crappy inkjet printers. That's what happens when Kodak hires a CEO who used to work at HP on inkjet printers. They might as well make shoes -- they know as much about that. Film cameras are now very affordable. There are still some labs left. But we no longer have the stocks we need -- it will all be a compromise. Kodak would love to make one bland color negative stock that is designed to be manipulated in post (DI) and one intermediate stock for digital output and one print stock. I have a running bet with a friend that the next thing we will hear from Kodak is that B&W positive stock is being discontinued because it's fine to print B&W negs onto color positive stock. Right. Interestingly, Fuji may come to the rescue -- they are test marketing 35mm B&W positive stock in the US. Call Fuji and ask for other stocks! Jeff "dreads the yellow nightmare" Kreines On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Mark Toscano wrote: > I like the Kodak rep quote, if it's to be trusted: > > Eastman Kodak, Chris Johnson, Director of New Business Development, > Entertainment Imaging, counters that "I don't see a time when Kodak stops > making film stock," noting the year-on-year growth in 65mm film and > popularity of Super 8mm. "We still make billions of linear feet of film," he > says. "Over the horizon as far as we can see, we'll be making billions of > feet of film." > ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Kodak to license laser projection patents to Imax
A typically foolish Kodak move -- licensing patents that might be significant (in terms of digital projection) to a small company without deep pockets. A larger company who manufactures digital projectors might have turned this into something significant for Kodak in terms of royalties -- think Sony, Christie, etc. Of course Evans-Sutherland also has laser patents and projectors (mostly used for expensive simulation not cinema) so who knows if Kodak's patents are significant. They are selling off the seed corn, as farmers say. When they hired a CEO from Hewlett-Packard (a real source of executive genius) whose expertise was in inkjet printers, who decides Kodak's future will be in cheaper-ink inkjet printers, that was the beginning of the end -- though the pattern goes back to the sixties. So depressing to watch. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Kodak Film Stocks to be Discontinued, Announced in December
I heard that Ilford had gotten rid of any coating machines that could do rolls longer than 100 feet — but that may not be correct. Their cine stocks were notorious for shedding a lot in the camera. On Aug 31, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Heikki Repo wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 1:09 AM, wrote: > > > Ilford are reportedly thinking of re-starting: they still have all the > > equipment to produce film. They made a range of beautiful B&W negs, broadly > > superior to anything Kodak has produced. > > > > >I thought Ilford was a bit lower contrast, esp compared to Kodak, but I > >never shot more than a few rolls of the stuff. Would be > >nice to have more options... did you happen to hear of a timeline for when > >such a re-birth might happen? > > >Thanks, > >Alain > > Ilford Harman ( http://www.ilfordphoto.com/home.asp ) hasn't even stopped > manufacturing bw film. > However, their current line of films is only available for still photography. > > > Certainly interesting if they are thinking about returning to that market. > > One could ask about it on APUG, Simon R Galley from Ilford is very active > representative there: > http://www.apug.org/forums/forum246/ > > > Regards > Heikki > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jean-Louis Seguin > > To: Experimental Film Discussion List > > Sent: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 2:08 > > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Kodak Film Stocks to be Discontinued, Announced > > in December > > > > Current manufacturers > > (Other than Kodak): > > > > Agfa > > Orwo > > Adox > > Kahl > > > > What format do you need? > > B&W color, negative or reversal? > > > > Jean-Louis > > > > Sent from my iPod > > > > > On Aug 30, 2014, at 8:24 PM, Fred Smith wrote: > > > > > > I'll have to admit, I know of no other film manufacturer other than > > Kodak, probably because they have dominated the US market for years. Any > > recomendation on how to locate the others for those who are like me? > > > > > >> On 8/30/2014 12:53 PM, Jean-Louis Seguin wrote: > > >> > > >> Cheap shot? Maybe. I'm just so disappointed in Kodak, personally. > > >> > > >> I meet filmmakers all the time and it's surprising how many completely > > >> ignore > > the fact that there are other manufacturers in the world apart from Kodak > > that > > produce motion picture film stock. Some are truly amazed when I mention > > this to > > them. > > >> True, when it comes to color negative stocks, Kodak are the only source > > >> at > > the moment. For everything else, there are options out there > > > ___ > > > FrameWorks mailing list > > > FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com > > > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > _______ > > FrameWorks mailing listFrameWorks at > > jonasmekasfilms.comhttps://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > > > > > ___ > > FrameWorks mailing list > > FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com > > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > > > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] 35mm workprint from super 16?
On Sep 19, 2014, at 7:50 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > Why do this? Long long ago it was easy to get 16mm workprint of 35mm camera negative (at LA labs like CFI). Blow-up workprint? Not a common thing. As Alain suggested, Metropolis was one of the labs specializing in direct blowups to print, but I believe he’s also correct in saying that Jack doesn’t do traditional opticals anymore. At the risk of being heretical, if you want to see this S16 footage on a big screen, you could do a high quality scan and project it digitally. Apparently that’s the coming thing unless your initials are QT. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Digitising 16mm film
Reto.ch just got a new Kinetta Archival Scanner with the very new 5K option. They are in Ecublens, near Lausanne. www.reto.ch On Sep 29, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Ingo Petzke wrote: > I seem to recall this topic was up some time ago but am not able to find it. > So: does anybody have experience with European companies that transfer 16mm > film to SD/HD? Any information appreciated! > Ingo > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
[Frameworks] Kodak not meeting, er, projections
http://rochester.twcnews.com/content/news/773736/kodak-layoffs--some-70-rochester-area-jobs-will-be-cut/ Not good news. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] FILM Ferrania Kickstarter: potential new color reversal film stock
On Oct 4, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > I'm a little surprised though that, if they can slit motion picture film, > that they don't just take their existing C-41 stock and sell some of that > as a motion picture stock. What about rem-jet backing? Will it run smoothly through a cine camera and not get kickback from shiny pressure plates without it? Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] FILM Ferrania Kickstarter: potential new color reversal film stock
On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Tim Halloran wrote: >> Reversal has been a lifejacket that has kept me in film. Yes, me too. I don’t like color negative, it’s boring (with the exception of some of the discontinued Fuji stocks). B&W neg is fine, as is B&W reversal, but I am skeptical that Ferrania or others will come up with a color reversal stock as beautiful as 7250 or 7242. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Crystal sync 16mm camera rental in Boston/New England
Rule/Boston Camera. On Oct 17, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Adam R. Levine wrote: > Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] 16mm/Super8 Screening & Panel Discussion @ NYPL Jefferson Market Library
> On Nov 11, 2014, at 6:34 PM, George, Sherman wrote: > > Analog has other meanings unrelated to a signal. Which are analogous to what, Sherman? ;-) Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] 16mm/Super8 Screening & Panel Discussion @ NYPL Jefferson Market Library
> On Nov 11, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Pip Chodorov wrote: > > This also evades a stickier neologism as "film" as come to mean any moving > picture production on any medium. Any "film" student working digitally claims > to make "film." I believe they are making "digital" but I am very alone in > that strict use of the term to mean only film based production. They are making digital motion pictures or digital movies. Or, as they say on TV, Digital Shorts. Film requires actual film, then of course there’s the whole matter of how it gets shown these days, but that’s another can of worms. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] 16mm/Super8 Screening & Panel Discussion @ NYPL Jefferson Market Library
> On Nov 11, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Matt Whitman wrote: > > Provided that all of the artists showing work and participating in the > discussion consent, an audio recording of this will likely be posted online. > Will let you know. An analog recording, on real tape, I hope... Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] John Lennon & Miles Davis playing hoops
Such a hideous-looking video version — was it scanned on someone’s old cell-phone and a projector? > On Nov 19, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Pip Chodorov wrote: > > Yes this sequence, slightly distorted (parts are slowed down and repeated), > has been culled from Jonas' film "Happy Birthday to John." It was shot June > 12, 1971 at Allen Klein's party for John and Yoko. Shot on Jonas' 16mm Bolex. > Some of the footage also appears in his "Scenes from the Life of Andy Warhol: > Friendships and Intersections" though not specifically these scenes where > Warhol does not appear. > You're right, this was posted without Jonas' permission, so it may disappear > soon! > - Pip > > > > At 9:18 -0800 19/11/14, Adam Hyman wrote: >> Is this from Jonas Mekas's film? >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGbkW_Ifc8Y >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGbkW_Ifc8Y>___ > 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
[Frameworks] Possible solution for DCPs of silent films and bringing back PHI
This is potentially interesting — solving some of the problems with DCPs and silent films. Of course, the question is whether the DCP files have to be padded out to 120 fps — meaning either bigger files or a lot more compression — unless this “behavior” can be a projector setting, and work with a DCP file flagged as 16 or 18 or 20 fps. It also brings back the Phi Phenomenon — flicker is our friend! Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com <mailto:j...@kinetta.com> kinetta.com From the Cinematography Mailing List — CML > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Eric Kurland <3...@workprint.com <mailto:3...@workprint.com>> > Date: November 19, 2014 at 2:15:43 PM CST > Subject: Re: [cml-3d] Animators face 4K film technology 'challenge' > To: "For the discussion of 3D moving images" <mailto:cml...@ls.cinematography.net>> > Reply-To: cml...@ls.cinematography.net <mailto:cml...@ls.cinematography.net> > > SMPTE recently demonstrated variable projected framerates via the use of > HFR harmonics. A projector running at 120Hz was demonstrated to simulate > any lower harmonic of 120 by repeating frames and inserting black frames at > proper intervals to effectively act as a shutter. The footage had an > apparent lower frame rate while the projector continued to always operate > at the same fixed HFR rate. They demonstrated how this could be used to > restore silent films to their original non-24fps frame rates, and also > showed how footage captured at 120fps could be played at lower harmonic > frame rates by adding motion blur generated from the HFR frames and using > this timing method for projection. The "on-the-fly" frame rate changes get > baked into the DCP and the projector never even knows the difference. > > Looked great for 2-D. Haven't seen a 3-D implementation yet. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] optical printer questions
With the filters Scott suggests, shoot a series of single frames with different filter combinations and exposures — 5 feet of film will give you a lot of tests cheaply, especially if your lab is friendly about running tests. > On Dec 27, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > > Sure, you could use CC filters on the light source. Ask your local camera > store for a CC filter kit like people with B&W enlargers used to use for > printing still color work. > > But you could also just let it go blue, and correct it in the final print > when you print the interneg. You won't have as much range, but if you are > starting with a blue positive original you probably don't have much color > range in the original anyway. > --scott > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] HIGH SCHOOL workflow
Julian: Shot by Dick Lieterman.. B&W neg, quite clearly, probably Kodak Double-X. The prints would have suffered generation loss because B&W neg would go to a master positive, then a dupe neg, then a print. DuArt was Wiseman’s usual lab, but don’t know who would have made newer prints. I don’t think it was ever blown up to 35mm. Ask Fred. B&W reversal saves a geeration, going to an interneg and then a print. Of course these days one would scan it and do a film out to a neg — saves a generation if you are shooting negative. Best, Jeff Kreines Kinetta > On Jan 14, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Julian Antos > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Does anyone have any information on the workflow used for Frederick Wiseman's > HIGH SCHOOL? Specifically interested in whether it was shot on negative or > reversal, and whether release prints would have been made from an > internegative or directly from AB rolls. > > I projected what I thought was a very good 16mm print of the film for a class > screening and one of the students commented that it looked "so much worse" > than a Brakhage short (Window Water Baby Moving) we ran on Blu-Ray, so I'm > trying to offer a better explanation to the instructor than "oh, it's 16mm." > The print I ran was recently struck, a little soft, a little light contrast, > but certainly not objectionable, and projected under the best possible > circumstances - I don't think it came close to being called a bad print. > Since this WAS a recently struck print, I wonder if anyone can comment on > what the original prints looked like, or what 35mm blowup prints looked like. > > Of course, nobody says anything when they're shown 16mm at its best, but > there you have it > > Any input welcome! > > Julian > > > -- > Julian Antos > Northwest Chicago Film Society > www.northwestchicagofilmsociety.org > <http://www.northwestchicagofilmsociety.org/> > 773 827 8991 > > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] Film cameras latest models
The Arri 416, essentially Arri’s very late S16 response to the Aaton, came out around 2005-6, as did the Arricam LT and ST, which were the cameras Arri made after they bought Moviecam. Of course these aren’t the sorts of cameras most Frameworkers would use, though now they can be found for less than what a tricked-out Bolex used to cost. Jeff Kreines > On Jan 18, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Beebe, Roger W. wrote: > > For an additional 2 cents, I got this email off list from Travis Wilkerson: > > " I think the Ikonskop A-Cam was the last film camera newly introduced since > the Logmar. The last version came out around 2004 or so. Those guys were > doing great stuff and I think their digital camera may have been one of the > better stabs at it, but sorting it out sank the company. Alas. “ > > He noted in a short additional message that camera was super 16mm. > > FYI, > R. > > On Jan 18, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Beebe, Roger W. <mailto:beebe...@osu.edu>> wrote: > >> When was the Aaton A-Minima introduced? Early 2000s? Late 1990s? That’s >> the most recent big film camera launch I remember. But doesn’t it seem like >> there are kickstarters for new film cameras all the time still? Wasn’t >> there some Scandanavian s8 camera just a few years ago (that was going to be >> outrageously expensive)? I think it’d be hard to come up with a definitive >> list of those smaller products. I tired to look at the super8wiki to see if >> there was a way to search the cameras by model year, but it doesn’t seem >> especially easy to do. >> >> 2 cents, >> R. >> >> On Jan 18, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Pablo Marin > <mailto:pamari...@yahoo.com>> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Just a quick question, inspired by the recent introduction of the Logmar >>> S-8 camera and its statement about being "the first new Super 8 camera to >>> hit the market in 30 years". >>> >>> Does anybody knows besides this Logmar machine when was the last film >>> camera model introduced to the market? I'm sure it would have to be a >>> 35mm/70mm or maybe Super 16? Early 2000s? >>> >>> Thanks a lot! >>> Pablo. >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 > 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
Re: [Frameworks] 35mm / 16mm hot splicer question
On this older version, I think the front and back buttons work in tandem — push on the rear one to move pins in one direction, the front to move in the other. Same on each side. The pins may be stuck —try some acetone in the holes around the pins to dissolve old film cement. Work the buttons back and forth. Good luck! Jeff Kreines > On Feb 8, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Scott Stark wrote: > > Hi all, I have a Bell & Howell 35mm/16mm hot splicer that supposedly has > "retractable" 16mm registration pins. I'm wanting to cut some 35mm neg on it. > > Does anyone know how to retract the pins? And how to align the 35mm film > without them? I don't see any other pins other than the 16mm ones right in > the middle of the 35mm image. There are some buttons on the sides that don't > seem to move, and some other nuts and screws. > > Pics: > > http://hi-beam.net/temp/IMG_1597.JPG > http://hi-beam.net/temp/IMG_1596.JPG > > I have seen this splicer mentioned here: > http://www.smecc.org/film_cameras_for_television_news.htm but could not find > a manual for it. > > Thanks for any advice! > > best, > Scott > www.scottstark.com > www.hi-beam.net > > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] 35mm / 16mm hot splicer question
Yep, Buck as always is right — I hadn’t looked closely at the pictures. How wide are the platens? > On Feb 8, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Scott Stark wrote: > > Thankd Jeff, will try that. Any idea on how to align the two film strips > without the pins? The 16mm seems to be the only one on the right; there are > two other holes on the left that might produce pins once it's unglued. Or are > 35mm pros so expert they don't need pins? > > thanks > Scott > > At 03:00 PM 2/8/2015, you wrote: >> On this older version, I think the front and back buttons work in tandem >> push on the rear one to move pins in one direction, the front to move in the >> other. Same on each side. >> The pins may be stuck try some acetone in the holes around the pins to >> dissolve old film cement. Work the buttons back and forth. >> Good luck! >> >> Jeff Kreines >> >> > On Feb 8, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Scott Stark wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, I have a Bell & Howell 35mm/16mm hot splicer that supposedly has >> > "retractable" 16mm registration pins. I'm wanting to cut some 35mm neg on >> > it. >> > >> > Does anyone know how to retract the pins? And how to align the 35mm film >> > without them? I don't see any other pins other than the 16mm ones right in >> > the middle of the 35mm image. There are some buttons on the sides that >> > don't seem to move, and some other nuts and screws. >> > >> > Pics: >> > >> > http://hi-beam.net/temp/IMG_1597.JPG >> > http://hi-beam.net/temp/IMG_1596.JPG >> > >> > I have seen this splicer mentioned here: >> > http://www.smecc.org/film_cameras_for_television_news.htm but could not >> > find a manual for it. >> > >> > Thanks for any advice! >> > >> > best, >> > Scott >> > www.scottstark.com >> > www.hi-beam.net >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > FrameWorks mailing list >> > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com >> > 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 > > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] 35mm / 16mm hot splicer question
I would be wary of either repairing or modifying your splicer IF you care about good registration and splices that don’t jump. In the old days, steel film was used to check alignment, along with other gauges. Without those you are just guessing, and this isn’t a place you want to guess! You probably can find a working used splicer at a good price. > On Feb 8, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > > Cardinal in Baltimore has some spare parts for M-H splicers in their > copious back room. > > However, I don't think it would be impossible to make your own pins > out of brass stock. They don't have to be super hard, and the profile > does not have to be perfect as long as it is consistent, I don't think. > ---scott > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
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 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 <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
Re: [Frameworks] I'm moving my steenbeck: removing screen?
Many different models, many different screen mountings. > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Roger D. Wilson > wrote: > > There should be two screws one on each side at the bottom front of the > screen. Loosen these two screws and then you should be able to pull up on the > entire viewer and it should remove pretty easily. Photo > attached. > > Sent from Outlook <http://taps.io/outlookmobile> > _ > From: mary billyou mailto:mbill...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 4:40 PM > Subject: [Frameworks] I'm moving my steenbeck: removing screen? > To: Experimental Film Discussion List <mailto:frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com>> > > > Hi everyone, > > I'm moving my steenbeck from one room to another. Does anyone know how to > remove the screen? I've seen it propped on top of the editing deck before, > when Paul Tomasko was here, but I didn't see how he removed it or put it back. > > I have a call in to him, but he's not answering right now. Just thought I'd > ask if anyone here might know. > > All my best, > > Mary > > > > -- > > > > > > www.marybillyou.com <http://www.marybillyou.com/> > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] Aaton A-Minima to buy
The A-minima is a quiet camera with a reflex finder and 200 foot mags. The Ikonoscop takes 100 foot loads and is non reflex and not that quiet. As far as I know all A-Minimas were PL mount not Nikon. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com > On Apr 30, 2015, at 2:58 AM, Johannes Schrems > wrote: > > http://www.willhaben.at/iad/kaufen-und-verkaufen/foto-tv-video-audio/ikonoskop-a-cam-sp-16-super-16-professional-movie-camera-top-working-condition-118958488/ > > this camera is allmost simular. > best regards > >> Am 30.04.2015 um 09:25 schrieb Diana V.: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I'm looking for a 16mm camera Aaton A-Minima camera to buy for a project >> that is scheduled mid-June. Ideally with a Nikon-mount but not exclusively. >> Currently based in Paris but am willing to travel in Europe to see it/run >> tests. >> >> Thanks for any tips, >> >> Best, >> Diana >> >> -- >> diana vidrascu >> >> 14 passage de l'industrie >> 75010 paris >> >> +33 695 81 32 88 >> www.dianavidrascu.com >> cont...@dianavidrascu.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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] film out to 16mm
Rob: The very best 16mm filmouts — at 5K resolution — are done by Tommy Aschenbach at Colorlab in Rockville, MD. He can also do 35mm 5K filmouts. Amazingly good. Jeff Kreines Kinetta > On May 5, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Rob Christopher wrote: > > Greetings, > > I am about to finish a feature film digitally that was originally shot on > 16mm, and would like to create a 16mm film out print from my final digital > file. (The movie is called PAUSE OF THE CLOCK ... you can read more about it > here: http://kck.st/14DP69l <http://kck.st/14DP69l>) > > Is anyone capable of doing this anymore? Fotokem only does 35mm workflow now. > The finished movie is 78 minutes. > > Thanks very much for any advice or leads you can offer! > > Regards, > Rob Christopher > > www.randomcha.net <http://www.randomcha.net/> > Twitter: @randomcha <http://twitter.com/#%21/randomcha> > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] black mask on colour print film
You could fog one half of the print before processing using a camera/optical printer/contact printer with a mask added. But since most 35mm projectors have interchangeable brass aperture plates, it would be cheaper and simpler to make a custom plate that masks off the image. These are commonly used to mask the image to 1.66 or 1.85. Of course this is easier if you are only screening at one venue, since projectors will vary, and also the aperture plates are often custom-filed to deal with any angular displacement of the film and screen (I am blanking out on the word here — it’s not parallax but it’s like that.) It will come to me the moment I hit send. Got it. KEYSTONING. Applying a long length of tape on half of the print will likely cause all sorts of problems, including focus, and it’s likely to jam the projector, too. Perhaps there’s an ink or paint but getting a good clean line (if that’s what you want) will be difficult, and it will flake off in use. Then again that may be desirable in your case. Jeff > On May 16, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Bernd Luetzeler wrote: > > Dear Frameworkers, > > I need to find out how to cover one half of a 35mm colour print film with a > black mask (after processing). > Of course the first thing to try is an optical printer (before processing) > and I will explore this option in the next few weeks. > But as an alternative I already started thinking about other options: > Since it is always either the left or the right half, I think it could be > possible to apply a vertical strip of black over the whole print. > Is there any paint, ink, marker or tape or other material, that fully > blackens film and that does not come off during projection? > > Would be great to hear your experiences > > Bernd > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] AC lock projector
You can also use a flexible shaft — might give you more, um, flexibility in positioning projectors — or use chains and extra sprockets to redirect the chains. Then again you could replace the motors with steppers and lock them together…. > On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:03 AM, mariah garnett wrote: > > http://mariahgarnett.com/encounters-i-may-or-may-not-have-had-with-peter-berlin/ > > <http://mariahgarnett.com/encounters-i-may-or-may-not-have-had-with-peter-berlin/> > > if you scroll don you can see images and video and text about the piece as it > was installed 5 years ago. i'm thinking of reprising it this summer but got > some kinks to work out > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:16 PM, k. a.r. <mailto:a_r...@hotmail.com>> wrote: > Mariah, can you share the details of your show with us? Sounds > interesting.. > > Also: "If you link the inching knobs together with bicycle chains, you can > mechanically synchronize any number of projectors, just be careful > starting them and don't get your fingers caught. Used to be very > common for 3D showings. > --scott" > > Wow how amazing. Any pictures available of how this was done? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kristie Reinders, B.F.A. > Director of Cinematography, Electric Visions > Curator and Head Projectionist, Electric Mural Project > The Mission, San Francisco, CA > > 'A first class technician should work best under pressure.' > - - - Issac Asimov > > > > ___ > 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 > 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
Re: [Frameworks] processing 16mm Tri X as negative in a bucket like a savage
> On Jul 31, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Mark Street wrote: > > Wonder if you have any experience using Dektol rather than D-76? It will be much more contrasty. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Steenbeck problems, no audio. Repair in B.C.?
First unseat and reseat all the audio cards. Check all the fuses. Then call a repair person! > On Sep 5, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Jesse Andrewartha wrote: > > > Hi All, > > I set up a Steenbeck in my studio, but I can't get audio, either from opt or > the mag heads. I suspect a wrong connection, but need someone to troubleshoot > my wiring. > > Does anyone have a lead on a Steenbeck repair person in British Columbia or > elsewhere that could advise or help? > > Thanks! > > -Jesse- > > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] Arri SR 1 for sale anyone??
They show up pretty frequently, though usually a hair more expensive. Put in an eBay search that emails you every time ARRI SR or 16SR shows up. > On Sep 4, 2015, at 11:21 PM, ben.weinst...@mindspring.com wrote: > > Where can I find an Arri SR for sale? There was just one on ebay for 1000 > bucks but I blew it. Anyone know anyone selling a camera package? > ___ > 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
Re: [Frameworks] Articles/essays on the history of flatbed editors (Moviola, Steenbeck, etc)?
Of course a lot of us used Steenbecks to edit films… and still do. They were quite expensive so would not be commonly used by researchers not attached to institutions (or with large grants). > On Sep 5, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Watter, Seth wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm wondering if people know of any texts that deal with the history of the > flatbed editor--more in its capacity as a viewing/analysis machine than as an > actual editing setup. I've found a few old articles on the Moviola in > journals like American Cinematographer, but they're strictly trade press > stuff, often just to advertise new product. I'm interested in how these > devices like Moviola and Steenbeck helped foster new forms of film analysis > (especially in the social sciences), and when they became > affordable/available beyond big studio production. Any suggestions would be > immensely helpful. > > Thanks, > > Seth Watter > PhD candidate, Modern Culture & Media > Brown University > Co-Director, Magic Lantern Cinema > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 Sound camera
No optical viewfinder! And the only interesting S8 film remaining is Tri-X reversal. Color neg is an abomination in S8 — a format that was based on reversal. Also, you can get a used Aaton or Arri SR for far less than this camera costs! This camera loses the quick-loading S8 advantage — you have to pull a loop out of the cartridge to load it, and thread it manually. It’s probably a fine camera but it’s trying to make S8 something it is not. And I suspect it is not quiet enough for real sync shooting. > On Sep 24, 2015, at 1:49 PM, > wrote: > > http://www.pro8mm.com/logmar-super-8-camera.php > <http://www.pro8mm.com/logmar-super-8-camera.php> Check out this camera. > Pretty neat. Looks good for documentary filmmaking and or animation > ___ > 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
Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs -- the other side
There are certainly artists and filmmakers who can be difficult to deal with. Many of them are my good friends. Nothing wrong with being a curmudgeon. But there is another side of the equation — writers who are full of themselves, and ignorant about the genre of film they are writing about — in short, jerks. I have had fine relations with many writers, and gone to a lot of effort (even in the pre-digital days) to provide specific frame blow-ups they requested (at no charge, of course). But there was a case where I was approached by a writer to be included in a book (commissioned, and funded by a large grant) about a particular sub-genre of film I was (not bragging here, just accurate) a pioneer of — autobiographical cinema-verite family films. Every question this writer asked was insulting, and clueless. He was under pressure to include my work because it was important to the history of this type of filmmaking, and influenced the work of many filmmakers (their sentiments, not mine). This author was extremely full of himself — and acted like it was a great privilege to have him write about one’s work. (There are some hilarious bits on the internet about other filmmakers lobbying to be included in one of his tomes, and his smug replies, toying with their desires to be one of his chosen few.) Fortunately, we distribute all of our films, and while there are some bootlegs out there it is not easy to see our work without going through us. So we simply did not make that work available. It meant being written out of a history of a type of film we are best known for, but sometimes you’d rather be ignored than included if you have no faith in the writer. Jeff Kreines Coosada, AL ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Shooting Super 16 but composing for regular
Remember that any zoom will be off center unless the lens mount is centered for 16 mm. Also note that wider angle lenses may not fully cover the S16 frame, especially if not centered on it. You probably could buy an Aaton LTR7 or 54 pretty cheaply that would do what you need. If eBay scares you there are a few honest dealers like Visual Products who offer a 6 month warranty. Older Aatons are fine for your needs. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com > On Oct 10, 2015, at 11:04 PM, ada...@gmail.com wrote: > > To answer Jason's question - > > I'm shooting super 16 as I want the image to fall onto the optical track, but > I'm composing for 16mm as the aim is to produce a print using that excess > image as sound. However, I do need to be able to pretty accurately center > what I'm shooting for 1.37:1. > > A couple of people asked what camera I'm using-I'm really looking for the > right camera for this project. It seems like an Aaton might be a good > candidate from what I can tell. > ___ > 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] flatbed or other editing equipment in atlanta?
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 3:28 PM, > wrote: > > I was about to start makin a 16mm film and I want to cut it on a flatbed if > possible. I would also need a mag dubber and an optical printer. Anyone know > where I would have access to this equipment in or around Atlanta? Thanks If you’d asked me 15 years ago I could have helped…. Jeff Kreines ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] 16mm gang sync machine
om/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> > > ___ 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
Re: [Frameworks] digital to 16mm print out?
Colorlab does very good 5K 16mm and 35mm film outs. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com > On Nov 4, 2015, at 8:23 AM, John Warren wrote: > > hello Frameworks, > > I have a 16mm project that I’ve edited digitally and am now looking to have a > lab print out the file to 16mm. I see there are a few places around that > offer this service, but am curious if anybody on the list has a lab they > might recommend? > > peace, jw > > -- > John Warren > 213.458.1650 > www.johnwarrenfilms.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] Projector/optical sound reader that's easy on film
If the film is shrunken, Steenbecks can cause serious perf damage, because of the wrap of the sprocket around the prism. Scanners don’t have this problem. I would just look at the film on rewinds, with a viewer if need be, but not worry about listening to the track unless for some reason it will affect your decision of what to scan. > On Nov 13, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > > I wouldn't put them on a projector... I would hunt down someone with a > Steenbeck that is in proper maintenance. That might mean calling > Dwight Cody who does steenback repair and asking who has a machine for > rent. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] A&B material
Your lab should be able to supply it. Fogged and processed B&W positive print stock or optical track stock, processed — that’s what everyone used before Kodak started selling their black leader. > On Dec 1, 2015, at 9:49 AM, eric stewart wrote: > > Hello Frameworkers, > > I am preparing to conform my negative. Kodak no longer makes the acetate > black leader with emulsion. I am wondering if anyone on this list has any > experience with sourcing alternatives or advice for what to use for the > checker boarding when i prepare my A&B rolls. > > thanks! > > Sincerely, > > Eric Stewart > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] 16mm prints turned pink
Eastmancolor was very bad in terms of magenta fading. I’ve seem excellent work scanning faded prints and restoring the color (using lots of nodes in Resolve) and doing filmouts (16mm 5K, or 35mm) by VFS, now merged with Colorlab. The trick is to have at least a tiny bit of the missing colors present in the scan, to give the software something that it can work with. > On Dec 17, 2015, at 9:46 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > > I don't remember whether it had to be slightly acid or slightly basic, and > it was _just_ a thing with the Agfa/Ansco chemistry which is very different > (and can be a lot more stable than) the modern Eastman chemistry. I think > there is a discussion of it in Mees' book, though. > --scott > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] All about the Bolex
It was an Eclair NPR. Sweeney Films. (Long story.) Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com > On Dec 29, 2015, at 8:17 PM, David Baker wrote: > > I remember the great photographer and filmmaker Danny Lyon > saying he shared a film camera with Robert Frank. > If it was a Bolex they held in common, > then Lyon as raconteur ( as well as in oeuvre) > would be one of the few who might rival Robert Frank. > >> On Dec 29, 2015, at 7:05 AM, alexan...@bolex.net wrote: >> >> Dear Frameworkers, >> >> For nearly five years, I have been working on a documentary about the swiss >> precision industry that produced the Bolex’s, Kern lenses and the Nagra. I >> have already met over 30 former employee of theses companies as well as >> filmmakers. >> >> You can watch a trailer featuring Otello Diotallevi who is the last Bolex >> employee by clicking the link below: >> >> https://vimeo.com/150185992 >> >> I am trying to find people that used to visit the Paillard Showroom at 265 >> Madison Avenue in New-York.They were also located in 100 Avenue of the >> America and later in Linden, New-Jersey. If any of you have some stories >> about it, I would be very interested to hear it (Images Below). I will >> probably be in New-York in January. >> >> I am also copying an article from the Bolex Reporter entitled « The New >> American Cinema Group ».The article was written in 1966 by Fred W. Mc >> Darrah. I was very surprised to see Robert Frank in the article, I always >> thought he was filming with an arriflex at least from the film « Pull my >> daisy ». If I remember correctly, Robert Beavers the partner of Gregory >> Markopoulos told me that Paillard lent some cameras to the filmmakers in >> exchange of the article. Some of them never came back. >> >> If any of you could help me contact Mr Mekas I would appreciate it very >> much, I have been trying to contact him for three years without success. >> >> There is a film on the inventor of the first Bolex's ( >> http://www.jacquesbolseyproject.com/index.html ) that should be released >> next year and a book was released in French two years ago ( >> http://www.editions-thiele.com/ ). Lots of interesting things about the >> Bolex history will be released in a near future. >> >> Feel free to contact me if you have any interesting stories about the Bolex. >> >> Happy filmmaking! >> Alexandre Favre >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Noteworthy Publications This Year?
> On Jan 2, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote: > > I stand corrected on the matter of only one person refusing to be interviewed; For that book. There are more. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Fwd: New Kodak Super 8 movie camera
Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com > On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Nicholas Kovats wrote: > > I would recommend a clapper on set. Clapper? Set? This is anathema to the spirit of Super-8. Heresy! Also, it does not appear that these people understand the concept of camera noise. An on camera mic that close to the movement is going to pick up camera noise. This isn't an Aaton! Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Negative Conforming Predicament
If there is a punch at the head of each roll, you can use that to figure out the Keycode. I’d cut the workprint to match the digital cut. I think the old Film tools for FCP could do this, but I have never used it. Premiere, I have no clue. Another option, if the telecine is of good quality, would be to go to Colorlab and get a 16mm (or 35mm) film out (they do B&W and color, at 5K resolution in either format). It could be less expensive than a conventional finish, though an HD telecine is a little low on resolution IMHO. > On Jan 12, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Alan Gerlach wrote: > > Hello fellow frameworkers, > > I am in a bit of a workflow predicament: > > A year ago I shot 1600' of Double-X 16mm for a 25 minute film of a fellow > Artist, Chris Larson, that I assist occasionally. We sent the film out and > got a work print and telecine, under the impression that the telecine would > be used for previewing and we would cut together the workprint and then get > the negative cut from that. We did not get a KeyKode scan with the telecine. > > > Recently, Chris made a master digital cut from the telecine files using > Premiere Pro CC and now wants the negative conformed exactly to that. I am in > a different place this year and do not have time to physically conform the > workprint to the 100 cut digital master. The issue we are running into is > that we do not have KeyKode data to send to a negative cutter and the film > was telecined as two lab reels rather than four camera reels, so I have not > been able to manually change the digital timecode to match the keykode - I am > not sure if the manual timecode to keykode change is even possible in > Premiere. > > So here is my question: what is the best next step? Should I send my film > back to the lab to get re-telecined with Keykode? And is there a way to > easily conform the new telecine+keykode to the original telecine in Premiere > Pro CC and generate a frame-accurate cut list? > > Also, who's a good Negative cutter to use in the US? > > Thanks much for the help, > > Alan Gerlach > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] For Sale: Arri SR
Just curious as to what camera you would consider more versatile? I am not lauding the 16SR but it does many things. So does a Bolex. Different things of course. So what are you hoping to switch to? Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com > On Jan 18, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Ryder White wrote: > > Hello Frameworksers, > > I'll keep this brief because I don't want to clutter up the list with > my sales pitch, but I am selling my Arri SR 16mm camera to hopefully > fund the purchase of a more versatile camera, and perhaps some of you > might be interested. It is listed on eBay here: > http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fpages.ebay.com%2Flink%2F%3Fnav%3Ditem.view%26alt%3Dweb%26id%3D151951751616&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEh-9imVYnooXwUZBFskFks9iAQlQ > > If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me off-list. > > Thanks! > > Ryder > ___ > 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] where to buy Bolex H16 RX-4 or 5?
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 12:13 AM, Vera Brunner-Sung wrote: > > Dieter Schaefer of ProCam, based in Arizona. He sells to a lot of schools. > Top notch. Didn’t know if he’d retired or not. He’s very good — over 50 years working on Bolexes. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Ferrania?
I have been very skeptical of the Ferrania project, but there is an interesting nugget in their latest blog: http://www.filmferrania.it/news/2016/the-cine-8-16-interview "For market strategy reasons, the first film produced by FILM Ferrania will be a color reversal film in the following speeds: 64D, 100D, 200D, 400D, 640T, 800/3200T.” Perhaps finally a replacement for my late, lamented 7250? Be still my heart! Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Ferrania?
> On Feb 16, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > > but think the world would welcome 64D and 400D slide and motion picture > films. Fuck the daylight stocks — all the good stuff happens under tungsten or in the dark! Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Black Leader
Try Colorlab. They still do a lot of 16mm work. http://www.colorlab.com/ <http://www.colorlab.com/> > On Feb 20, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Lyndsay Bloom > wrote: > > Good afternoon, > Does anyone have 16mm black leader for sale, or does anyone know a source > that still makes or sells black leader? Kodak stopped making it, and > apparently Urbanski's out, but I'll need about 1150 feet, the negative cutter > said, to make prints of films I want to loop in my thesis installation. > Thank you kindly for any suggestions. > Lyndsay Bloom > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] Ganon GL-2 minidv camcorder repair
You might find eBay a cheaper route — you can use your existing one for ingesting tapes into a computer. There are bargains here: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1311.R1.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xcanon+gl.TRS0&_nkw=canon+gl2&_sacat=0 <http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1311.R1.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xcanon+gl.TRS0&_nkw=canon+gl2&_sacat=0> Jeff Kreines Kinetta > On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Robert Withers wrote: > > My lovely Canon GL-2 fell off(!) a tripod. Something about the quick-release > mount. > The LCD screen is knocked cock-eyed but the camera otherwise seems to work. > > There are two California repair shops that show up online . . . > http://www.videoonerepair.com/ in Newbury Park, specializes in only Canon and > Sony camcorders > http://camcorderrepair.com/canon-GL2.htm--in Glendale, all camcorders > including Canon, Sony, Panasonic, JVC -- they quoted $150 repair without > seeing the camera > > Does anyone have experience with either of these or another? > > Thanks, > Robert > > 212 873-1353 main > 212 203-3048 mobile > > WithersWorks.com > 202 West 80th St. #5W > New York, NY 10024 > > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] seamless media player recommendations?
> On Feb 27, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Amanda Christie > wrote: > > You can use MPEG streamclip which is open source free software, to transcode > your finished files into h.264 mp4…. I never like Streamclip. You can use Resolve 12 (the free version) to transcode to a lot of different formats, as well as do serious color correction, reframing, stabilization, editing, and much more. The paid version adds a few features like the ability to output at resolutions greater than UHD, and temporal noise reduction, but for most users the free version is fine. Mac or PC. It does require a decent GPU card if you are doing serious stuff. It’s pretty deep, but not that difficult to get started with. You can do stuff with various windows and nodes if you’d like. You can grade with curves, which is fast and powerful. They are constantly upgrading it and fixing it. If you have the paid version there’s no charge for upgrades. I use it a lot, mostly on a PC with 2 Titan X GPU cards, but it is fine on lesser machines. Supports just about any format you can think of. Good manual, and made better by the fact you rarely need to use it. https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support/family/davinci-resolve-and-fusion <https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support/family/davinci-resolve-and-fusion> Jeff Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Where to get 8mm film?
http://www.buy8mmfilm.com/ <http://www.buy8mmfilm.com/> > On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:50 PM, john porter wrote: > > Alan, I know you say "of any sort", but do you mean of 8mm film, or of super > 8 film? The two types of cartridges and cameras are very different and > incompatible. > John > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android> > From:"Alan Sondheim" > Date:Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:00 pm > Subject:[Frameworks] Where to get 8mm film? > > > Hi - I need to get 8mm film (of any sort) and processing - any suggestions > greatly appreciated. I usually work in video or screen saving to video, > but I want to use traditional camerawork for some projects. > > Thanks greatly, > > Alan > > == > sondh...@panix.com , sondh...@gmail.com > > email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ > <http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/> > web http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org/>/ > music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ > <http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/> > current text http://www.alansondheim.org/tv.txt > <http://www.alansondheim.org/tv.txt> > == > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks> > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] Precious Images - Chuck Workman
His 1997 Oscar broadcast "Tribute to Film Editing" montage (with Riverdance) is truly unforgettable. As I recall many clips consisted of a single shot -- so the only editing on display was Workman's, not the Oscar-winning editors being feted. Putting a line of Irish clog dancers in front of the screen added to the brilliance, but the dancers were probably not Mr. Workman's idea. A great Oscar moment. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com > On Mar 22, 2016, at 1:47 PM, Kim Knowles > wrote: > > Dear Frameworkers, > > > I'm looking for a film by Chuck Workman called 'Precious Images' (1986). Does > anyone know who distributes this in the US or Canada? > > > Many thanks! > > Kim > > === > KEEP IN TOUCH WITH EIFF > Become a web member for FREE and receive news and offers: > http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk/register > Follow EIFF at: https://twitter.com/edfilmfest or > http://www.facebook.com/edfilmfest > === > t. +44(0)131 228 4051 > f. +44(0)131 229 5501 > w. http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk > 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ Scotland, United Kingdom > The Edinburgh International Film Festival Limited is a subsidiary of the > Centre for the Moving Image. Registered in Scotland No: SC132453. VAT No: 502 > 548861. Registered Office: 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh. > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] S8mm Elmo sound play/record projector
Is it a dual-voltage projector set to 220v rather than 110? Is it the right lamp? Both of these could cause the lamp to glow but not get any brighter. > On Mar 22, 2016, at 11:08 PM, Dominic Angerame > wrote: > > Thanks I tried everything else. The lamp glows but does power on all the way. > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:58 PM, christopher nigel > mailto:christophernige...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hello , have you checked the fuses ? can be as simple as that to get working . > > Christopher > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dominic Angerame <mailto:dominic.anger...@gmail.com>> wrote: > This is a model GS1200. > > The projector lamp glows but does not power up fully and no image can be > projected. May be worth fixing. $175. > > To view it visit http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Elmo_GS_1200_Projector > <http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Elmo_GS_1200_Projector> > ___ > 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> > > > _______ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] S8mm Elmo sound play/record projector
Dominic: In the US you would want it set at 110. See if you have the right voltage lamp. Maybe you have a 110v lamp where a 24v lamp belongs? I don't know the projector. I was in Chicago last week at the Chicago Film Archive (they got a new scanner) and I got to see Tom a couple of times. He's doing well, and he mentioned you. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com > On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:11 AM, Dominic Angerame > wrote: > > It was set at 110 so that might be the problem. I will change it sometime > today. Btw do you still keep in touch with Tom Palazzolo. > >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Jeff Kreines wrote: >> Is it a dual-voltage projector set to 220v rather than 110? Is it the right >> lamp? >> >> Both of these could cause the lamp to glow but not get any brighter. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 11:08 PM, Dominic Angerame >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks I tried everything else. The lamp glows but does power on all the >>> way. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:58 PM, christopher nigel >>>> wrote: >>>> Hello , have you checked the fuses ? can be as simple as that to get >>>> working . >>>> >>>> Christopher >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dominic Angerame >>>>> wrote: >>>>> This is a model GS1200. >>>>> >>>>> The projector lamp glows but does not power up fully and no image can be >>>>> projected. May be worth fixing. $175. >>>>> >>>>> To view it visit http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Elmo_GS_1200_Projector >>>>> >>>>> ___ >>>>> 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 >> >> Jeff Kreines >> Kinetta >> j...@kinetta.com >> kinetta.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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Nyc 16mm
Which Eclair? NPR? ACL? CM-3? In NYC, probably the only place (as opposed to individual owner) renting them might be DuAll Camera. They do rent older film cameras, I think. Good luck! JK > On Apr 1, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Mariah Garnett wrote: > > Anyone in NYC have an eclair they could rent me for a day and/or know where > to look for one? > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] Nyc 16mm
I don’t know what is up with Millenium, but they have one listed on their website. DuAll appears to have sold theirs. > On Apr 1, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Mariah Garnett wrote: > > Npr > >> On Apr 1, 2016, at 8:33 PM, Jeff Kreines wrote: >> >> Which Eclair? NPR? ACL? CM-3? >> >> In NYC, probably the only place (as opposed to individual owner) renting >> them might be DuAll Camera. They do rent older film cameras, I think. Good >> luck! >> >> JK >> >>> On Apr 1, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Mariah Garnett wrote: >>> >>> Anyone in NYC have an eclair they could rent me for a day and/or know where >>> to look for one? >>> ___ >>> FrameWorks mailing list >>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com >>> 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 > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] 16mm to HD transfer in Leeds / Manchester / York?
I would guess that Hereford is too far away, but the Huntley Film Archive has a Kinetta and can do 3K scans from any format. (3K scans are great for HD and other uses.) http://www.huntleyarchives.com/contact.php <http://www.huntleyarchives.com/contact.php> Good luck! Jeff Kreines Kinetta > On Apr 5, 2016, at 6:23 AM, mstark...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi Amir, > > I would second Nicky’s iDailies vote, not sure what North West Film Archive > charge but they don’t really offer a service to artists, they are more > concerned with conservation of films shot in the North West of England. > > I have also recently heard of http://www.gaugefilm.co.uk/ > <http://www.gaugefilm.co.uk/> who are based in Birmingham but I have no > experience of the quality of their telecine service. > > Good luck! > > Mary > >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I am looking to transfer two rolls of color 16mm film to HD (Apple ProRes >>> or similar) in Leeds / Manchester / York area. Any info would be >>> appreciated. >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Amir >>> >>> >>> >>> ++ >>> a m i r . h u s a k >>> educator, filmmaker and media hacktivist >>> www.amirhusak.com <http://www.amirhusak.com/wp> >>> >>> ___ >>> FrameWorks mailing list >>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com <mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com> >>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>> <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks> >> >> marie losier >> ma...@marielosier.net <mailto:ma...@marielosier.net> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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> >> >> >> ___ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com <mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com> >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] I'm a revolutionary
Possibly Fred Hampton, or The Film Group’s The Murder of Fred Hampton? He was murdered by the Chicago Police on December 4, 1969, IIRC. > On Apr 12, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Gene Youngblood wrote: > > Frameworkers, > I recently saw on Democracy Now (I think; the source really doesn’t matter) > an interstitial showing a protest demonstration with a call-and-response > where the speaker said “I am a revolutionary” over and over, and the crowd > repeated it with him over and over. I vaguely recall it was black and white, > but it may not be. And I don’t know if it was a recent event or not. > > I searched the phrase on You Tube but only found interviews in which it was > used by individuals. Does anyone know the clip I’m talking about? > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] I'm a revolutionary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHzSdniqi4g <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHzSdniqi4g> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Jeff Kreines wrote: > > Possibly Fred Hampton, or The Film Group’s The Murder of Fred Hampton? He > was murdered by the Chicago Police on December 4, 1969, IIRC. > >> On Apr 12, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Gene Youngblood wrote: >> >> Frameworkers, >> I recently saw on Democracy Now (I think; the source really doesn’t matter) >> an interstitial showing a protest demonstration with a call-and-response >> where the speaker said “I am a revolutionary” over and over, and the crowd >> repeated it with him over and over. I vaguely recall it was black and white, >> but it may not be. And I don’t know if it was a recent event or not. >> >> I searched the phrase on You Tube but only found interviews in which it was >> used by individuals. Does anyone know the clip I’m talking about? >> ___ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > Jeff Kreines > Kinetta > j...@kinetta.com > kinetta.com > > Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Evaluating old 16 mm prints
I love Steenbecks but they can easily ruin shrunken prints due to the wrap of then picture sprocket. As Dominic mentioned, the Moviola Magnasync 16mm viewer (like a larger Moviskop) is pretty good. But projection or Steenbecks can rip your perfs. Be careful. Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com > On Apr 18, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Dominic Angerame > wrote: > > I have been inspecting the prints in the library of the SF Art Institute for > the past year. I have found that the magnasync viewers are the best. The > screen is much larger and scratches, dust, dirt, etc are more definable. > They are not cheap and difficult to find. This is the poor man's way of > goding things. A flatbed may scratch especially in rewind or fast forward, > etc. If you need editing equip email me off the list. I still have some items. > > DA > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Robert Withers >> wrote: >> Hello all, >> What's the best way to evaluate old 16 mm prints, sound and picture? >> For example, for color shift, print quality, etc. >> I use to have a 4-plate Steenbeck editing machine that was very easy on film >> and had both magnetic and optical sound paths. Is that still the most >> practical? >> I can still hand-inspect film (and use a Moviscop viewer) for dirt, >> scratches, splices, missing sections, etc., but can't tell if a print really >> looks and sounds good. >> Projectors? Viewers? >> I imagine expensive scanners work well for picture, at least. >> Thanks for any thoughts, >> Robert Withers >> >> rob...@withersworks.com >> WithersWorks.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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Seeking Paid Car Ride for Film Shoot in Columbia, SC
Your ad says: > "I am looking for someone to drive me round trip from Columbia to Calgaree > National State Park, Monday, June 6 to Thursday, June 9. I will pay you > $40/day for a total of $160. > > I would like to picked up in the morning, around 10am--some mornings possibly > earlier--brought to the park, then picked up again late in the evening around > 10pm. > > I am a San Francisco-based filmmaker who would like to film the natural > beauty of the park during the day and the fireflies at night for a > documentary I am making (*see pictures). In addition to paying you for your > time, your name would also be featured prominently in my documentary's > 'Special Thanks' credits! > > You must be 100% reliable. I've been waiting 3 years for this opportunity and > hope to experience some of that famous southern hospitality.” I am guessing you mean Congaree, not Calgaree? About 20 miles one way from Columbia. For someone to take you there and pick you up, that’s at least 80 miles per day, for $40. $.50 per mile, not including payment for time or gas (which probably will run $8/day) nor use of their car. The South may be less expensive than San Francisco, but while we are hospitable, that seems more like an insult than an offer. But perhaps I am used to the relative wealth of Alabama… > On May 6, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Ken Paul Rosenthal > wrote: > > If you live in Columbia, South Carolina, or know someone who lives there, > please check out this paid car ride request for an upcoming film excursion: > > http://columbia.craigslist.org/rid/5574009520.html > > Ken > www.kenpaulrosenthal.com > www.whisperrapture.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] help identifying this film tank
Nikor reel for processing 100 feet of movie film. I believe it can be adjusted for 16mm or 35mm. Tricky to load — I think there’s a loading device for it. But desirable. > On May 11, 2016, at 4:19 PM, wrote: > > Hi Frameworks, > > I’m wondering if anyone knows anything about what looks to me like a film > developing tank. I’ve posted pictures here: > http://mediastudy.buffalo.edu/10090-2/ > > What you can’t really see in the pictures is that the bottom of the tank > actually has 3 concentric tank bottoms, each a little larger than the other. > The top part of the tank (the one with the tube sticking out of it) only fits > on the innermost tank. You can kind of see it in the last photo. Also, it’s > pretty big – about 17” diameter…. It seems like there should be other parts > to it? Or? > > Thanks in advance for any help! > > Carl Lee > Buffalo, NY > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > 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
Re: [Frameworks] subtitle question
> On May 12, 2016, at 5:28 PM, chris bravo wrote: > > i agree with the person above that having super long lines of text is v > annoying to scan while you are trying to watch a movie. cinema=eye-trace Yes, that’s a serious consideration, especially when dealing with a “scope” frame. At least these days you don’t have to prepare different versions in different aspect ratios, since your film can just be pillarboxed for HD. SD, well, it doesn’t really matter anymore… Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] cubist film!
Try posting it to the AMIA-L list — film archivists. See here for info on how to subscribe: http://www.amianet.org/participate/listserv.php > On May 12, 2016, at 9:02 PM, Ignacio Tamarit > wrote: > > Hi everyone! Im looking for the film "Rigadin, cubist painter" (1910-1912) > from Georges Monca. There is so little information on the web about this > film. Has someone know if there is a video copy of this? Jeff Kreines Kinetta j...@kinetta.com kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Digital -- was Re: 16mm camera repair & parts
On Oct 19, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Sandra Maliga wrote: > The aesthetics and techniques of > film and photography can be taught using digital equipment. Well, no. It is interesting how many students suddenly get it re editing once they cut film on a Steenbeck. What was a disembodied virtual process suddenly made sense once it had become physical. Having to actually pick the right frame to cut on, because you don't want a string of 1-frame splices, teaches them how to think when editing. Decisions have consequences, and can't always be instantly reversed (there is the Mitt Romney exception, of course). Shooting film has many virtues. Leaving aside the aesthetic ones, it teaches discipline -- when to turn the camera on and off. When you are capturing data to a flash card, it costs nothing to just keep shooting. Shooting film is like having a taxi-meter as footage counter -- it forces you to really think while shooting. That doesn't mean you might not shoot a 400-foot roll in one or two takes, but you have made a decision. Digital pushes one into a decision-free zone -- any decision can be postponed -- which leads to bad art. It leads to laziness. Shooting reversal stock is a great educational tool -- because you learn about exposure, and do not have much latitude. Yes, the cost of film is a terrible thing. In the olden times, the cost and the technical skills required acted as a filter on what films got made. It required not only some skill, but it forced one to learn how to hustle. (When I grew up in Chicago, Tom Palazzolo was the master of making films for no money -- he knew film couriers for TV stations who sold film cheap -- it fell off their motorcycles -- and lab guys who would sneak it through the processing machine. I learned a lot from Tom.) Now anyone can go to WalMart and get all they need to make a film that could be shown theatrically. Access to equipment is no longer a problem. The new iPhone (too expensive for me) shoots great 1080p video. So Coppola's mythic "fat girl in Ohio" (his words, not mine) will have access to her camera-stylo, and might make a great work of art. At the same time, 999,000 others will suddenly be able to shoot and finish the most horrific pieces of shit, but they end up with "a movie" that they force others to try and watch. I now feel some degree of pity for festival programmers, who theoretically have to watch this glut of stuff. Yes, 30 years ago they also had to wade through tons of crap, but the percentage was lower because of the filter. When the typewriter became popular, more people tried writing novels, but it took perseverance to finish even a dreadful one. Personal computers carried on this trend, but there was a lot of work involved -- though with all the retyping eliminated, some writers learned to edit and rewrite, not a terrible thing. It's easy to shoot digitally, easy to throw it into a computer and string it together -- if you don't edit it on your phone. Making things too easy cheapens it, in my opinion. That's not to say digital is the villain. Cell phones are great for documenting police brutality and cute animal antics, and someone will make great art with them. (What was Pixelvision before Sadie Benning?) But even if students are going to end up in a world where there is no film being shot, a good education will still give them the experience of shooting and editing film, because the lessons learned are greater than one might imagine. Jeff "officially an old curmudgeon now" Kreines ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] eyemo question
Eyemos are essentially 35mm Filmos -- bulletproof but limited by short spring running time and lack of a decent viewfinder. 2 perf not a likely conversion though some might exist. You can find motorized crash-cam versions (someone in Vancouver used to make one) and some have Nikon mounts added, giving you affordable decent lenses. For an affordable camera that is anamorphic-friendly, and can be found in a Techniscope version (2 perf, but not fully across the film) the Arri 35 IIc is a good choice. Whlle the viewfinder has annoying baffles in it, it is reflex, and anamorphic viewfinder de-squeezers are available. The Techniscope version is the IIc/T. You probably want to find either a later version with Arri B mount (IIcB) or a hard-front version. But both cameras are noisy. Are you planning on finishing to film by printing, or digitally? 2-perf is very costly to finish photochemically unless you have an optical printer, 2-perf shuttle, and anamorphic printing lens. Unless you need to shoot long takes or a lot of film, anamorphic will be cheaper to finish. If you are finishing digitally, you might find that S16 works for you. Cameras are smaller, quieter, and cheap -- and the lenses are cheap unlike 35mm glass because a lot of that has been snapped up for Red and other large-sensor digital cameras. The best 35mm deal would IMHO be something like an older Arri 35BL -- quiet enough for sync shooting, better viewfinders, shoulder held (though heavy). Another alternative is the Eclair CM3 -- not quiet but you can often find them with a Nikon mount on one of the turret holes. Some versions could also shoot 2-perf and could shoot 16mm if you have all the right parts. I guess the real question to ask yourself is why 35mm? Jeff "not that there's anything wrong with that" Kreines Aew- On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:21 AM, Amanda Christie wrote: > Hey folks, > > I have a question about eyemo cameras... > > if I buy an eyemo camera will i likely be able to find anamorphic > lenses for it? any leads? > also... does anyone know if they can be machined or set up to shoot 2 > perf 35mm instead of 4 perf? > > just curious... > > also if anyone has experience shooting with eyemos and would like to > share thoughts on the camera, that would be most appreciated. > > > Amanda Dawn Christie > > 506-871-2062 > www.amandadawnchristie.ca > ama...@amandadawnchristie.ca > ___ > > > > ___ > 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] 16mm camera repair & parts
Not universally... On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:30 AM, carli...@aol.com wrote: > Well recommended. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] eyemo question
Nicholas: The Kinetta Archival Scanner can can UP8 at 3296 x 1178 at 12 bits, with no modifications needed. There is one at Pip's local post house, As'Image in Paris. I'm sure they'd be happy to scan some tests for you. Jeff "disclaimer: makes Kinetta Scanners" Kreines On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Nicholas Kovats wrote: > I have initiated a conversation with Bruce of the possibility of > converting an Eclair ACL to UltraPan8 format which utilizes a native > format with an aspect ratio = 2.8:1 > > Cheers! > > Nicholas ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] eyemo question
Nicholas: I have seen your UP8 scans. Recently we did some tests scanning older S8 film at different resolutions, and 16mm film too. This was to counter the prevailing wisdom that small formats don't benefit from scanning at high resolution. At the same time, a group in Switzerland, Memoriav, had published a dossier on small-format (to them this includes 16mm) digitizing. I wrote an illustrated response to that, including a lot of frame blow-ups from our tests. You can download it here: http://files.me.com/kinetta/tm1rri Note that it will download in the background -- then you can open the folder. Start with the PDF. Big download, but that's the only way to really see the difference. The bigger the monitor you have to look at it on, the better. Best, Jeff Kreines Kinetta PS: 24 bit depth in regards to sequential jpegs really means 8-bit x 3. On Oct 20, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Nicholas Kovats wrote: > Jeff. > > Your KAS scanner sounds fascinating. I cannot find any information on > the net regarding it's operation. Do you have a website? Have you > pulled off all your PDFs regarding your work for the Smithsonian? Is > your stated pixel dimensions close to 3, 3.5 or 4k resolution. We have > still not managed to capture all the incredible information latent in > 1 micron film particles. > > Are you under the impression I have not been able to scan my UP8 > footage? I have been getting 12 bit overscanned 2080x870 pixel x 24 > (bit depth) sequential jpegs from bitworks.org. John Gledhill utilizes > his own custom sprocketless 16mm transfer bay. I just received 12 bit > scans from framediscreet.com utlizing their custom sprocket driven > 16mm bay. Their deliverables included 2x stacked UP8 2.8:1 frames per > overscanned 16mm frame which I crop in Sony Vegas. > > Did you ever complete your 16/8mm desktop scanner projects? > > Cheers! > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Jesff Kreines > wrote: >> >> Nicholas: >> >> The Kinetta Archival Scanner can can UP8 at 3296 x 1178 at 12 bits, with no >> modifications needed. There is one at Pip's local post house, As'Image in >> Paris. I'm sure they'd be happy to scan some tests for you. >> >> Jeff "disclaimer: makes Kinetta Scanners" Kreines >> >> >> On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Nicholas Kovats wrote: >> >> >>> I have initiated a conversation with Bruce of the possibility of >>> converting an Eclair ACL to UltraPan8 format which utilizes a native >>> format with an aspect ratio = 2.8:1 >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> Nicholas >> ___ >> 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
[Frameworks] Kodak's Inkjet Foolishness...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/business/kodaks-bet-on-its-printers-fails-to-quell-the-doubters.html?hpw At least Eastman Kodak didn’t pin its latest turnaround effort on the fax machine. Just the same, as one securities analyst said, Wall Street worries that the once pre-eminent film company is jumping “from one buggy whip business to another.” Antonio M. Perez, Kodak’s chief executive, has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into transforming Kodak into a giant in the inkjet printer business, even as printouts are increasingly being replaced with electronic copies on computers, tablets and smartphones. “You will see that that business is going to be a gorgeous business for this company,” Mr. Perez told analysts in July. While it is difficult to know whether Mr. Perez’s strategy will succeed, two things are certain: Kodak is burning through a lot of cash to pursue it; and many investors are highly skeptical. Consumer inkjet revenue at Kodak grew 48 percent in the second quarter, but since the first of the year, Kodak shares have lost about three-quarters of their value. And in recent weeks, rumors about the company going bankrupt have been rife. The stock fell 2.4 percent to close at $1.24 on Thursday. Mr. Perez, who was named the chief executive in 2005, declined to comment for this article, citing the quiet period before the next earnings are announced on Nov. 3. Company officials deny that Kodak is considering a bankruptcy filing. A Kodak spokesman said that Mr. Perez had pursued inkjet printers because the company had “a treasure trove” of inkjet technology in its research and development unit and that the business was “well positioned for ongoing success.” “Our corporate strategy is focused on core strengths at the intersection of materials science and digital imaging science,” Christopher Veronda, the spokesman, said in an e-mail. “This is squarely in that arena.” In addition, Kodak officials said that inkjet printers were just part of a turnaround strategy that also included a focus on commercial printing, packaging and workplace software. Critics of Kodak’s direction are impatient. Gregg Abella, a co-principal at Investment Partners Asset Management, said he was tired of hearing Mr. Perez say the company would turn around in a year or two. And he questioned why the Kodak board had not been more assertive in steering Mr. Perez on a different course. “How on earth did the board listen to this guy for the past six years and not do anything about it?” Mr. Abella said. “There is an expectation when you buy into the stock or bonds of a Fortune 500 company that the board will respond to deteriorating financial conditions before it becomes nothing more than a call option on its intellectual property.” Chris Whitmore, the analyst who likened Kodak’s printer strategy to a buggy whip, said the company still had not recovered from its first misstep: its failure to fully embrace digital cameras after sales of Kodak’s signature yellow-box film collapsed. “The big story here is that their core business — the yellow box business — got cannibalized by the digital camera, which ironically they invented,” said Mr. Whitmore, who works at Deutsche Bank Securities. Mr. Perez is the latest Kodak chief executive to try to remake the company after its dominance in film was eroded by more nimble competitors and digital technology. A former Hewlett-Packard executive who lost the top job there to Carly Fiorina, Mr. Perez laid out a strategy that included closing film plants and refocusing the company. He leased out the company’s patent portfolio, which generated $1.9 billion from 2008 to 2010, to finance his turnaround efforts. And Mr. Perez poured money into businesses that he thought would eventually pay dividends, including consumer inkjet printers, in effect taking on his former employer, H.P. Mr. Perez rejected the traditional razor-blade model used by most printer manufacturers who offered relatively cheap printers and made their money on the ink. Instead, Kodak charged slightly higher prices for its printers and sold its ink relatively cheap. “We think it will give us an opportunity to disrupt the industry’s business model and address consumers’ main dissatisfaction: the cost of ink,” Mr. Perez told Businessweek in 2007. To date, Kodak’s consumer inkjet business has captured about 6 percent of the United States market, according to the market research firm IDC. In contrast, H.P. commands about 60 percent of the market, which is expected to remain relatively flat or even decline. “Technologically, I think the product is fine,” said Marco Boer, a vice president for I.T. Strategies, a digital printing market research firm. “But is it going to save Kodak? Even if inkjet was a phenomenal success, I am not sure if any company could grow that business fast enough to offset declines in Kodak’s other businesses.” Ken Luskin, a disgruntled Kodak investor
Re: [Frameworks] Perfs
Wouldn't it be easier to modify the device that requires double-perf film -- assume it is an optical printer or projector -- to accept single perf film? Far less traumatic to the film.? It would be difficult to design a reperforator because film shrinks at different rates, as does the size of the perforation. On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Myron Ort wrote: > Anyone know of an accessible tool, machine, or service whereby I can > add a set of perforations to 16mm single-perforated prints , thus > rendering them double-perforated ? ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Kodak's Inkjet Foolishness...
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-apple-ceo-tim-cook-im-thinking-printers,21207/___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Digitizing Super 8 at proper resolution
There is a common belief -- which, like a lot of common wisdom should be looked at skeptically -- that small format film lacks enough useful "information" to require scanning at resolutions greater than pillarboxed HD (1080 x 1440) or cropped HD (1080 x 1920). Some feel that for Super-8 and 8mm, NTSC, PAL, and 720P are, in the words of an engineer I know, "good enough." But I don't think anyone really tested this properly -- they just said what seemed logical enough to them. It's fine to say "that looks pretty good at 1080 x 1440" but those who say this probably did not try scanning the same film at higher resolutions to see if there was an appreciable difference. I did some simple tests, and honestly was quite surprised at the results. Even when the final release format is HD or less, the advantages of high resolution scans are obvious. I put together a little PDF you can download, with both Super-8 and grainy 16mm samples scanned at different resolutions. It was written in response to a report by the Swiss group Memoriav, which was doing tests of small format (for them this includes 16mm) scanning. Here's a link: http://db.tt/iriz5nyY Here are links to full-res TIFFs of the files used -- zoom in on them and see what you are losing with lower resolution scans. Note that the files are mostly over 20MB each, so don't try this on your cell phone. http://db.tt/8cw0YUXU http://db.tt/xizfMgLq http://db.tt/VvwuPSog http://db.tt/LR0Phcy2 http://db.tt/BofN5ls8 http://db.tt/aPXrsxAf http://db.tt/JSC7Vf2C http://db.tt/SGYbJiWb http://db.tt/X1flduqJ Let me know what you think. Jeff Kreines On Dec 23, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Ken Paul Rosenthal wrote: > Kevin, > > For future reference, if you simply digitize your super 8 upfront at: Pro > Rez 422 HQ 1080p, 1920x1080, 23.98 fps, > you'll be entirely up to spec and not need to do any converting for your > timeline. Furthermore, digitizing to a > compressed file will allow you to easily edit without freezing up your > system. As for projection quality, I've been > on the road for a year a half with Crooked Beauty--which was transferred on > the above specs--and have seen > it projected on a the best (and worst) systems, the former in a huge theater > on a commercial sized screen > and it looked stunning. I spent 3 months researching tech options, and the > consensus from all the folks I consulted > with was that uncompressed is overkill for super 8 because the frame size > only contains so much 'information'. > So spend the money upfront during the transfer (I highly recommend sitting in > with owner/operator Phil Vigeant at > Pro 8) and it will be smooth sailing down the line. > > Ken > www.crookedbeautythefilm.com (Academic) > www.crookedbeauty.com (Public) > www.kenpaulrosenthal.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 Digital Transfers - Amended -- correction
On Dec 31, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Ken Paul Rosenthal wrote: "... I believe Jeff is involved with frame by frame scanning which indeed is capable of producing the greatest resolution, thus it is ideal for archiving. His knowledge and experience in that area is much appreciated. But while I would have preferred frame by frame scanning, I was not interested in sifting through--and scratching--over 150 rolls of shot super 8 to choose which shots I wanted to scan. I preferred the more fluid process of going straight from the processing lab to the transfer center, where I sat in with the operator and decided right then and there if I wanted a particular shot. ..." Ken, this is not the case. The Kinetta Archival Scanner is a continuous scanner, with no sprockets, that scans at up to 16 fps at 3.3K resolution and up to 32 fps at 2.3K. Do not confuse it with projector-based frame-by-frame devices or optical-printer-based devices. Look at the picture on the last page of the PDF, and note the threading path. It is designed to scan extremely shrunken or damaged film without causing any further damage. No grading choices are baked in during scanning, so you have complete freedom to non-destructively color-correct your scans later, unlike telecine transfers. That said, there is nothing "wrong" with an HD telecine scan if it fits your needs, and I certainly was not criticizing your carefully-researched choices. The point of the tests I did was to find out if the conventional wisdom -- that HD transfers capture everything worth capturing from grainy Super-8 originals -- was correct. Turns out it was not. A Happy New Year to everyone on Frameworks! Jeff___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] 16mm stills in LA
I was recently recanning a large amount of 16mm reversal original, and wanted to capture frames just to get a sense of what was on each roll. I had a cheap Panasonic Lumix camera with macro capability, and found that if it was 32mm (two 16mm cores) from the film over a lightbox I could get surprisingly decent frame blowups. Don't add a loupe, just find any digital still camera that has a macro mode and decent lens. This one was under $150 at Costco a year ago. Leitz-branded lens, not that it was made in Wetzlar. You can use the cores to align the lens, which is very simple and fast. Good luck! Jeff Kreines On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:02 PM, mariah garnett wrote: > Hey guys > does anyone have any good solutions for making photographic prints off 16mm > film? I talked to fotokep about it and it's kinda pricey. Any home-made > solutions? like a loupe on the lens of a 35mm still camera type of thing? > trying to avoid both optical printing and scanning digitally. > > -- > > ___ > 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] 16mm stills in LA
The Cinelarger and Duplikin are total pieces of junk. Don't waste your time. On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Myron Ort wrote: > http://www.ebay.com/sch/? > _nkw=cinelarger&clk_rvr_id=304125622581&mfe=search > > > On Jan 3, 2012, at 10:02 AM, mariah garnett wrote: > >> Hey guys >> does anyone have any good solutions for making photographic prints >> off 16mm film? I talked to fotokep about it and it's kinda pricey. >> Any home-made solutions? like a loupe on the lens of a 35mm still >> camera type of thing? trying to avoid both optical printing and >> scanning digitally. >> >> -- >> >> ___ >> 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] push processing advice needed
Processing reversal as negative in this case is not a good idea for one simple reason: Underexposed reversal is dense, and you can push light through it. Underexposed negative is nearly clear, and you can't do much with it. Pushing over two stops is likely only going to decrease the d-max which will not help you. Long ago we tested a 5-stop push on 7242, which pushed 3 tops very nicely. But there's a limit for each stock, and after that the blacks just thin out. That will make it less likely to be able to print up the dense original. Find a lab that does a true two-stop push (some have been known to push everything 1.5 stops for convenience) and then see what you have. If there was really no light at all you may not have anything useful on the film. If you are lucky, there might be an image that can be recovered to some degree. But sadly, it ain't magic! Jeff Kreines On Jan 8, 2012, at 10:18 AM, andrew lennox wrote: > hey charles, > > are you processing it as a reversal or negative? i think as a reversal the > tri-x only has one stop of latitude on either side of the characteristic > curve. I think you will gain a little more latitude by processing negativc > and then maybe pull a little more from an vid xfer of that neg. try negative > custom lab. i think they will push it as much as you want. > > good luck, > > andrew > > From: charles chadwick > To: Experimental Film Discussion List > Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2012 9:25:53 AM > Subject: [Frameworks] push processing advice needed > > Hi all. I have some b+w super8 that I need to push process. It was shot in > really dark conditions, so I need to find a lab that will push it to its > maximum. I don't care so much about cost. Most of the labs I've looked at do > a 2-stop max. Does anyone know of any that do more? Any help is appreciated. > Thanks. > > -charles > > -- > Check my myspace page for my streaming films and info - > www.myspace.com/chadwickfilms > or facebook for updates on my upcoming screenings, etc. - > www.facebook.com/chadwickfilms > > > ___ > 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] Negative Cutter
While I have always felt you should cut your own negative, since you are on the east coast, Noelle Penraat is very good. She still does projects, but now works at home since there is a lot less negative cutting being done. She's in NYC, probably in the phone book. On Feb 6, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Alex wrote: > I'm in Philadelphia. > > Alex > > On Feb 6, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Ryan Marino wrote: > >> Where are you located? >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Alex wrote: >> Also I want to send them a workprint to work off of. >> >> Alex >> >> On Feb 6, 2012, at 4:33 PM, Alex wrote: >> >> > Hey, >> > >> > I'm looking to be recomended a good negative cutter. >> > >> > Thanks a lot, >> > Alex >> ___ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >> >> >> >> -- >> www.ryanmarino.com >> www.imminentfrequencies.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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Full Coat Mag Reader?
On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:52 PM, info wrote: > We recently acquired a collection of approximately 50 hours of 16mm neg > films with matching full coat mag elements. > We can transfer the film elements in house but need a full coat reader we > can record from and later synch up the sound with picture. Stephen: Just curious as to what you are using to transfer 16mm negative in-house. I was gobsmacked when someone on another list was running negative on an Elmo, which would render those negatives pretty unusable. Obviously you aren't doing that. You can often find 16mm dubbers on eBay, but remember you will need something that can be locked to either your scanner/telecine, or to video black. Later stepper-drive Magnatechs (model numbers have 4 digits except for the 636A and B) are an affordable choice, but you will need an external box to reference them to video black, or a shaft encoder to slave them to your transfer device if you are going to a video format (vs. files from a scanner). Otherwise you will have sync drift. Best, Jeff Kreines ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] digitizing 8mm and S8 mm
Forgive me for reposting something from 3 months ago, but I think it is important to think about scanning resolution vs. output resolution. Small formats actually benefit more than formats like 35mm from high resolution scanning, because they have a much higher amount of grain in a frame, and if that grain isn't resolved, it looks quite mushy. Remember, grain is the soul of the emulsion. A couple of recent films with a large amount of Super-8 footage that are headed for (probably digital) theatrical releases had their S8 footage scanned on a Kinetta Archival Scanner. "Ricky on Leacock" was scanned at As'Image in Paris, and "Our Nixon" will be scanned this month at the Nixon Library in glorious Yorba Linda, California. These are all being scanned at 12-bit, 3296 x 2472 resolution (or overscanned inside of that res). The scanner has the ability to capture the full dynamic range of reversal original or prints, as well as negative stock. It can handle extremely damaged film without having to repair perfs before scanning. No sprockets, and the ability to frame the image as desired, like an optical printer. It also has an extremely bright but cool light source that is great for dealing with underexposed footage without adding any electronic noise. While many of these scanners are in archives and not available for public use, there are a few that are available to anyone. One is at As'Image in Paris (thanks, Pip, for that!), Shai Drori in Israel is getting his shipped this week, and VTC in San Francisco is getting their machine this month. There will also be a machine available for rent in Boston in a few weeks. There is a big difference between scanners, telecines, and projector-based "film chains." Scanners capture data at high bit-depth and resolution, and the files are usable for anything from 4K digital cinema masters to web videos (and everything else in between. Telecines are video-centric, and the files are captured to tape or disk in SD or HD video formats. This means silent footage has either repeated or blended frames when converted to 23.976 or 25 or 29.97 fps. Film chains are typically a video camera and projector wedded in an unholy alliance. OK, the old note, with links to frames at various resolutions, follows. Jeff Kreines Kinetta jeff@kinetta Disclaimer: I designed and build Kinetta scanners. There is a common belief -- which, like a lot of common wisdom should be looked at skeptically -- that small format film lacks enough useful "information" to require scanning at resolutions greater than pillarboxed HD (1080 x 1440) or cropped HD (1080 x 1920). Some feel that for Super-8 and 8mm, NTSC, PAL, and 720P are, in the words of an engineer I know, "good enough." But I don't think anyone really tested this properly -- they just said what seemed logical enough to them. It's fine to say "that looks pretty good at 1080 x 1440" but those who say this probably did not try scanning the same film at higher resolutions to see if there was an appreciable difference. I did some simple tests, and honestly was quite surprised at the results. Even when the final release format is HD or less, the advantages of high resolution scans are obvious. I put together a little PDF you can download, with both Super-8 and grainy 16mm samples scanned at different resolutions. It was written in response to a report by the Swiss group Memoriav, which was doing tests of small format (for them this includes 16mm) scanning. Here's a link: http://db.tt/iriz5nyY Here are links to full-res TIFFs of the files used -- zoom in on them and see what you are losing with lower resolution scans. Note that the files are mostly over 20MB each, so don't try this on your cell phone. http://db.tt/8cw0YUXU http://db.tt/xizfMgLq http://db.tt/VvwuPSog http://db.tt/LR0Phcy2 http://db.tt/BofN5ls8 http://db.tt/aPXrsxAf http://db.tt/JSC7Vf2C http://db.tt/SGYbJiWb http://db.tt/X1flduqJ Let me know what you think. Jeff Kreines___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Oxbery Animation Stand Expert Needed
George Fardy at The Design Shop in Newton Mass is very good. On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Jay Hudson wrote: > Hello: > > The Millennium film Workshop has an Oxberry Animation stand that > needs repair. Would anyone know of people familiar with this? > Preferable someone in new york, but I would appreciate the opportunity > to speak with someone via phone just to get a sense of what i going on > with the stand. > > thanks, > Jay Hudson > ___ > 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] humorous experimental films
Tom Palazzolo's films are hilarious -- my favorites being early ones like America's in Real Trouble, The Bride Stripped Bare, Your Astronauts, etc. > >> Framerworkers! >> >> I'd love to pick your brains. I'm interested to watch more (& learn more >> about) experimental films that are humorous. Either through physical >> comedy, sly wordplay/visual combinations, hilarious imagery or anything that >> has hit your funny bone... I'd love to hear your recommendations. I prefer >> shorts (less than 20min), but am equally excited about funny moments/scenes >> in feature length experimental works as well. >> >> Thanks so much! >> Connie Colvin >> >> ___ >> 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] homemade video copies of 16mm
Since you are in the Mission, you might consider getting a proper scan of your film instead of subjecting it to a projector and camcorder. Note that you will be getting a video with combined fields that often blend two frames together -- and unlike a conventional telecine with real 3:2 pulldown the cadence isn't locked to anything and will drift. Buck Bito and Jennifer Miko run the Video Transfer Center on Van Ness -- they are relocating in a couple of weeks and will have a new, far better name. They do excellent work in any format -- 8mm, S8, 9.5mm, 16mm, S16, 17.5mm, 28mm, and 35mm. Disclosure: they have a shiny new Kinetta Archival Scanner, which I make. Jeff Kreines Kinetta On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:18 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote: > They're called telecine projectors. There were some made as 5 blade versions > originally, others converted after the fact. Mostly they're based on Elmos, a > few on Singer/Telex. Search 'telecine' on eBay. I have one I could sell you > inexpensively BUT I live in CT and the shipping would be ridonculous > > Since you're in The Mission, why don't you ask Craig B. is he has one you can > borrow or rent, or knows where to get one? > > ___ > 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] homemade video copies of 16mm
If you plan to work on these films from your homemade HD video transfers, you do NOT want to transfer them to 29.97 fps via a telecine projector. The resulting footage will be filled with blended frames making editing difficult. Instead find a cheap used HD camcorder that does 24P -- lots of Canons do this. You could find one that won't record to tape (broken transport) and just record to computer via FireWire. It will probably cost less than getting a new projector since a conventional projector will do (won't be perfect, you may get occasional frame drift) but it will be better than a telecine projector by far. If all you want are rough viewing copies then telecine at 29.97 will be ok. But don't let the fact you own a particular Sony camcorder determine how you make these rough copies. Good luck! On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:14 PM, "k. a.r." wrote: > Thanks, I will have to look for a telecine I guess, > > What I am doing, and I should have clarified earlier, is trying to make some > digital copies from my 16mm "found" footage collection, > certain films from my collection that I use in the Electric Mural Project. > > I have over 500 films, > so paying anyone for any kind of professional transfer is extremely > impossible. > > There are some films that I want to share with other people, and also I have > realized that I will probably never make art with an actual film optical > printer again > ( heartbreaking thought ) > so I wanted to make some digital copies to work with on the computer, to see > if I could make some moving visuals art again. > > That's it. thanks every one for the advice. > > Kristie > > > > > Kristie Reinders, B.F.A. > Director of Cinematography, Electric Visions > Curator and Head Projectionist, Electric Mural Project > The Mission, San Francisco, CA > > 'A first class technician should work best under pressure.' > - - - Issac Asimov > > > From: djte...@gmail.com > > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:21:03 -0400 > > To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com > > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] homemade video copies of 16mm > > > > To clarify, the OP requested advice on a cheapo projector-and-camcorder > > transfer. > > > > There are lots of reasons for people to do this, especially with work in > > progress. It might even be considered a video work-print. However, for > > serious work shot in film that is going to be distributed in digital form, > > a proper scan is the way to go. k.a.r may not be at that point yet, or may > > have a different purpose in mind. In no way did I mean to suggest that > > telecine-by-projection is a substitute for a proper scan. It's not. > > > > Of course, a lot depends on the aesthetic strategies involved. People go > > lo-fi for a reason, with everything from Super-8 to Pixelvision to funky > > compressed Quicktimes. A DIY telecine could be fine for certain limited > > kinds of things - including the transfer of already 'distressed' archival > > material to be included in a doco. But if you see the work in your > > mind's-eye as lovely rich filmic imagery, (generally transfers of film you > > shot yourself) trying to save the cost of a scan is penny-wise and > > results-foolish. > > > > Though I have no personal experience with Bito and Miko, or Kinetta > > transfers, I trust Jeff's unquestioned expertise in these matters, and were > > I in need of a scan, I would be eager to investigate any suggestion he > > would have. > > > > On Jun 23, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Jeff Kreines wrote: > > > > > Since you are in the Mission, you might consider getting a proper scan of > > > your film instead of subjecting it to a projector and camcorder. Note > > > that you will be getting a video with combined fields that often blend > > > two frames together -- and unlike a conventional telecine with real 3:2 > > > pulldown the cadence isn't locked to anything and will drift. > > > > > > Buck Bito and Jennifer Miko run the Video Transfer Center on Van Ness -- > > > they are relocating in a couple of weeks and will have a new, far better > > > name. They do excellent work in any format -- 8mm, S8, 9.5mm, 16mm, S16, > > > 17.5mm, 28mm, and 35mm. > > > > > > Disclosure: they have a shiny new Kinetta Archival Scanner, which I make. > > > > > > Jeff Kreines > > > Kinetta > > > > ___ > > 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] Interesting (?) Question
On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:03 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote: > With that equipment list, the premise just doesn't work very well. The heyday > of value for 16mm post stuff probably starts to poop out circa 1975, so it > wasn't that expensive by 1980, and some of it is still used by people who > deal with prints. So what were people editing 16mm film circa 1975? Avids? FCP? 3/4" video? 16mm films were being edited on 16mm film until non-linear editing could deal with matchback to film. (I am not including things that were intended for video only -- some of them were edited offline on 3/4" video and then onlined to 1" tape.) There wasn't an alternative that made sense. Offline linear video editing was an awful thing -- every time you trimmed a frame you had to reassemble everything after that cut. Slow, messy, ugly. Give me a trim bin any day. Steenbecks were still in serious use until the early to mid 1990s, when Avids, Media 100s, and other NLEs came along. Upright Moviolas never were desirable in 16mm, though in 35mm they had virtues. However they still sold for $1000-2000 to those who either didn't know better or had no other alternatives. Agree that Moviola flatbeds sucked, though the M77's built-in ashtray and avocado-green body were truly echt-70s. Of course there were also Showchrons, CPs, KEMs, Cinemontas, Intercines, and some other weird ones (the kit you could get from someone in Virginia among them). Jeff "still has a Steenbeck" Kreines ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] SD film transfer
Buck and Jennifer do excellent work, and now have a shiny new Kinetta Archival Scanner. They are moving (a few blocks away) and changing their name soon: http://movettesf.com/ Highly recommended. Jeff Kreines *disclaimer -- I make Kinetta scanners On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:28 PM, charles chadwick wrote: > Yeah, I've had them do stuff for me before, with good results. I was > considering using them again. Thanks for the vote of confidence. > > -charles > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Christian Bruno > wrote: > Hello Charles, > > I'd recommend Video Transfer Center in SF (http://vtc-sf.com/). They have > been doing some amazing work with small gauge lately, and can output files, > including Prores. I just got some Regular 8 back from them recently, and it > is pretty tremendous. And affordable! They have some fancy scanners and tons > of know-how and a dedication to small gauge formats. > > Christian > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:00:22 -0700 > From: infiltration...@gmail.com > To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com > Subject: [Frameworks] SD film transfer > > > Hey, can anyone recommend a good and cost-effective SD film transfer? For > super8? Looking for suggestions...thanks. The end product would ideally be > 4:3 aspect ratio, either to a file or tape. > > -charles > > ___ 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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] EIKI Xenon repair
Rick Ballard does great work, knows Eiki and B&H machines very well, has parts, and is reasonably priced. Worth shipping to him (though he's local for me). On Aug 7, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Bernard Roddy wrote: > > Steve: > > A timely request. > > I shipped Rick Ballard our EIKI Xenon projector. He's in Alabama (334 > 834-9238). > > And I've also been looking for the Xenon bulb replacement for this EIKI. > > It looks like the lamp is type ELC, but the best chance of finding one, > ( http://www.8mm16mmfilmscollectibles.com/proj.htm) can't help. > > I downloaded what I think is the manual for it (the EIKI SL-II series), but > it actually says it includes repair, adjustment, and maintenance "except for > the Xenon lamp supply." > > > Bernie > > > ___ > 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] finishing on 35mm vs 16mm vs HD?
What format are you shooting? 16? Super-16? Super-8? 35? Video? You can finish digitally -- not HD -- and from there go to either film (typically 35mm) or HD or 2K DCP easily from any format. The trick is, for film, to scan at a resolution greater than HD, especially for small formats. Makes a huge difference. As for the quality of 35mm film outs from HD, note that a large percentage of Hollywood films are now shot digitally, often with HD (as opposed to 4K) resolution. That doesn't mean it's in any way superior to film, but it can be perfectly good to most viewers. The big question is where you will be showing this film -- if it is museums and archives, any film format is ok, but, depressingly, film projection is beginning to disappear, or the equipment is not maintained because of lack of use. Jeff Kreines Kinetta kinetta.com j...@kinetta.com On Sep 3, 2012, at 10:15 AM, ev petrol wrote: > hey folks > applying for a grant that asks for an exhibition strategy; I'd thought of > budgeting to finish on 35mm but they suggested that might limit the > exhibition potential of the film ... have a feeling that might apply to 16mm > as well & maybe I should budget to finish on HD (sigh) if I want to convince > them to cough up > what do you think? > cheers moira > > moiratierney.net > vimeo.com/moiratierney > ___ > 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] Two reviews on experimental film
On Sep 28, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote: > So, given that he's several years into a PhD program, I'm sure he has a high > tolerance for pendants like me. He's wearing one now. Jeff Kreines Kinetta kinetta.com j...@kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Hi-8 deck/repair
On Oct 3, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Tony Conrad wrote: > SOLUTION: > > Buy a couple of Hi-8 camcorders. Better solution: buy a Digital-8 camcorder (has to be a higher model number) that can play back 8mm and Hi-8 tapes via FireWire. These apparently give better results than any analog decks, according to tests by Wilson Chao, who had to do this for some broadcast stuff a while back. Jeff Kreines Kinetta kinetta.com j...@kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Nixon White House Home Movies at MoMA October 28th
A few months ago, I spent a couple of weeks in the research room at the Nixon Presidential Library scanning over 22,000 feet of Super-8 Nixon White House Home Movies, shot by H.R. Haldeman, Dwight Chapin, and others. The scans were made for Brian Frye and Penny Lane's upcoming film "OUR NIXON." Brian and Penny will be showing excerpts from their film, as well as raw camera rolls, at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC on October 28th. It's a good chance to see this unseen footage, and to see 3.3K scans of Super-8 (made with a Kinetta Archival Scanner) on the big screen. Jeff Kreines Kinetta kinetta.com j...@kinetta.com FILM SCREENINGS & EVENTS The White House Home Movies: Richard Nixon on Super-8 Andy Warhol and Jonas Mekas were not the only “amateur” filmmakers who embarked on open-ended home-movie epics during the 1960s. As President Richard Nixon tape-recorded his conversations for posterity, so his devoted aides—H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and Dwight Chapin—shot hundreds of rolls of Super-8 film documenting the historic moments and everyday occurrences of the Nixon presidency. Official banquets, parades, ceremonial balls, campaign rallies, and world-historic state visits “become mere episodes in one man’s life, rather than political events.” This special—dare we say, historic?—program includes a selection of raw camera rolls, several restored sequences (among them Nixon’s 1972 trip to China), and excerpts from Brian Frye and Penny Lane’s work-in-progress Our Nixon, and features a conversation with the filmmakers and Nixon’s chronicler, Dwight Chapin, moderated by J. Hoberman. Program approx. 90 min. Sunday, October 28, 2012, 6:30 p.m., Theater 2, T2 (Presented by Dwight Chapin, Brian Frye, Penny Lane; moderated by J. Hoberman) moma.org/visit/calendar/films/1325 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Film Scanning
A large archival film scanning project was just put back a couple of months, so I am available to do high-resolution (3.3K) film scanning projects from any format film (8mm to 35mm) with discounts to Frameworks list members. We can scan extremely damaged and shrunken film. You can see some of my recent Super-8 scans of Nixon White House home movies at MoMA in NYC this Sunday, October 28th, as well as in the recent film Ricky on Leacock. There's also some clips and information available at kinetta.com. Sorry for this semi-commercial interruption! Please reply off-list to j...@kinetta.com. Jeff Kreines Kinetta kinetta.com j...@kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Exposure question
If you are shooting color film, note that monitors are usually balanced at about 6500 degrees kelvin, which is essentially "daylight" -- so use a daylight-balanced film. Also I would use a shutter speed of 1/30th in case there are any field-issues depending on the video source (interlaced or progressive). Probably doesn't matter but can't hurt. Test! On Nov 1, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Lawrence Brose wrote: > Thank you Scott. He will be shooting a paused frame from a video so > flickering will not be an issue. I think that bracketing is a great > suggestion. > > Thanks for your response. > > Lawrence > > > On 11/1/12 9:26 PM, "Scott Dorsey" wrote: > > > The problem used to be that meters read too high because the CRT flickered > > and > > the meter read peak and not average light value. But now we live in the LCD > > age, and the LCDs don't flicker the same way, so you can pretty much trust > > meter exposures off an LCD. Also you can put your reflected light meter > > against an LCD without fear of magnetizing the screen as would happen with > > CRTs. I'd still bracket a stop either way but the LCD makes this much > > easier. > > You can even film off an LCD without too much > > flicker. --scott ___ FrameWorks > > mailing > > list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listi > > nfo/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 splices / transfers
Moira: Super-8 framelines vary a lot, and splices will jump because they are never perfect. The best and simplest way to deal with this is to scan more than the frame itself -- to overscan the image enough that any jump doesn't cause you to lose any of the image. Then it's a simple matter to reposition the offending frames vertically so that they are in the right place. This is very easy to do in most editing software on Mac and PC, and also using the free version of DaVinci Resolve 9. Of course, you need to scan at a high enough resolution so that you are not reducing quality when you crop the image back to its normal size. Kinetta scans at 3296 x 2472, so there's plenty of latitude for reframing. You might want to download this for more information: http://db.tt/5SlAVkbT I am offering scans at a discount to Frameworks folks this month. Best, Jeff Kreines Kinetta On Nov 15, 2012, at 3:42 PM, ev petrol wrote: > Hey folks > I've been running into some problems getting a spliced super 8 film > transferred; the frameline fluctuates wildly after the splices (in one case > shifting upwards for the duration of the shot) - has anyone else encountered > this? Any tips? > cheers all round > Moira > > moiratierney.net > vimeo.com/moiratierney > ___ > 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] What film out/film recorder services are available in the Toronto area?
Nicholas: The resolution and bit depth of your files are a bit low, IMHO. The higher resolution the scan, the better the output, whatever res it is. Jeff Kreines Kinetta kinetta.com j...@kinetta.com On Dec 2, 2012, at 7:15 PM, Nicholas Kovats wrote: > Hi Scott, > > Thank you for the great insights and I am now convinced that the 16mm > film out is the way to go. Yes, Cinebyte was on my list but I was > initially leery of approaching them. But your specifics regarding > "...unattended transfer to color intermediate negative >> and then a one-light print.." is the way to go and I will "haggle" >> accordingly. > > Are you familiar with any of the staff? > > Regards, > > Nicholas > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: >> You will actually find the filmout to 16mm will look better than a filmout >> to the same super-8 stock will, regardless of the originating format. In >> fact, you will find that a filmout to 35mm might even look better and not >> cost all that much more. >> >> In Canada, I think Cinebyte has an Arrilaser machine. You may find some >> folks with the older one-line CRT systems which, if properly maintained, >> can actually look very good. However, the speed of the Arrilaser means >> a lot of companies are willing to do small jobs very cheaply just to keep >> the machines running. >> >> Since all you need is an unattended transfer to color intermediate negative >> and then a one-light print, you can probably do some dickering on a small >> job. >> --scott >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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] new critical studies film course in car culture
Obvious, but two films made right before their directors ruined Hollywood filmmaking: Sugarland Express American Graffiti Of course Kustom Kar Kommandos, too. Jeff Kreines Kinetta kinetta.com j...@kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] voyeurism / street photography in exp cinema
On Jan 27, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Joel Wanek wrote: > Chuck, Helen Levitt's still camera was nothing specially design to > trick people. She used an eyepiece that is not unlike many of the > optical viewfinders that folks attach to DSLRs today. But, it did allow > her to point her body in a different direction, away from her subjects, > while she shot. These were fairly common accessories back in the 40s -- right angle finders -- check the ads in old issues of Popular Photography. There was a somewhat odd emphasis on "candid" photography which translated into sneak shooting. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] voyeurism / street photography in exp cinema
Joel: These finders are different from the later right angle finders -- they usually were designed for Leica rangefinder cameras and were fixed in orientation, so you looked into the side of the camera. They didn't use the camera's finder. There was also a waist level finder called the DeMornay-Budd that was a bit like a TLR finder you looked down into. Personally, I prefer cameras that do not hide the fact you are shooting. On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Joel Wanek wrote: > interesting, Jeff. perhaps the marketing > of it was different than the intention for > inventing it. from what i've always understood, > they were designed to photograph at strange > angles or when the camera was lower/higher > than comfortable for the eye. in an interview > i read once, levitt referred to it as a 'winkelsucher' > which translates (i think) to angle seeker/finder. > > what's interesting now, as digital photography > and cinema tools have become one, is how > one can be shooting video with a camera that > looks like it is strictly for stills. so, one > can attain candid footage in a different > (easier, perhaps?) way than with motion picture film > cameras. > > Joel > > > > > > > www.joelwanek.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] historically informed experimental films
Bruce Conner's Report Jeff Kreines Kinetta kinetta.com j...@kinetta.com On Feb 23, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Shelly Silver wrote: > small lies, Big Truth > (the starr report) > > On Feb 23, 2013, at 12:19 PM, matt's frameworks address wrote: > >> Hello Frameworkers, >> >> After reading Manohla Dargis' piece this morning in the NY Times about the >> recent crop of historically informed features coming out of Hollywood (link >> below), it got me thinking about historically informed experimental works. >> Works by Travis Wilkerson, Lynn Sacks, Craig Baldwin and Harun Farocki >> immediately jumped to mind, but of course there are many, many others. This >> is an interesting slice of the experimental filmmaking sphere- not simply >> non-fiction works, but films directly dealing with or referencing a specific >> historic event or topic that is at some level in the common record >> (therefore I am not including personal/diary type films in this query). >> Essentially, films that could be 'fact checked' and held up to some level of >> scrutiny, but simultaneously still clearly artistic/experimental works. >> >> If anyone is aware of any articles or texts of the subject, as well as other >> films/filmmakers to suggest, I'd love to hear people's thoughts. >> >> Thanks! >> >> -Matt >> >> NYTimes article: >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/movies/awardsseason/the-history-in-lincoln-argo-and-zero-dark-thirty.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp >> >> >> >> >> -- >> --- >> www.rodeofilmco.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 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Film Scanning in NYC
I will be in NYC next week (and possibly beyond) doing high resolution film scans with a Kinetta Archival Scanner. (For more information go to kinetta.com) I can scan any format from 8mm to 35mm, including 9.5mm, 17.5mm, and 28mm, at a resolution of 3296 x 2472 (about 5x the resolution of HD). Kinetta's Hypergamma technology makes it possible to scan the most contrasty prints or reversal original without sacrificing highlights or shadow detail. Special rates for Frameworks subscribers. Email me offlist at j...@kinetta.com if you have any questions. Best, Jeff Jeff Kreines Kinetta kinetta.com j...@kinetta.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
