Re: [Frameworks] films on film-making/unfinished films
Living In Oblivion: the makers don't play themselves, but at least some of the characters are based on the makers. One P. M. (Leacock, Pennebaker, Godard) Then there's the whole genre of documentaries beginning with a set-up of the makers stating an (ostensible) intent to make a certain kind of film, after which we see them failing at that and coming up with something else in the process: Nick Broomfield's Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer and Kurt and Courtney; Greggorio Rocha's Lost Reels of Pancho Villa, Waiting for Fidel (the grandaddy of the form), and, of course, Roger and Me. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Suyash Barve suyashba...@gmail.com wrote: hello all, i am looking for reference titles that fall within the genre of films made on unfinished films/films coming apart/film that is being shot or in prodcution. the film we are watching is actually about the makers who are playing themselves but are also characters in the film. the film that they are putting together could be just fragments of a scene being shot or a location recce being planned and need not be a conclusive/meaningful film in itself. the film that is being made acts as the bridge to enter the world of the criss-crossing destinies, interesting back-stories and character detail of the film-makers who are playing themselves on and off camera and who have been brought together because of the film. the lines between docu and fiction are blurred so to speak and the director is exploring the on and off camera dynamics between characters and situations. some of the titles we have in mind are : through the olive trees - abbas kiarostami salaam cinema - mohsen makhmalbaf contempt - j-l godard (although this one has a very different outcome, the film within a film and the characters are consistent with the reference titles we are trying to source) mary - abel ferrera a cock and bull story - michael winterbottom thank you for your time and effort to read through this notice. looking forward to getting some responses! S ___ 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] tableau vivante : experimental film and single frames
Rebekka: It would help if you could explain your ideas some, e.g. I am particularly interested in any examples of filmmakers that were investigating the tableau vivant as a reference to a film frame and not to a painting. What characteristics do you imagine any such references might display? Hypothetical examples if not actual? A Living Painting would seem to be the inverse of cinema. It mimes a static two-dimensional framed artwork, but does so in three-dimensional space and real time that may be absent any physical frame. It's defining characteristic is absence of motion where we would normally expect motion to be. Even presented on a proscenium stage, the 3D and temporality of a Living Painting allows it to be perceived from multiple points of view by a single spectator. Cinema, of course, presents the camera frame POV to all spectators, and employs static 2D images to create representations of movement through time. It also ay employ sound and editing to create off screen space outside the frame.It's defining characteristic is movement where we would normally expect movement to be (i.e. a picture displayed on a wall). However, Wikipedia references the practice of tableax vivant as pre-cinematic: a professionally produced series of *tableaux* presented on a theatre stage, one following another, usually to tell a story without requiring all the usual trappings of a live theatre performance. They thus 'educated' their audience to understand the form taken by later Victorian and Edwardian era magic lantern shows, and perhaps also sequential narrative comic strips. So are you looking for films that somehow reference an INDIVIDUAL Living Painting, or the tableax vivant form of a sequence of static poses? In the former case especially, would you be considering films or sequences that include minimal movements within otherwise static frames, or introduce movement as a form of surprise after establishing a form of statis? Does your definition of tableau-vivant-in-film restrict you to scenes in which human figures are the central subjects of the composition, or would 'moving still lifes' like J.J. Murphy's Highway Landscape or Peter Hutton films count? What role does editing play, especially changes of camera perspective within the same screen space? Would the tableau-vivant-in-film need to be a long take or series of long takes? Granting I have no clue what the specific targets may be, a few titles pop into my head in response to vague suggestion: Warhol: Vinyl. Benning: One Way Boogie-Woogie, 11x14. Rubin: Christmas On Earth. Conner: Marilyn Times 5. Frampton: (nostalgia), Poetic Justice. Mulvey/Wollen: Riddles of the Sphinx. Sharits: T.O.U.C.H.I.N.G, Piece Mandala. Shiomi: Disappearing Music For Face And, of course, anything involving Jack Smith, including the performances, which is to say every waking moment of his adult life. On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Jared Ashburn ashburn.ja...@gmail.com wrote: Warhol: Haircut, Sleep, Beauty #2 and portions of Chelsea Girls. Jack Smith's Flaming Creatures would be good too. On Oct 6, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Gene Youngblood ato...@comcast.net wrote: Some of these are probably stretching too far, others I think qualify... Some Warhol Certain moments in Kenneth Anger Geography of the Body Fragments of Etoile de Mer and The Seashell and the Clergyman fragments of Christopher MacLaine’s The End James Broughton, The Golden Positions Cocteau, Blood of a Poet James Herbert’s nudes parts of Joan Jonas’ I Want To Live In the Country some of Shiho Kano, but I can’t remember which ken Kobland’s Flaubert Dreams of Travel Daina Krumins’ The Divine Miracle some setups in Mike Kuchar Owen Land, Noli Me Tangere Tracey Moffatt, Night Cries Parts of Richard Meyers’ 37/73 Sidney Peterson, Mr. Frenhofer and the Minotaur Ed Rankus, Naked Doom John Sturgeon’s early work, 1975-79 *From:* Rebekka Erin Moran rebekka.mo...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2014 3:08 PM *To:* frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com *Subject:* [Frameworks] tableau vivante : experimental film and single frames Hi, I am researching a project of the use of the Tableau Vivant in experimental or avant-garde filmmaking (history, theory, etc). I am particularly interested in any examples of filmmakers that were investigating the tableau vivant as a reference to a film frame and not to a painting. Also any sub themes that may relate to tableau vivant as a durational film frame or living freeze frame, or a tableau vivant as a non-active scene/image shot stop motion or frame by frame (in camera or optical printed). Any suggestions for readings or names would be greatly appreciated! best, Rebekka Rebekka Moran rebekka.mo...@gmail.com http://www.rebekkamoran.com tel: +345 849 5978 -- ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Re: [Frameworks] CBS goes Underground
Yeah, the article Jonathan posted (thanks, J.!) was nowhere near as bad as the one Fred described. You could even defend it's rhetoric on the same grounds Chuck brought up in terms of the CBS piece. This article follows the classic form of a persuasive speech to a hostile audience I used to teach in public speaking class. In order to get the attention of conventional mainstream folks, and get them 'on your side', you begin by establishing common ground, which in this case means appealing to their prejudices. Then, as they're nodding along with you, you toss in the But... and spin things around, and the audience gets dragged along with you to the point where they have to at least consider something they would have rejected without even listening to if presented with straightforward endorsement. So while the first part of the article is almost wholly negative, stereotypical and sensationalist, that yields to praise both specific and general. At the center of the movement, however, stands a creative cluster of imaginative moviemakers... possibly the finest film poet the underground has produced. She has a subtle feel for rhythms, a grand flair for colors and a gay wild way with a camera that leaves the eye spinning the most affecting movie that the new cinema has turned out...the hero is part Chaplin and part Myshkin ...His Art of Vision, an attempt to do for cinema what Bach did for music with his Art of the Fugue, is an ambitious example of what Brakhage calls retinal music Stan VanDerBeek, Gregory Markopoulos, Bruce Conner, Robert Breer, Ed Emshwiller and Harry Smith have all done work of a high order. An even newer and no less gifted generation of moviemakers—Ben Van Meter, Ken Jacobs, Bruce Baillie—is rising with a whir. ...with all its excesses, the new cinema is bound to stimulate the medium. For one thing, it has already produced a modest but substantial body of exciting work. For another, it serves as a salon des refusés for aspects of the art rejected by the commercial cinema... You might say, Mekas murmurs with a sly little grin, that the lunatics are taking over the asylum. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. Every so often an art needs to go a little crazy. That's a lot more credit than I'd expect from a Luce publication in 1967, especially if they had earlier slammed the Ford Foundation for supporting this kind of work. And I can only imagine how insulted Jack Smith would have felt if Time HADN'T completely misunderstood the intent of Flaming Creatures and trashed it accordingly...___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] CBS goes Underground
You weren't dreaming Fred, I found the article. I can't read it or copy it here though because I don't have the required subscription to Time. Maybe someone else on the list can help share? My curiosity has been activated. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,939493,00.html Cinema: In the Year of Our Ford Friday, Apr. 03, 1964 No one has heard much about movies like Breath-Death, Cosmic Ray, and Stone Sonata, but now the Ford Foundation has begun pouring tuns of gold on the happy heads of the people who made them. The foundation has decided to encourage the art of film as practiced by lone stylists whose pictures are usually brief, almost always 16-mm., and sometimes comprehensible only to themselves. Accordingly, Ford sought a list of 177 candidates, invited them to send sample films, then picked twelve winners. Most got $10,000. The total grant was $118,500. Presumably, the foundation screened... [To continue reading: Log-In] ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Film Festivals in General.
Something that hasn't come up in this discussion yet is how the whole state of film festivals thing impacts junior faculty teaching 'filmmaking'. A few schools will demand actual publishing from these folks as a prereq for tenure, but at this point most will be looking to an exhibition record as evidence of suitable 'professional work.' There are some schools that will only hire makers with an existing rep to a tenure track line - the kind of folks who can get fee waivers as they add some measure of prestige to the festival program. But here we're talking about positions defined under some sort of fine art rubric. Where the academic program has a more 'liberal arts' approach, they're more likely to hire just the kinds of folks Chris Bravo finds at a disadvantage in the festival game: a young person from a fly-over film school with an off kilter movie. These folks are also likely to be teachers first and artists second, although their job security will probably depend more on their achievements in the second category, since tenure and promotion committees only give a rats ass about teaching if the candidate is embarassingly bad at it and has no other redeeming qualities, and rarely if ever consider excellence in teaching to be 'enough.' You could say the upside for such junior faculty is that while they may be underpaid by standards of their level of education or by comparison to junior professors in other fields (anything production-related remaining the red-headed stepchild in many collegiate settings), they're still better-off financially than most struggling film artists outside the academy, and can pay a certain amount of those crappy entry feeds and still make the rent, put food on the table, and even keep the packets for the Keurig in healthy supply. The problem, natch, is that, as Chris and others have already observed, you can pay entry fees until all the cows in flyover land come home and still not get programmed anywhere, what with so many of the growing list of festivals looking for the same thing, and volunteers with sophistication levels down in Judd-Apatow-and-J.J.-Abrams-land doing the pre-screening. I can't say I know anybody who has actually lost their job due to this situation, but I'm out of the game and don't that many people... I can say this state of things adds considerably to the already heinous levels of stress that come with junior professor jobs of any kind. Yup: it just ain't fair. That's not news or unique of anything, but as Duke says in Repo Man, Yeah, but it still hurts. I have no ideas about how to improve things, alas, (and some kind of consumer boycott isn't a realistic option for the profs...) ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] festival suggestions for an alt-narrative?
Sorry I can't suggest any specific festivals. But here's a general note: In seeking places to send the film, you should probably take into account the way they deal with pieces of similar length. There are lots of festivals out there, and you can go broke from submission fees submitting to all of them. So you probably want to give low priority to venues that will have generic issues with the film, unrelated to its quality. Form is obvious: some are more open to the unconventional than others. Running time is not-so-obvious, but probably more important. The festival description will usually define a max length for shorts, but those have to be taken with a grain of salt. The programmers want to cast a wide net, to get more submission fees, and just so they don't rule out getting something they consider so incredibly awesome they just have to include. But within that defined range of TRT, all times are not treated equally. In most cases, works in the half-hour range fall into the valley of death. Yes, it's unfair and makes no sense from the standpoint of the quality of individual works, but it is what it is. Programmers want each session to have an identity. The two broadest categories of identity are a single longer featured film and a bunch of short films. For the shorts sessions, they want to include as many pieces as they can, both to include more makers in the program, and to frame the audience appeal of the session a certain way. Thus, faced with a 25 minute submission they tend to have two reactions: 1. Why should we give 25 minutes to this long-short at the exclusion of 3 shorter shorts we could put in the same slot? 2. This would make defining and promoting a session difficult. It's not long enough or major enough to be a featured work that defines a session and pulls in an audience accordingly. But it's two long to put in a variety pack collection. A seesion with two longer shorts is awkward to define and promote. Thus, regardless of the specified max duration of shorts, the functional ceiling is usually somewhere between 12 minutes and 17 minutes, more often on the shorter end of that range. Which sucks, because the half-hour range is a very natural and appropriate length for many kinds of wonderful pieces to fall into. does anyone out there know of festivals that focus on senior or aging issues? Any such festivals you may find will be your best bet, as they they focus programming decisions on how well the films fit their subject focus, and running time is a minor issue, if at all. A few years back I was one of the collaborators on a 30 minute experimental narrative which IMHO was pretty good, but was selected by only one of the many general festivals we submitted it to (Big Muddy, FWIW). All the other screenings it received, including a couple of very high prestige venues (FESPACO, Art Institute of Chicago) were framed with themes that the film fit in significant ways. Best of luck in getting it 'out there.' djt ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Muybridge and moving image art
Sixteen Studies From Vegetable Locomotion by Hollis Frampton and Marion Faller. Presented as animated GIRs here: http://hollisframpton.org.uk/ssfvl.htm ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] AC/AC 1500W converter query
It is a black brick of a thing, weighs about 25 pounds. It's a transformer - basically two big coils of wire wrapped around an iron core. It has to be heavy to handle enough current to run various devices. What I am unclear on, is A) if it is working correctly, Based on your tests, yes. If the converter is set to 110V, then it's doubling the voltage, putting out 220V. If it's set to 220V, then it's going the other way and halving the voltage, in this case dropping the 110V to 55V. The voltage change in the transformer is by the ratio of the number of turns in the primary (input) coli to the number of turns in the secondary (outout) coil. B) if this is something I can use overseas in 220V land to run projectors. Will it take 220V input of power? not so simple a question. First, Voltage is not power. Power is measured in Watts. Wattage is the product of voltage (V) times current (A). Voltage is the 'push' determined by the power source. A 110V AC line pushes current through at 110V now matter how much current you use, a lot (say for a refrigerator) or a little, (say for a clock radio). Current - measures in Amps (a milliamp is 1/1000 of an Amp) is the pull determined by the device, the amount of actual electrons it draws through the wire to do whatever it is it does. Any power source can only supply so much current. That maximum is specified by the Wattage rating. So if you have a 1500W power source, at 110V is can deliver up to 13.6A before it hits it's ceiling. At 220V it can deliver up to 8.6A. But there's only ever as much current running through the wires as the device(s) attached to it demand. If a 110V clock radio draws 1A, and that's all that's connected to the 1500W source, it's only using 110W of power. If you have more than one device connected to a power source, the total current drawn is the sum of the current drawn from the various devices. Say you have a 110V outlet on a 15A circuit breaker. That will take 1650 Watts of devices before the breaker trips. Plug four 500W production lights onto that circuit, and 'pop' goes the breaker, as each light is trying to pull over 4.5A. So, the first question becomes what's the Amp rating on the projector? If the projector runs on 110V, as long as it draws less than 13.6A, the transformer will power it. E.g., a Pageant 250S draws less than 5A. And older projector with an AC incandescent lamp would draw more, but should still be well within the 1500W range. HOWEVER: Projectors determine their speed on the basis on the frequency of the AC current used to power them (listed in Hertz: Hz, which means 'cycles per second'.). The transformer just changes the voltage, not the Hz. A US projector is designed to run off 60Hz power. In Europe, house current is 50Hz. So if you plug your projector into the transformer, and plug the transformer into the wall in, say, the UK, instead of running at 24FPS it will run at 20FPS. Some projectors are designed in a way that they can be adjusted for the proper speed of the different cycles. This usually involves removing the cover and switching the belt to a different pulley. However, many projectors do not have this feature. Instead, changing the belt from one pulley to another determines whether they run at 'sound' or 'silent' speed. You can probably find info on the capabilities of your specific projector here: http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/index.php?category=2#16mm%20Projectors ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] increasing bulb brightness 16mm
On May 8, 2014, at 8:30 AM, George, Sherman wrote: Given that the bulb is 24 Volts means that is powered by a transformer. Installing a bulb with higher current would probably overheat the transformer resulting in excess smoke-never a good thing in electric devices. Sherman On May 8, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Alex MacKenzie wrote: Does anyone have any expertise/experience around increasing bulb wattage over and above that recommended by projector manufacturer? I want to brighten a 24V/250W 16mm bulb setup, but I obviously don’t want any electrical fires or overheating internally. Is there a breathing area where little if anything would need to be changed internally that is safe? (And no, I don’t want any water-cooled, heat-sinked LED setup, already researched that and it is a bad idea on many fronts.) Thanks. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks Sherman George sgeo...@ucsd.edu 858-229-4368 ___ 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] increasing bulb brightness 16mm
Does anyone have any expertise/experience around increasing bulb wattage over and above that recommended by projector manufacturer? I want to brighten a 24V/250W 16mm bulb setup, 250W is the max they make for 24V projectors. You can't get a higher wattage lamp. You probably have an ELC. It's rated at 800 lumens. An ELC-HL, also 250W, is rated at 950 lumens. The trade off is it doesn't last as long. Image brightness is as much or more a factor of lens speed than lamp brightness. It your projector has, say, an f 1.8 lens, you'd get a significantly brighter picture if you could find an f 1.2 lens that fits it. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] New filmmaker
I think Eleni meant Which principles do I have to bear in mind? in terms of choosing a camera. A can of worms indeed. To be neutral in the format wars, but opinionated within categories: .. Super-8: Canon 814XL or 1014XL Budget 16mm: Kodak K100 16mm workhorse: Bolex H16 Deluxe (parallax viewfinder, avoid the really old one with the silver FPS dial) 16mm reflex: Beaulieu R16 (Bolex reflex H16-rex are a pain in the ass due to the beam splitter requiring special lenses) Modestly priced DSLR: Canon T2i or T3i w. freeware Magic Lantern firmware High-end DSLR: Canon 5D Mk III w. freeware Magic Lantern firmware 'Digital Movie Camera': Blackmagic Cinema Camera Budget 'palm size' HD camcorder: Canon VIXIA HF R500 Basic conventional HD camcorder: Canon XA 10 Higher-end conventional HD camcorder: Canon XF100 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] animals and human-animal relationships on film
I forget. Did anyone mention The Private Life of a Cat yet? Perhaps especially interesting in the context that it's a metaphor for the sort of domestic bliss Sasha Hammid hoped to find with Maya Deren, but wasn't going to happen, and also Stan Brakhage's assertion that, visually anyway, 'Private Life' is Deren's film, while 'Meshes' is Hammid's film. Brakhage's interpretation of authorship is nakedly converse to the themes/subtext of each film, but points to a fascinating take on the Deren/Hammid partnership: Sasha brilliantly visualized Maya's expression of reprehensive angst about the stifling aspects of relationships and domesticity despite the fact his emotions were going in the opposite direction, and Maya expressively visualized Sasha's ode to the joy's of family life despite her reprehensions about the spiritual restrictions of that sort of life. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] animals and human-animal relationships on film
A friend from my days of yearly attendance at UFVA, Mark Von Schlemmer, is an animal-rights/vegan-diet activist and has made several pro-animal/anti-slaughter films you can find on his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/vonSchlemmer From the individual videos, YouTube will lead you to other related pieces. I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned William Wegman's dog videos, especially Man Ray's Spelling Lesson. Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex... is divided into chapters, each of which is a different genre parody. The take-off on L-Shaped Room infidelity melodrama features Gene Wilder having a doomed affair with a sheep. - Ain't We Having Fun Chuck Statler (greatest documentary short ever, IMHO) Meat Fred Wiseman Cane Toads ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Forget this story telling stuff. That is something else. For a class or assignments defined by an experimental' rubric, sure. But for any general motion-picture production class story is essential, though not, of course in a Bob McKee Hollywood formula kind of way. Which is to say that choices in composition, color, and the semiotic system within each framed rectangle all should be made within the context of the overall purpose of the work. You have to have a goal in mind, something you want to say, to make good choices about how to use the medium to express it effectively. Thus, especially for beginning students who have no background in fine-art film, telling a story is not at all something else from the semiotics of the individual shot (or cut), but inseparable. ... As for the whole question of speed... I'm in complete agreement with John that introductory pedagogy should focus on the bread and butter aspects of shaping meaning (in the broad sense, which would include poetics, abstraction, etc.) In technical terms, to me this means straight cuts, and basic fades/dissolves in the NLE, things which place very low demand on computing power, and can be executed quickly on even the most basic hardware. A need for speed (if I may be so bold as to employ a Tom Cruise/Tony Scott film reference on Frameworks) suggests to me that students would be doing compositing or other kinds of effects work where rendering time becomes an issue. To me, THAT is Something Else (too much French pastry in the words of the great Al McGuire) and it's presence in any introductory class is (to mix metaphors) putting the cart before the horse, IMHO. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
We spend a lot of time with the learning curve of the software, and not as much time as I'd like with the conceptual aspect of creative work. BINGO!! Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would abandon FCP7. When Bolex stopped making the H16, schools using film didn't rush out and buy Arri SRs. A 40 year old Bolex still does what it always did: is still an excellent tool for shooting 16mm MOS. By the same token, a 5 year old FCP7 system still does what it always did: edit digital video in a powerful yet easy to learn interface at a reasonable cost. It can handle any SD or HD codec used in the current cameras a school would have or buy now, and no new camera technology that promises to leave FCP7 behind is on the horizen. And so what if one does show up? Truth be told, good ol' SD DV is a perfectly excellent tool for teaching filmmaking. If that was all you had available, you could still teach students every important creative aspect of motion picture work, and the output looks very nice. HD is just gravy pedagogically, and the HD codecs FCP7 can handle aren't going away, AVCHD in particular. (Heck, if I was still teaching, I'd be holding onto HDV, because tape offers a benefit to beginning students: The stock is so cheap, you have them use it like film. Record a tape, capture the footage to a hard drive, then put the tape away in a box. That way, when someone's hard drive crashes, as it invariably will at least once a semester, they just fire up a batch re-capture from FCP, and voila, the project is restored and they don't have to start over. With solid state media, you're not going to be able the kids to do that -- put their full SD cards (or, God forbid, P2 cards) away in a box. They're going to re-use them. Then, when their drive crashes, they're screwed, and you're screwed too because you have to put in extra time and effort to help them get back on their feet and make extra accommodations for the fact they've fallen behind schedule. Of course, that wouldn't be an issue if every student had TWO hard drives, and kept rigorous backups of all their captured media, but that's not going to happen either.) But I digress from the key issue. When I was teaching, I INSISTED on minimizing the time students spent learning the technology, in order to maximize the class time devoted to the conceptual skills of filmmaking. FCP was perfect for this. I would spend two class sessions in Intro showing the students how to edit in FCP, and then turn them loose to figure the rest out for themselves. Which they all did, and these were liberal arts students who were generally utter noobs to any kind of production. Try that with Avid, (make me laugh...). For my own work, I'll give up FCP7 when they pry it out of my cold dead hand -- or when some Mac developer sees what kind of significant market hole is left by the Hobson's choice between Avid, Premiere, and FCPX, and creates a sort of FCP7 clone in pure 64-bit code and offers it at a reasonable price -- which, alas, I don't see happening in the current state of consolidation in the software biz. If I was still teaching, I would be even more adamant about my program holding onto FCP7 (well, the whole Final Cut Studio actually) and all the other tech stuff that goes with it: last generation Mac Pro towers, Mountain Lion, AVCHD, etc. USB 3 is nice, but you can get a USB 3 card for a PCIe Mac Pro for $15, so no problem there. They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I say If it ain't broke don't replace it with something that is some combination of less useful, harder to learn, buggier, more expensive, and/or loathed by huge segments of the creative and professional communities... One thing I wrote to Irene off-list that none of the posts here so far seem to get goes back to her schools current dilemma of having different sets of instructors using different software in their classes in a kind of free-for-all. This is pedagogically unconscionable for most 4-year college programs. We're not supposed to be training students in the range of professional software packages they'll need to master in order to get jobs as online edit technicians. We're supposed to be teaching the art of motion picture making. Forcing students to keep learning new editing programs each time they take a different class is like a Creative Writing program forcing students to learn a new word processing program every time they take a new class (well, it's worse, since word processing programs aren't that hard to learn). In order to have students and faculty concentrate precious time in class and out of class on the things that really matter, using a common set of tools is essential. And that effectively makes FCPX a non-starter. No group of experienced faculty will ever agree to standardize around it. And if they did, the next time a position opened if the job description included must use FCPX that would seriously bugger the applicant
Re: [Frameworks] Student Film/Video Fests?
I think NextFrame may be kaput, or maybe on hiatus. They always used to show the finalists at UFVA, but there was nothing on the program last year. I didn't actually go to the conference, so I don't know if there was some late appearance, but the NextFrame website still says, Check back for the winners in August 2013. Anyway, NextFrame was never a good venue for experimental work, especially for undergrads. Their experimental program was always short, and always dominated by entries from European film academies that employed a lot of 'clever' high-tech special effects. It would be nice if some of the established festivals or venues that show experimental-as-we-understand-it stuff had the sort of thing Benjamin is talking about: a 'young makers showcase limited to first-time makers and/or makers under a certain age limit (say, 21 and under). Steve? Roger? Bryan? Anybody? Bueller? :-) ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] banned films?
Not experimental, and not erotic - unless you have a kink I'd rather not discuss :-) - but the first work that comes to my mind when you say banned film is Titticut Follies. And there is definitely a body horror thing at work there... Continuing with the 'docs', but both more experimental and dealing with erotics (if not, in itself, erotic), Tongues Untied which PBS refused to show. Also repressed by PBS - the amazing Seventeen by Joel Demott and some guy who makes film scanners or something :-). Not 'erotic' but the depiction of an inter-racial relationship was one of the elements that got it essentially 'banned'. Not actually 'banned', but the Fox News jeremiad against the NEA for having funded a film organization that screened Thundercrack probably justifies putting that on the list. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] banned films?
Triumph of the Will was banned after WW2 in most of the civilized world, maybe for good reasons. And it's erotic in it's own twisted way, which is one of the reasons it's so disturbing, the erotic energy all being displaced from the personal sphere, and into the public sphere, and all directed at Hitler. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Uploading long dv video online, youtube, etc.
It would help if you explained your workflow for the files you're trying to upload to YT: what codec you're using in what program with what settings. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Uploading long dv video online, youtube, etc.
I'm using cyber direct power director, a pretty basic software. You can upload directly online, which I have had no problem doing until now, with the longer work. My tech abilities are not much far more advanced than on/off. Alas, in today's mediascape 'on/off' doesn't cut it. If you want to distribute work in video anywhere, be it online or festivals or whatnot, you need to know some basic things about digital video technology. Google is your friend. At a minimum, you need to know the difference between a container and a codec, and the differences between different codecs used for video work. Your editing program probably has you working in whatever codec your camera records in: DV, HDV, AVCHD... The default output codec will be whatever was used in the project timeline, and that's going to be too big, at too high a data rate, for an effective upload of a longer piece to YouTube or other web hosts. As others have noted, you should transcode your finished piece into the H264 codec before uploading it to the web. H264 is a compression format, and there are different software tools for creating H264 streams from your finished video. These are called 'encoders' and they're not separate programs, but are components built-in to either a specific program or a system-wide video tool. I'd guess PowerDirector has an H264 encoder built-in. If you have Quicktime on your PC and export your file as QT, you have a choice to encode it with Quicktime's H264 encoder. The thing is, all H264 encoders are not created equal -- some work much better than others, producing better-looking results with smaller file sizes. Apple's H264 encoder is notoriously mediocre -- it doesn't suck, but it's not at the top of the heap. What you want is a freeware software encoder called x264. It's a little geeky, and as a Mac person, I have no idea how to install it on a PC. You might be able to access it directly from within PowerDirector once you get it installed, or not. Your best bet is to DL the freeware video transcoder Handbrake, which has x264 built in. That way you don't have to mess with anything else. (The Handbrake installer will prompt you to DL any external files it needs, just say 'OK', if/when it asks permission.) Once you have that installed, output your film from PowerDirector in it's native codec and container, and then transcode it for the web with Handbrake. x264 has LOTS of settings, almost all of which you can ignore. All you need to do in the x264 settings within Handbrake is set the frame-rate to whatever the project is in (29.97 or 23.98 unless you're in Europe), and select one of the quality presets: choose 'Slow' or 'Slower' unless you're really anal-retentive about image quality and are willing to wait a very long time for the transcode to finish, in which case you can use 'Very Slow'. Then in the Handbrake settings make sure the output resolution is set to whatever you want -- usually whatever you worked in: 1920x1080 or 1280x720 for HD. If your original is Interlaced (1080i) convert it to Progressive, which will play better on a computer screen. Another option you might want to use eventually is Limit Data Rate but just go with the default for now. You'll need to specify a container format to save the Handbrake file (.MP4 .MOV .MKV...). AFAIK, YouTube's ingestion system is agnostic in regard to containers and will take anything you might choose. I use .MP4 because it'll play on pretty much any platform or player software. (Most Macs aren't equipped to play .MKV and a lot of PCs aren't equipped to play .MOV). I just went to YouTube and typed 'handbrake tutorial' in the search field, which yielded About 58,300 results. Some of these are probably lousy or even wrong, but if you start with the ones with the most page views you can probably get some decent guidance. One benefit of making your own H264 file before upping to YouTube is you'll know what it's going to look like on the web, as YT will do little or nothing to the actual video data. If you upload something in a less-compressed codec, YouTube will automatically transcode it based on their own algorithms, which can yield yucky-looking results in some cases... ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Disney Paris imposter
I thought it was a wonderfully conceptual act actually, to fire a replica pistol at a figurehead -- the guy could have been working for Andy Warhol! Or evidence for Baudrillard's claim that such coul-be differences don't make a difference anymore. Is conceptual art still possible in the Society of the Simulacral? Or is all human behavior now conceptual art? The problem with 'The Matrix' as cultural commentary is it's assertion that a Red Pill could actually exist. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Projector recommendations for large scale installations?
Nik: IMHO, you do NOT want a single-chip DLP projector. The color will be washed out, and, worse, you'll get annoying momentary moire patterns at points where there are sharp changes in luminance (due to the rotating color wheel). For your budget, you'll probably want to go with a 3-chip LCD model. I made an inquiry to the list not too long ago about projectors in this price range, and received several recommendations for Epson (and none for competing models). Investigating online, I discovered that Epson has two separate product lines: one defined as 'home cinema' the other as 'presentation.' The later were somewhat less expensive, and, on paper anyway, had similar specs and technology to the pricier 'home cinema' models. So I bought one of these: http://www.visualapex.com/Epson/Projector-Specifications.asp?For-The=VS335W Especially for the price, I'm quite content with it so far. Color is good. You don't get very deep blacks, but that's par for the course with affordable video projection AFAIK. The 'presentation' models are 1280x768 native, so when you screen 720P HD there are thin little 24 pixel letterbox bars on the top and bottom. The 'home' models are 1280x720, so an HD image fills the frame to the edges. You're not going to make 1080P on your budget, but I wouldn't worry about it. The 720P looks good enough. VisualApex had the cheapest price I could find, but they apparently don't keep these things in stock, instead taking your payment and having Epson ship directly. I received the projector exactly a week after I ordered it. Email communication from the vendor was very good, and they even sent out a nice follow-up email to see if everything was AOK with the transaction. One thing that may or may not be an issue for your installation: all of these projectors have pretty wide lenses and thus a relatively short throw... ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] question about fees for permission to use material (Caryn Cline)
The soundtrack to James Benning's film Deseret consists entirely of some one reading NY Times articles aloud. I'm willing to bet he did not pay for the rights nor has been bothered by the NY Times about it. I repeat my point that it is not the rights holder the experimental filmmaker needs to be concerned about but programmers and other gatekeepers who are afraid of the rights holders (however misplaced that fear may be.) No programmer in this field is going to say 'boo' to James Benning. For less well-known makers, especially people starting out, it's likely to be a different story. ch...@signaltoground.com wrote: I think its harder to apply fair use when you've already asked them what's fair to them. Er, no. It's a principle of law, not a matter for rights holders to decide themselves. Also when you know the other creator, the concept of fair use gets trickier, doesn't it? If someone you know demands a cash payment for something out of which you're unlikely to get even a penny in return, you need a better set of friends. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] sound track collaboration
To Michael and anyone else seeking music for any kind of film: I highly recommend Kevin MacLeod's website http://incompetech.com/ on which Kevin offers a wide variety of his compositions in many genres, royalty-free. Not only is Kevin gracious enough to make all this stuff available for nada, he's also been willing to accommodate reasonable requests if you ask nicely (e.g. deleting a MIDI voice or two from one of his existing pieces in order to make a more simple background sans embellishment). My experience working with 'composers' to create original scores has not been at all positive. They tend to do their own thing and I tend to gag at the result. But then you're stuck with hurt feelings, I did all this work JUST for you... One of my friends commissioned his brother (an accomplished professional classical musician) to write a score for a film. He paid for it, too. The resulting music didn't work with the piece at all, so my friend had to ditch it (I heard it, he really HAD to...) This called a major family brouhaha, with angst that trailed on for years. Far better in most cases to see if Kevin has anything that works for your piece. YOU get to pick, and he's happy to get a credit no matter which of his works you might choose. Everybody wins. And did I mention that it's free? ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Feb 14 appropriate movies?
'Meshes...' being maybe the ultimate anti-valentine, it's antithesis The Private Life of A Cat would be a non-ironic Valentine's Day pick. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Kenneth Anger?
I was going to say Anger is probably best contacted by means of The Astral Plane... Maybe using arcane methods like John Dee's mirror... Just kidding. I am also looking for this as the email provided on his website doesn't elicit a reply. That could be intentional though I suppose. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] eiki projectors
I believe all the Eiki 2 projectors have magnetic sound. Are your loops striped with mag sound? If not, I'd think 0 Eikis would be cheaper. Could someone tell me the difference between an Eiki-NT2 and Eiki SNT-2? Well, for one thing, they have different thread patchs. Both are auto-threading, but the NT2 looks to be much easier to thread manually. (The RT2 appears to have the same thread path as the NT2). I've use SNTs and ENTs, and I would not try to get a loop into one myself. I've never had the pleasure of meeting an NT or RT. I would think, for loops, you'd be better off with a manual-thread or a slot-load. I'd stay away from Eiki slot-loads, though, because the control linkage is complicated, and if it's worn, sticky or stiff the film won't seat in the path properly. Your options may be limited if you have mag sound, but in general I prefer trusty old projectors with simpler mechanisms. If you can find lenses for them that suit your throw, you can't beat a Pageant for handling film. The later ones (250S) have Halogen lamps. Singer/Telex slot-loaders are reliable, and you can find a wider range of lenses that fit them. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] 16mm synchronizers with sound
Is it possible to remove an optical reader from a projector and make it run independently? Theoretically, yes, but it would be quite difficult. The device would need to contain the exciter lamp, the optical pick up, a film path with rollers between the two, the power supply for the exciter lamp, and at a minimun the preamp section following the audio pick-up. Extracting all this from a projector and building it into some custom case would be quite a job. It might be easier to start with a projector that's relatively easy to open-up — a Singer/Telex slot-load for example, disable the functions you DON'T want — e.g. if you don't want projector noise, disconnect the motor; if you don't want a light beam, remove the lamp, etc) then devise a threading path so the synchronizer can pull through the loop through the optical reader section on the projector. (You might also have to remove a drive sprocket or two). ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Can anyone recommend a reasonably priced portabe video projector that's adequate for showing films?
I'm not up on the latest projector technology. I'm wondering-if/hoping-that technical advances have created an answer to the question above. Historically, you could divide video projectors into three types: 1. LCD: bright, with vivid but typically wildly inaccurate color rendition — both in hue and (over)saturation, very poor contrast ratio, and utterly unable to render monochrome images correctly... designed to project computer screens, good for that, not much else. 2. 1-chip DLP: not so bright, color accurate but a little washed out, pretty good contrast (for a video projector, anyway) but subject to generating flashes of extremely distracting moire due to the rotating color wheel's inability to deal with quick changes in image brightness at cuts. 3. 3-chip DLP: very nice image in every way, but big, heavy and EXPENSIVE. My old thought was that perhaps LCD technology would improve to the point where the contrast ratio and color accuracy (especially with monochrome) would improve to the point of minimum acceptability for film screening. I doubt that 1-chip DLPs could have overcome the color-wheel-moire problem. But either way, I don't know what has actually happened in terms of the current market. I'm not seeking anything that would be bright enough for even a small auditorium, but rather a living-room/small-classroom size venue with seating room for 10-25 people (who can be fairly tightly packed together if need be). I would hope for at least 720P resolution. Reports on any experiences with recent projector models would be welcome, positive or negative. And by reasonably-priced I mean under $1,000. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] women and crime
Oh yeah, and 'Mulholland Drive'. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] women and crime
- The BBC's Miss Marple (amateur, elderly spinster detective). British TV / Female Detective / Feminism = 'Prime Suspect' with Helen Mirren ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] women and crime
I am interested in alternatives to the standard and classic structures of women as victims (even if they are the ones committing the murder,…) or of male/female relationships,.. From the 'mainstream', but I think 'Bound' would be essential. Then there's (barf) 'Basic Instinct'. 'Run Lola Run' is a crime film with an unvictimized female protagonist, though the male/female relationship is traditional. (And while hardly experimental, it's not at all a traditional narrative either...) No one has cited 'Veronica Mars' (TV series) yet... If you take demons as a metaphor for criminals, then 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer' is a kind of feminist cop show with a cnetral set of female buddies (Buffy/Willow). (Most of my lesbian/feminist students seemed to be big fans of this show back in the day...) I haven't seen 'Orange Is The New Black', but it sounds like it meets your criteria. It's not surprising that as far as the 'mainstream' goes, more interesting things are coming out of TV than Hollywood cinema, which seems to be all-comic-book-adaptations all of the time. --- When you mentioned women directors, my first thought was 'Ida Lupino'. Checking her IMDB page I see she directed an episode of _Have Gun Will Travel_ titled 'Lady With A Gun' and an episode of _Thriller_ titled 'The Lethal Ladies'. Might be interesting... ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] One for the tech wizzards
Yes, the function still exists. It's part of the DVD spec. It's just that almost no one makes use of it. Still, every DVD remote I've seen has a function to change the video angle. It just does nothing because the discs only have one angle available. To create a multi-angle DVD, you would just need authoring software that's capable of doing so. DVD Studio Pro will do it. From the DVDSP manual: About Alternate Stream Video Assets If you want to switch between video streams while the DVD is playing, the DVD specification sets some restrictions on the alternate streams. They must be in the same MPEG format and have the exact same GOP structure as the main stream. It is strongly recommended that you use the same encoder for all streams to ensure they match exactly. For multi-angle tracks, all streams, including the main one, must be the exact same length. Other authoring software may do this as well (Adobe Encore??), but I only know DVDSP and other less sophisticated programs that WON'T do what you want. Also note that having two video streams means putting basically double the data on the disc. So, if you had a 90 minute concert, that would means three hours of video on the disk, requiring a pretty high compression rate for a DVD5. If the piece is 60 minutes of less, the 120 minutes of video would probably look fine compressed to fit on a DVD5. If longer, I'd go with DVD9 (e.g. 8.4GB DVD+R DL). hope that helps. djt On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Ingo Petzke wrote: Dear all, I seem to recall that when DVD first came to the market you could switch from one camera position to another while your film was playing (someone told me it had been developed for porn movies). Any way, this doesn’t seem to exist any longer. Or does it? Problem is: we shot a concert (in this instance a version of ‘Drumming’ by Ensemble Es) with a master shot of the whole stage while producing simultaneously visual effects onto a wall of monitors. This all still exists on two different tapes but I would like to transfer it onto a DVD where you could switch between the two tapes while watching and listening. Any ideas? THANK YOU SO MUCH Ingo ___ ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Looking to build a list of 'Experimental Documentaries' on video
Bryan McManus wrote: I'm not a well-represented somebody, not sure if that matters Alas, it does. My apologies for not being clear enough in the OP. My friend's project involves tracing 'the historical development of the documentary.' What that means is, in short, that the works to be discussed need to have been seen by enough people that they can be considered to have had some influence on the development of the form. That could either be due to some formal innovation or originality of approach that was followed in some ways by other makers, or using existing techniques/styles etc. in a particularly effective way that allows the film to connect with certain audiences. To give an example from NON-experimental docs, I'm going to recommend that Kevin consider Ed Pincus's Diaries, although very few people outside of a fairly narrow documentary community have ever seen it. But, of course, it was extremely influential in all the many different types of diary films that folowed. E.G. it sees to me you'd want to connect Ross McElwee back to Pincus, etc. (Speaking of diaries, I know George Kuchar made many diary films and videos, none of which I've seen (mea culpa). So I don't know how 'documentary' they are, or which of his works in that category would be considered the most exemplary/seen and discussed/ influential etc. etc.) You might describe his project as a sort of multi-media version of Barnouw, but with a more personal approach - more essay than 'objective' history. Part of Kevin's problem is that he's using Barnouw as a resource, and it's woefully outdated. I've forwarded him Pat Aufderheide's more recent Short Introduction To Documentary, but as with any overview, she includes some things I wouldn't and leaves out some things I'd want discusses. Anyway, I'm just a resource for the guy doing the actual project, trying to help him broaden the scope, and make it more up to date than, say, 1985. I just thought I'd poll the List in search of some perhaps-should-be-obvious stuff that hasn't popped into my now senior-moment-challenged mind. And, again, it's not a project about experimental-docs, though that would be a good project in and of itself. I just think Kevin out to put a little bit of the more experimental side of things into his 'big picture,' but in the end he may decide to do little or even none of that. Building a good list might help convince him that some attention to the more avant garde side ought to be included, you know, before we get to Ken Burns (yuchh!). I do hope no one who has suggested their own films feels slighted. I'm not in a position to be judgmental about Kevin's interests. His question is 'how did we get here?' not 'what's happening right now.' If the project was something like (to borrow an Alan Rosenthal-ish title) 'New Directions In 21ist Century Documentary', then I'd be eager to review and forward all your stuff. But it's not. I guess one way of saying it is that the question is probably more up the alley of folks thinking in programmer/curator/scholar mode rather than film artist mode. Not that these are mutuallu exclusive categories by any means: I do know lots of you own more than one hat. --- Another note: the operative defintion of documentary here does NOT include all work that uses the 'real' world as it's subject. There ought to be some forward movement of thought, if not a story, or an argument (essay form), then at least a process. (A beginning-middle and end, though not necessarily in that order as Godard would say) So, for example, Peter Hutton's films, while being pure actualities, are in this sense, not-docuemntaries. This would probably also filter out some works that are in the canon of experimental docs, to the extent that there is one, such as Bridges Go Round. It's a great work, but it doesn't really GO anywhere, if you know what I mean. And again, for the purposes of the project, the works have to be readily accessible in video form. And did I mention that this is a project that has no budget? So, basically I'm looking for stuff we can borrow from a library, rent from Facets/Le Video type sources, etc. For example, let's say I thought there was enough narrative development in some of David Gatten's films about the Byrds to consider them experimental documentaries. These films have been seen widely enough at festivals to be considered part of a broader film/culture discourse, if out at the avant garde edge. But David's a celluloid purist who doesn't distribute his film work in video form, so, no go. (In truth Gatten might be too 'far out' for Kevin, it's just the first example that came to mind). There's good and important stuff out there that remains accessible only through prints, which for merely pragmatic concerns will have to fall outside the scope of the project. This is not only a very limited budget project money-wise, but time-wise. Kevin is not an academic and is doing this as
[Frameworks] Looking to build a list of 'Experimental Documentaries' on video
I'm looking to help a friend do research on the history of documentary, and I'd like to introduce him to some of the more experimental side of the form. For his purposes, the work needs to available on video: he needs to see stuff, not just read about it, and he needs to be able to pull decent quality clips for presentation. So I'm not looking for more purely experimental films that have some actuality footage, but something more readily recognizable under a (very) broad rubric of 'documentary'. Something like Sonic Outlaws' or Odds of Recovery would be pretty central examples. About as far down the experimental scale I'd want to get would be such films as Window Water Baby Moving or Sink or Swim. (Thus, for example, Thigh Line Lyre Triangular is too 'far out' for this purpose.) I'd also welcome suggestions for essay-form docs beyond Marker (which I've already got). Another example of such might be Mulvey's 'Frida Kahlo / Tina Modotti With those loose guidelines, feel free to recommend away without worrying too much about the 'fit'. I can/will edit the recs I pass on... TIA! ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] insect islands
My fave insect on an island movie isn't experimental: Sherman's March. You must respect the authorita of the Blood Sucking Cone Nose! On Dec 19, 2013, at 9:18 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote: Are these two separate things (any or all insects; any or all islands), or do you mean insects living on islands? ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] HD cam 24 vs 25? vs DCP?
I second Marco's rec. of Pioneer optical drives. I don't have a Pioner BR burner, but I've had many, many DVD burners of different mfr., and the Pioneers have consistently produced the best burns and been the most reliable. I've had three LG BR-burners. One of them (older) died, but the latest one has been solid. Given the choice again though, I'd go with Pioneer... ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] HD cam 24 vs 25? vs DCP?
The problem for the filmmaker in the digital age is that there is absolutely no
standardization between different screening venues. Some folks want files, but
only take certain codecs and containers (and different ones at different
places, of course...). And some folks want physical media: tapes (still a
variety of formats) or discs... It all depends on what tech the venue has
invested in, and what their 'projectionist'/tech-person can handle (and, alas,
such folks are often less than competent to deal with any kind of curveball*).
Unlike todd, I haven't had any problems with Blu-Ray, and I'd guess that
Blu-Ray players are pretty common now. With any home-burned optical discs, the
quality of the media matters A LOT. NEVER buy cheapo generic blank discs. Folks
making shorts should keep in mind that up to a half-hour or so of material in
MPEG2 will fit on a standard blank DVD5 in Blu-Ray format, and will play-back
in any DVD player. If you do that, get some of the premium Taiyo-Yuden blanks
from one of the internet outlets, and you should get good reliable results.
(And always burn at the slowest available speed.)
At least Blu-Ray is better than the least-common-denominator default pretty
much EVERYBODY can handle: a standard DVD (meh). And with Blu-Ray, as long as
your disc plays at all, there's really no way the folks on the other end can
screw it up.
Of course, if you're dealing with venues that take files, todd's thumb-drive
idea is a great way to go. Flash memory just keeps getting cheaper. (32GB USB
thumbs can be had now for just over $20... cheaper than 'professional' tape
stock, not to mention film prints...)
So, I would say that an artisanal filmmaker needs:
• Decent software and hardware to author and burn Blu-Rays (and if you're doing
the short-running-time BR on DVD5, you don't even need a Blu-Ray burner.
• Proper software to transcode your digital 'master' into whatever format a
venue desires. On a Mac, that means a combination of Apple Compressor and the
old-reliable (and free) MPEG-Streamclip. On a PC, I don't know... (Aaron??)
I suspect some of Moira's specific problem is that she's working in Avid (on a
PC, I'm guessing), which uses some sort of proprietary codec and offers limited
options for output to standardized formats. The closest we seem to be to a high
quality file standard for distribution is ProRes 422. And as recently noted
here, ProRes isn't available on PCs. Given what production houses charge for
transfers, it might behoove PC based folks to invest in a used older Mac Pro
(~$500) if only to make ProRes files.
Finally, if anybody wants you to send files via the Net, they'll probably want
some kind of h.264 coded file (in either a Quicktime or .mp4 container). It's
very compressed and lossy, of course, but it can look damn good if you encode
it right. The thing to note here, is that different h.264 software codecs are
not created equal, and Apple's version is notoriously meh. What you want is the
open-source x264 encoder. (x264 is not a codec, it's just a means of encoding
h.264). There's lots of settings inside this thing, most of which I don't
understand, but if you set the right frame-rate, choose one of the higher
quality presets ('Slower' or 'Very Slow') and throw in the 'use 3rd pass'
option for good measure, you'll get the best visual-quality-to-smaller-file
size ratio in existence. And AFAIK, you can use x264 in the PC version of MPEG
Streamclip, (and probably a variety of other PC-based shareware or freeware
converters as well.)
djt
* I will never forget my experience at a good-sized film festival, in a city of
some 1.3 million residents, at which the organizers had hired a professional
video projectionist. There were three pieces screening simultaneously in
adjacent screening rooms of the rented multiplex, and EACH ONE was screening in
the wrong aspect ratio: the ones that should have been 4:3 were stretched out
to 16:9, and the ones which should have been 16:9 were squeezed into 4:3.
On Dec 12, 2013, at 11:25 PM, todd eacrett wrote:
From a presentation perspective, I'd nix both of the rapidly obsolescing
HDCam and Blu-ray in favour of a ProRes file. Blu-ray is a pita for
screenings. I've had discs that tested fine one day then wouldn't read the
next. Even with a BR data drive and the software it's a slow and potentially
lossy process to rip it back to a file.
If you're sending out a physical object (hard-drive/memory stick) with files
on it, consider including multiple versions with different resolutions and/or
bitrates. When I have the time to re-encode a file I'm pretty careful, but if
I have to do so an hour before a screening, not so much.
You don't mention the running time, but a file that can be up//downloaded is
theoretically cheaper/faster than shipping a tape or disc. At least it pushes
the economic and environmental costs of the server farms onto the next
generation.
Re: [Frameworks] HD cam 24 vs 25? vs DCP?
I'd recommend getting your film transferred to the highest quality codec available, then converting it to whatever you need on your own (or a friend's) computer (if you don't have a Mac). HD-CAM IS NOT FULL 1080P RESOLUTION! It's a now technologically obsolete tape format that uses an anamorphic frame to get within the recording bandwidth of the tape apparatus. You'll want your film outputted to a file on a hard-drive regardless, not to any form of tape. If the transfer service can't do that, f**k 'em, and find someone who can. Assuming you have access to a Mac, I'd recommend ProRes 4:4:4. Not that you'd ever send it out in that, but as a 'best-quality' master. I assume DCP would be better (??) but I don't know of any software you could use to downconvert it. If it's shot at 24fps, get it transferred at 24fps. If you need to send it out to PAL-land, they might have 24fps capability... And if they don't, you can do the 24-25 conversion yourself in software. That way you have the option of doing a 1frame=1frame conversion so every frame remains intact but it just runs a little faster, or you can do a transfer that preserves the running time, and uses some algorithm to blend frames to make up the difference. If you're using something like Apple Compressor to do that (24-25), there are lots of different settings you can manipulate to make sure you get the best possible quality, and it will take days to render as a result. So again, you'd want to only do this once, and use your 24fps master to create a 25fps 'master' in the best codec available, from which you would then create whatever 25fps distribution versions you would need... On Dec 12, 2013, at 3:21 PM, ev petrol wrote: hey folks I'm outputting a film to HD cam have the option of doing it at 24fps (the project itself is 24fps) or 25fps (I'm making digibetas as well, so the framerate conversion is happening anyway) - any thoughts on which would be more useful? there's also a DCP option, more expensive but I'm wondering would it be worth it? or is that just going to cause compatibility problems with different servers / platforms c? would be grateful for any thoughts on the matter cheers! Moira ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] super-8 to 16mm blow ups?
Well, first, the only way the scales are tipping in any venue is toward digital projection. Setting up a 16mm micro-cinema requires finding a working projector that won't eat prints, finding the increasingly rare short and fast lenses that will fill a decent sized screen, and dealing with beat-up rental prints... But that whine is just mere preface to my central point... to wit: It strikes me that just as we have traditionally distinguished between acquisition formats and distribution formats, we are now at the point (if we haven't been already) where it makes sense to distinguish between post-production formats and distribution formats, and the choice of the former is best made based on aesthetic concerns, and ought to be relatively agnostic toward the latter. A number of years ago at the Flaherty, I was surprised to learn that some of the most visually striking experimental shorts I saw had been shot on Super-8, gone through a high-res scan and a digital intermediate, and then finished on 35mm. That was something I never would have thought people would do, but the process produced what struck me as a unique and engaging look. And, though I don't know absolutely, I'm pretty sure we were watching 16mm prints, since I don't think Vassar had a 35mm projector. So my hypothesis is that regardless of how you screen the work, blowing up Super8 to 35mm will produce a visibly different effect than blowing it up to 16mm. Now, IFF that's an effect you want, and if, as Scott says, the cost of going to 35mm is not significantly higher than going to 16mm, then 35mm would seem to make more sense. Again, it all depends on your aesthetic goals. I know Roger, for instance, is all about an integrated low-fi, low-budget everything-has-to-fit-in-my-trunk 'praxis'. Give the man access to a Xerox machine and he's in his element! But we all have different elements, (if we have elements... I'm not sure I do... but I digress. djt On Dec 7, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Beebe, Roger wrote: Just wanted to say RE: 35mm vs. 16mm, that Scott's sentiments seem to echo the traditional wisdom about the omnipresence of 35mm, but with the rapid scrapping of 35mm projectors from almost every multiplex (and most of the art houses) in the U.S., it seems the scales may be tipping back in the direction of 16mm. If nothing else, it's easy to throw up a 16mm classroom projector to convert any darkened room into a microcinema; not so easy to do that with 35mm (even with my portable Chinese projectors that come in 8 boxes weigh hundreds of pounds). 2 cents, Roger ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] impatience with achievement
It's a pretty obvious example, but (nostalgia) is [among other things] an auto-critque of Frampton's work in still photography. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] editing 16mm
The single black frame invisible splice' technique is for cutting reversal. It's extremely hard to edit negative without mucking it up, which is one reason the normal routine is to cut a workprint and leave the conforming to a pro. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Literature and experimental film
You might show Christopher Maclaine's The End as an example of the incorporation of Beat literary style in film. The soundtrack can be considered a reading of a work of Beat literature written specifically for the film. (And it's readily available on DVD.) ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Sound - Structural Film / New Formal Film
I would suggest that sound is an under-discussed matter in Hollis Frampton's films, most notably 'Critical Mass.' The sound/image relationships in Bruce Conner's 'Report' might also be worth consideration. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] 16mm Eiki projector lens help
I took out the lens and noticed that there is a thick dark red grease on the threading of the lens itself, and also buildup in the threading connected to the focusing knob. I don't know much about thisshould I clean this buildup or do I need more grease? Could this be reason why the lens won't move? That's not grease. It's decomposed goo from what was once a rubberish capstan that moved the lens. CLEAN IT ALL OFF RIGHT NOW! AND THEN CLEAN THE FILM PATH! That stuff will migrate into the gate and destroy the film you are projecting. You can repair the focus knob using my method as Roger linked, or with Alain's technique using small o-rings you should be able to get in the plumbing depart of a real hardware store (not Home Depot probably). The screw holding the lens in place seems a bit stripped and needs to be tightened. Could this also be the issue? The screw just keeps the lens from falling out if you keep moving the (working) focus knob toward the front. Since I want to be able to change lenses for different focal lengths readily, I just leave the screws off. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Proustian Cinema
I'm thinking of films that are being used as a medium to either: explore the nature/experience of memory and how it works Unstuck-in-time narratives can be considered tropes of memory: Renais' J'Taim, J'Taime; Catch 22, Slaughterhouse 5... Films framed as memories of a narrator: Little Big Man, Amadeus... Blade Runner... Total Recall... La Jetee... ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] De-dusting scanned film footage
A circle matte no larger than the size of the dust particle was made, then a piece of the frame just before or after the dust spot--in its exact position--was captured then laid over the offending piece of dust. That's it! Worked like a charm. Perhaps David T can weigh in on his method? That's what I did. 4 pt. garbage matte with a lot of feather on the edges. Copy and paste the filter from one shot to another and then move the corner points to cover the dust spot in question, which was faster than starting from scratch on each dust spot. Usually one frame off from the dust spot would provide a fill, but sometimes I had to go two frames. I also moved the fill frame around to find a good match. I'm sure there are more sophisticated ways to do this, but this was something I could figure out and execute using the basic capabilities of FCP 7. It was very time-consuming and boring. It's hard to find the exact frames of the dust spots because things look different in the still frames than they do in motion. Sometimes a spot that's really obvious is motion is hard to see in the still frame. This is exacerbated if there's any pull-down or speed changes. I did the work for Crooked Beauty because Ken's a friend and I thought enough of the film that I wanted to see it look as good as possible. Even though Ken paid me something for my time, it's nothing I'd want to do on a regular basis, 'professionally.' But, in the end I think it was worth it aesthetically. Crooked Beauty has that Super-8 look, but it's incredibly clean. I showed it to some S8 enthusiasts at UFVA a couple years ago and they were pretty much gob-smacked at the quality of the image. They'd never seen anything that free of dust marks. But, of course, it all depends on what aesthetic suits the purpose and vision of the individual film. For some projects, the dust that remains on a typical S8 to HD transfer may well suit the concept that led to the choice of S8 in the first place. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] De-dusting scanned film footage
A nice method - must have had many many layers in the timeline and lotsa effects - slow renders... and I hope he had lots of memory! Just two layers, and not that many effects. Just multiple iterations of the garbage matte on those frames with more than one nasty dust spot. There was a lot of rendering involved, but just because there were a lot of frames with dust, and I had to render them out to see if the fixes worked properly. I did it on an MBP 2.2Ghz quad-core with 4GB RAM. It would have gone faster on a desktop with more RAM, but it wasn't that bad on the MBP. It's a method pretty much anyone can do, if they're up for taking the time. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Texts on appropriation, collage and ethics/fair use
Not nec. film specific, but there's tons of stuff on appropriation, collage, copyright and fair use. Much of it is related to audio collage as both an avant garde practice and pop culture 'mashups'. The discussions are generally applicable to found footage films, though. An essential text is Craig Baldwin's film Sonic Outlaws. For the whole question of Fair Use of images, moving or otherwise, you'll also want to check the essential materials available on the website of the Center for Social Media at American University. Filmmakers working in collage and appropriation seem not to discuss the issues surrounding their work as much as artists in other media do. You might look into the websites, publications, videos etc. produced by Negativland RTMark, Stay Free magazine, Public Works etc. Also the various writings on 'Neoism'. The afore-cited Cutting Across Media should offer a list of contributors whose other works are worth looking into, and be a good starting place for a bibliography. (Again, none of this is really film specific, though...) ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] women movie theater workers
Mary Jane's Not a Virgin Anymore ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] transformer question
You might not even need transformers. If a projector has a belt or pulley change for 50/60 Hz, that would indicate it was designed to be sold in both Europe and North America with only minor tweaks. So I would suspect there's a transformer inside the projector that can be wired for either 110/60 or 220/50. Could be just a matter of switching a few wire connections around inside, at the same time you change the belt position. If you can find a service manual for your projectors with schematics that should tell the tale. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Prelinger Archive Downloads/Audio Questions
Ken: Set your export audio to 48K for FCP. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] films featuring projectionists
There's the shot in Riddles of the Sphinx where they're watching the film her husband is working on. I think it may be on a flatbed, rather than projected IIRC, but close enough. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] films featuring projectionists
There was an American Indie feature from the 90s (I think) set primarily in the Uptown Theater in Minneapolis. I can't remember the name of the film or the director (a woman who passed tragically at a relatively young age, IIRC). I don't recall if any of the characters were projectionists, they may only have been ushers, concessioners or other theater employees. Can anyone here recall this film, and help jog my failing memory? ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] films featuring projectionists
The recent British indie: The Berberian Sound Studio ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Downloading Fair Use Video from You Tube
YouTube keeps changing their system, breaking the popular video downloaders for Firefox: e.g. Download Helper doesn't work now. Right now I'm using ByTubeD which isn't a super simple 1-click thing, but it's not hard to understand and it works. You need to be using Firefox, not Safari. On Jan 5, 2013, at 1:08 AM, Ken Paul Rosenthal wrote: I'm looking for the best and simplest method of downloading *fair use* films from You Tube. Thanks, Ken ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Films that utilize the zoom lens?
The car chase in Bullit ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Barbara Rubin - Christmas on Earth, Opens Tue Dec 18th
I think this is what Royce meant, but if you have not seen this in 16mm dual projection performance, you have not seen it at all. As most of you know, I'm not a celluloid fetishist, and I think good digital projection of a good video transfer is fine for the majority of experimental work. Yes, I'm a well established heretic! But, beyond the fact that experimental cinema is CINEMA, and cannot be properly viewed on a small screen in a lighted room with distractions available, Christmas On Earth is one of those cases where actual film projection is essential. The way the two projections combine cannot be replicated in a video format (digital or analog). There is a video 'simulation' of Christmas on Earth on Ubuweb. Ubu took it from a file on Karagarga, where it was accompanied by a lengthy explanation of the fact that it was NOT a proper rendition of Christmas on Earth, but only a very rough simulation designed for study purpose and to promote interest in a little seen film. Of course, Ubuweb just created a more compressed lowe-res file of the sim, and placed it on the site with no explanation or context whatsoever. I wanted to complain about it, but discovered that Ken Goldsmith is absolutely inaccessible via email (surprise, surprise). So, absolutely, go see this if you can. If you can't, beg your local art/experimental programmer to rent the print from FMC and schedule a screening. On Dec 11, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Royce Marcus (Film) wrote: UGHGHGH. Wish I was in NYC for this. I'll just say, if you have not had the opportunity to see this in 16mm, do whatever you can to make it out to this exhibit. Royce ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Third Reich and Roll by the Residents
Brilliant film, that. Cool that you want to screen it. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Seeking recommendations for service on Beaulieu cameras
What kind of Beaulieu is it? Actually, I have a clockwork R-16 that seems to have a bad spring motor. The run is really short and it poops out at the end instead of running strong until it stops. I was hoping to find someone who specializes in Beaulieau service because I have a number of non-working or partial R-16 electric bodies, which I'm hoping have some value to a repair shop for parts that could be bartered against the cost of servicing the clockwork camera. I know of Bernie's reputation, but I'd guess he doesn't do enough Beaulieu work to be interested in something like that, yes? ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Seeking recommendations for service on Beaulieu cameras
Preferably someone you've dealt with, or good word of mouth, with contact info. And in the U.S. someplace. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] contributors ....
Jack: It might help if you could define the borders of the cinematic domain you want to include/exclude. I assume it's not exclusively experimental/avant garde, but are you also including standard Hollywood fare*, crappy exploitation films (as well as hip, self-aware stuff), documentaries, etc.? And how literal would the invocation of magic or occultism need to be in the work? For example, a lot of narrative film seem to rely on and celebrate 'magical' plot mechanisms in a similar sense as described by Raymond Williams in Advertising: The Magic System. I'd guess, just knowing your previous work, that this is probably not what you're looking for, but I'm just using it as an example. I realize editors want to cast a wide net in order to get a strong field, but they also have a responsibility to would-be contributors who might be wasting time and effort preparing proposals or submissions that are just out of right field for the theme (LEFT field, being sinister, not being an appropriate trope). I'm currently editing a volume on magic / the occult and cinema, and I'm interested in contributors, especially on lesser known filmmakers and works or offering new approaches to more familiar filmmakers working (or who have worked) in the area. I'm also very interested in writers on works from Japan and China. Email me OFF LIST for details . best Jack * How about: Whoah, THAT's fucked! Drive Angry versus Ghostrider 2? ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Hi-8 deck/repair
Be careful of the Digital-8 camcorders. I never knew anyone who had a digital camcorder who didn't have a broken digital 8 camcorder. If Jeff says they give good results when working, I absolutely take his word for it. But caveat emptor when buying a used one, and don't pay too much. A lot of High-8 camcorders and decks were much better made, but at this late date, the capacitors on anything can be pooped out. So you wouldn't want to buy anything that's been sitting in storage without giving it a good use test first. On any of the better-made units, the transport should be OK if it hasn't been abused, so tape-eating isn't the most likely problem. Just whether it works at all, and has a clean video out. I'm assuming Tony's comment translates as with old tech it can be easier and cheaper to just buy something, rather than hunt down and pay for a rental, which is often true in my experience as well. Helps to know what you're looking for, but I think Steven's been around the block enough to navigate the territory. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] [Experimental Film Discussion List] Super8 BW help
Yes, John. I read the whole thread. No, it's not an acceptable mistake. My point is that I've heard similar stories about just about every lab. I have never used Pro8 myself (I haven't shot S8 in decades), but I have met Phil Vigeant who strikes me as basically a good guy. And I have a friend who's a 'small' customer, experimental maker, who swears by Pro8 after having had inferior work done by several other transfer labs. But he goes to Burbank to be at the transfer sessions, and has cultivated a personal relationship with Phil. If small gauge film-making wasn't artisanal already, it has become so with the demise of large volume processing services. The people at the labs -- shock! surprise! -- are likely to be as quirky and mercurial as the makers, exhibitors, distributors, equipment techs, etc. etc. Bitching about it won't get you your film made. You have to figure out the unwritten rules of the system. Personally, I do find this frustrating myself. The answer to any question about how to get something done right is likely to take the form of On the second Wednesday of the month take the back alley by 666 Mephistopheles St, go up the second set of wooden stairs, find the unmarked gray door with a blue frame, knock '16' in Morse code, and say 'Alain sent me' and he'll probably open the door. But it is what it is. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] [Experimental Film Discussion List] Super8 BW help
From what I've read online its rare to hear about a good experience with Pro8mm. From what I've read online it's rare to hear about ANY film lab that doesn't have both it's champions and it's detractors. Motion picture film labs are generally small businesses with one of two people doing the actual work, which is actually pretty nasty stuff given all the chemicals involved. The kind of people willing to do this work often have personalities that blow hot and cold. We can all complain that if they take your money, everybody ought to get the same kind of service, but that's not how it works. The more you can develop a personal relationship with your lab technician, the better results you'll get. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] [Experimental Film Discussion List] Super8 BW help
It's actually not that hard to sync up 'wild' sound to transferred film footage within a video editing program such as Final Cut or Premiere. First, make sure you do sync claps at the beginning and end of each shot. Then modify the audio duration and/or film duration to match one another. You'll be changing the film duration anyway if you shoot at 18fps. I doubt there will be significant drift within a shot if you get the beginning and end lined up right, but if there is any, you can tweak it with audio edits inside the clip. If you're going to wind up in video (e.g. DVD) the problem with shooting lip-synch on Super-8 isn't the sync, it's the noise of the camera. Normal Super 8 cameras aren't blimped, and will be quite audible if you're shooting a dialog scene for example. I don't have experience with the models that were designed for using sound-striped stock - I would assume they're more quiet, but by how much, I don't know. Of course, you can always go full Hollywood, use your live recording as a scratch track, create a homebrew ADR setup and post-dub the whole thing. (FWIW, I don't recommend that. Very hard to get results that either fit the lip movement or sound at all natural...) ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] MFA
What do YOU want to get out of your studies? Outside of the industry-oriented schools (USC, FSU, Chapman etc.) the main reason people seek an MFA is it's considered a terminal degree, and thus the minimal qualification for most college teaching jobs. If you just want to become a better filmmaker (whatever that means to you) an MFA could certainly be useful, but there are other ways to go about it as well. Depends in part on what kind of films you want to make. By full-ride I assume you mean a fellowship? Extraordinarily rare. TA positions that will cover tuition and expenses are also rare. Most students have to take out loans. Large state schools where film is connected to a rubric of 'communication' or 'RTF' are the best bet for TA slots: Wisconsin, Texas, Temple... don't know about Iowa since Film split with Com... Schools where film falls under the fine arts / studio art are not going to have much for TA spots, if anything. Keep in mind that most people who teach in grad programs are specialists, and thus programs that offer that 'good technical foundation' often establish that as a habit-of-mind to the detriment of individual practice, conceptualization, experimentation... By far the most important thing in applying to grad school for anything is to learn about the faculty, and find someone you think can be an effective mentor for you. That not only means you respect their work, but you have reason to believe thay are a good and caring teacher, will be on campus and available, open to your creative interests, and likely to get along with you personally. Of course, you can't glean all that from reading bios and course descriptions on the web. Start there, identify some possibilities, and then dig further. Talk to current and/or former students -- certainly before you enroll anywhere, and maybe before you even go through the rigors of applying. Even for an arts program, your GREs will play a role in terms of what schools you can get into, and what kind and how much support in terms of TA hours you may be offered. Recommendations are important as well, especially glowing ones from people who are networked with the faculty at the particular program. If you don't have that sort of 'inside track' or didn't kick ass on the GREs, don't set your expectations too high. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] American Cinema of the 1950s films and course in Chicago
What kinda American Cinema of 50s list leaves out Robot Monster! WTF? ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] 16mm Camera In The Fridge
WWHHD (What would Helen Hill do?) :-) ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Editing examples - suggestions needed
The opening of 'Don't Look Now'. Works great with students. Also Roeg incuts sex with a tracheotomy in Bad Timing which, while 'experimental'ish (Eisensteinian for sure) may be dicey for students due to the subject matter. As in the montages in 'Requiem...' narrative filmmakers often turn to avant-garde motifs when they want to represent subjective experience outside of normal consciousness: drugs in that case, but extreme stress etc. in others. So you'll find some things in films like Donnie Darko, Memento, Fight Club... ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 camera recommendations?
Since you want cost to come together with features and reliability, I'll assume Beaulieus, stock or rebuilt, are out. I'd say it hard to do better than the various iterations of Canon 814 and 1014. For something cheaper than that, you might look at a Sankyo, but I think they're not quite as reliable as the Canons. Minoltas don't have much in the way of features, but they should work pretty well... My thoughts are largely based on now distant recollections, I'm sure other folks will have recs about cameras they're using right now, which means they've held up quite some time past their dates of manufacture and expected life of service. Good luck. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Please help
I believe you can obtain Black Leader at WhiteHouse AV. On Jul 26, 2012, at 6:16 AM, Gawthrop, Rob wrote: its the white leader problem ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Please help
Dearest Brett: I can't sign anything right now, as my spirit is completely disengaged from corporeal body. I would be happy to sign something on my return, but alas, unless my minions collect enough money to construct the proper Orgone generator and fire it into my brain my return is hardly a sure thing, and I would NEVER want to make a promise I cannot keep. As for questions... What is life without them? I deplore the profane world of the merely commercial, but to use the word merely as metaphor, as a magickian I am in the question business, not the answer business. You'll probably ask me something like, 'didn't I think it was a little over the line to use a score created by a convicted murderer and Manson family member for Lucifer Rising' and I'll juts say it's beautiful music and I'm not in the thinking business, or one to make moral judgements of art, or something like that. So, as far as your research goes, just make up whatever you want, whatever you think I'd say, and it will probably be a better answer that what I would say anyway. Australia is awfully far away, and I don't know if your money works in America. So instead of sending cash, maybe you could just send a bottle of cologne? Just make sure it's in a brown wrapper, no return address, no fingerprints, etc. g'day! KA Hi David / Kenneth, Saw your ad on frameworks. I would be willing to send some money through, but would it be possible to get a signed photo or something from Ken in return? Even better, would it be possible to ask Kenneth a few questions? I am a scholar at the University of Sydney, Australia and I am researching the history and influence of the occult in and on Hollywood. If Kenneth would be interested in answering some questions regarding Jack Parsons, L. Ron Hubbard, Charles Manson and Forry Ackerman, I would be happy to renumerate him for his time. Let me know what you think. thanks. Regards, Brett Brett Garten 62 Cowper St Glebe NSW 2037 Australia 0433 436 787 ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Please help
Ara: Crack? I got on better with Marianne, Mick, Jimmy and all the rest when we on 'shrooms. While, I cannot say anything but do what thou willst you still may want to watch out for the rocks. your friend, KA ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Please help
Dear Fred; There's no sin in being in the minority, or the majority if that's the case, because there's no sin. Yes, life is too short for this sort of 'creativity' or any other. The joy of meaninglessness is in the eye of the beholder, and I am happy to discover that some seem no utility at all in my posts, for I wish them to remain free of such drudgery. As for Allie's name, well some fine magickian he'd be if the spelling could be pinned down and stuck in some prison of the alphabet. He spells it as he chooses, but it's always pronounced Cro-lee, like the bird he's flipping you all beneath his cape. And you need not worry about insults to my genuine greatness, for I am well aware of my own stature, and quite immune to any and all attacks on it, even those I make myself. In fact, I rather enjoy being on the receiving end of a little smack now and then, as it adds a touch of vitality to my old corpus. You have nothing to be Angered about but Anger himself. your better, Kenny ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Please help
Hello Frameworkers: Kennth Anger here. I recently took an extended trip to the Astral Plane to visit my dear friend Aleistair, but on my attempt to return to my corporeal body, I discovered that someone had stolen my macick sceptre and the bottle of Black Host needed for my ceremonial reawakening. I need your help to return to Earth. This is more than a matter of seeking your Luciferian grace on my personal account. I appeal to you in the name of The Cinema. I have been truly inspired on my latest astral travels, and I feel that a flood of new masterworks shall flow from my Steenbeck. Yes, that's right, they will all be made with the true magick of film, not that digital hocus pocus. And I'm talking about genuinely inspired pieces, not just documentation footage of exhibitions passed of as 'Films by Anger.' I realize some of you may be suspicious, but do note that am NOT in Nigeria, and i would never pull any kind of sham, scam or masquerade on my true devotees. So, send as much cash as you can in brown envelopes (no checks, credit cards, or PayPal) to this address: David Tetzlaff 7 Sycamore Road Niantic, CT 06357 Thank You. Thank You. Thank You. And know that I'll put in a good word for you with You Know Who. Love, KA What fools these mortals be! ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Film and Digital for beginners
Thanks, James, for the link to that piece on LCD sets in stores. Great stuff. When I say 'digital is not one thing' I am not engaging in any kind of generic 'pro digital' advocacy, because many of the things digital can be are pretty sucky, and it takes effort to find those that are not. In general, at least with current technology, by my )obviously not purist) standards LCD displays -- both flat panel and projection -- are for computer graphics, not moving pictures. All the ones I've seen do horrible jobs of rendering monochrome and make anything in color look like a cartoon, which is why the big box stores usually have animated films playing on their display sets. So for me its plasma for flat panels and 3-chip DLP for projectors, or go home. In film, a lot of the variability is in the print. A nice print looks great on a Pageant, and a beat up print looks like crap. On a 3-chip LCD Panasonic projector, and well-mastered DVD or Blu-Ray looks very nice, but the same disc looks ugly on a Christie LCD projector designed primarily for data display. And alas, there are far more of the latter type out there than the former. So to the people on the list have had bad experiences with digital screenings, know that folks like Aaron Fred and me aren't trying to invalidate your perceptions or to argue 'but that's OK.' It's not OK. But to condemn the whole category of technology, or to reduce it to some essence based on a limited range of examples is like condemning film because you've seen too many trashed prints. Of course, it can hard to come by good prints for film projection, just as it can be hard to come by good systems for digital projection. People who care about image quality have always had to work hard at achieving it, and that has not changed. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Film and Digital for beginners
Jonathan: Aaron's right. Digital is not one thing. Neither is film. Coincidentally, just this morning I was at the archivist seesion at the Silent Film Festival in SF, and it was all about digital restoration. The guy who restored Dr. Strangelove showed the 4K digital restoration flipping back and forth with the projection of a 35mm release print. The digital had better detail, truer black, and was much less distressed, of course. But when queried about the difference in the actual coloring of the monochrome, he said 'that's not a difference between photochemical and digital, it's just the color balance of the different projection lamps.' In truth, there are no significant FUNDAMENTAL differences that hold generally between photochemical and digital, because each is so broad a category, and digital is not a fixed target. There are not two mediums here, but a multitude. As I have posted here ad infinitum, the difference between two film projections can be much greater than the difference between a specific film projection and a specific digital projection, and of course, vice versa. If the presentation today revealed any fundamental differences it was these: Digital presentations are far more fixed than photochemical ones. The copy every theater shows of a digitally distributed film is identical, only the projection differs (which still introduces a lot of variables...) But no two film prints are exactly the same to begin with, and each print immediately gains different patterns of wear, which show up both in artifacts on the surface of the image, and in the stability of the image -- digital projection is rock steady, while all mechanical projection has registration issues: 'projector weave' or as I like to call it registration bounce.' I think for a general student audience especially, it is far more crucial to talk about differences that cross the digital/photochemical boundary: resolution, contrast ratio and latitude, careful projection vs. sloppy projection, and most importantly those qualities that separate the cinematic experience from that of 'personal media': the size of the screen, the darkness of the room, the presence of others etc. etc. Whether we like it or not, photochemical film media are dying in the culture at large, and in a few years we will be dealing with students who have never seen a photochemical film projection, and will never see one -- outside of anything they may happen to see in school in 16mm. Even if there were fundamental differences between photochemical and digital, they are becoming irrelevant, while these other quality and character issues remain extremely relevant. The typical student today doesn't get that some things just shouldn't be watched on an iPhone, or even a 48 flat-panel because they need a much bigger canvas and the viewer's undivided attention. Beat THAT difference into their head, get them to appreciate CINEMA regardless of how it is projected, and you do the work of the angels. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Interesting (?) Question
What I don't get is why people are quibbling about the prices, when the issue here is that the basic premise of the OP -- that falling value of 16mm production gear from 1980-2005 provides a serviceable plot point for the narrative of a novel -- is weak and questionable regardless. If the novelist were to supply some idea of what dramatic function he or she thinks this loss of market value would serve, I'm sure the Frameworks community could up with more compelling and accurate scenarios that would present a creative worker's angst at the decline of his chosen physical medium, or whatever else is intended... - As for the quibbling. I'm not sure what planet you were on in 1980, The upper midwest. There was an upright Moviola in my school's film lab when I started the masters program in 1978, snd it just sat there. Well, I tried to use it once, but then, like everybody else, when I couldn't get on the flatbed, I just used the bench with rewinds and a Moviscop. I wouldn't have paid $200 for a Moviola. By 1983 I was in Philadelphia, and if you were patient and knew where to look for stuff (Bargain Hunter classifieds, etc.) there was lots of used 16mm gear for cheap. I bought a dog-leg 12-120 for $200; spent about $50 for a synchronizer, got a Filmo body for $25... In 1984 I bid $75 in a closed bid auction for a Cinemonte that needed some setup and adjustment. That was the high bid, but the seller had already given it to the only other bidder for $25. I was cool with that because he was a friend, and he was going to use it to cut his MFA thesis, and I had no immediate need. I just wanted to say I owned a flatbed :). No digital in 1980. Film was still king. Of course there was no DIGITAL. There was, however, small format video, and what was called at the time 'multimedia': multiple slide projectors synched to dissolves units deriving cues from multichannel audio-tape. 16mm had been a ubiquitous and widespread technology, but many of the users that had been dependent on it abandoned it as soon as an alternative became available, including corporate communications divisions, TV news, production of short 'stag' films, etc. etc. By 1980 whatever country 16mm film was king of had lost well over half it's last mass over the previous 15 years. -- But back to the too-vague OP. If the character is in LA working steadily in some professional sphere where there's a budget available and time is money, then, yeah, he'd be buying gear from a dealer and paying those higher prices. But if he's an indie/artist type with more time than money, say, somewhere in flyover land, he's scrounging and being resourceful (like I was) and getting stuff on the cheap to begin with. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Interesting (?) Question
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? My point was about the market value of the equipment, which is not so much about what people used to edit 16mm, but how many people were still working in 16mm at all, thus how much used equipment was available, and how supply and demand affected its cost. The bulk of 16mm production was the kind of stuff Rick Prelinger archives, and my recollection is that this sort of work was in decline by the late seventies. But I could be a bit early in my dates. Jeff would certainly know better than I how much a Steenbeck would have set you back at any given time. I think the fact Jeff still has one speaks to the larger point of my post. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Interesting (?) Question
In 1980, an upright Moviola would have been all but worthless. Lord, those things were awful compared to a flatbed. A 6 plate Moviola flatbed in good condition might have been worth, I dunno, maybe $1000. On the other hand, used splicers and rewinds weren't that expensive in 1980 and haven't lost that much of their value. 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. By 2005, the character would have to be pretty dense or disconected to expect old 16mm equipment to have more value than it would have. People who work in 16mm in an 'art' or 'idie' context mostly had a good handle on the market, and were keen on picking up gear that corporate/industrial/education institutions were discarding in the move to video. I think your novelist may be off-track in having a 16mm maker concerned about the monetary value of gear. !6mm making isn't that much about the money, and to the extent it is, the money is in the film stock. The 'digital transition' as Frameworks so thoroughly documented, was more one of a felt loss of utility and/or soul, the tools are merely metonomy for an aesthetic, a method of working, a way of life. And the one piece of gear that embodies that is a Steenbeck (generally preferred over Moviola flatbeds by most makers AFAIK). In 1980 obtaining your own Steenebeck would have required resources of money or luck or resourcefulness. It's something you would have wanted very badly, been so happy to have obtained. A big thing taking up precious floor-space but treasured, cared for, and used intimately for hour after hour after hour. And then, at some point, (kinda 2005-ish) it becomes obsolete thanks to Final Cut Pro and Cinema Tools and Digital intermediates and what not, and the Steenebck starts gathering dust, and stuff piles up on top of it, and then you eventually you can't justify it taking up the floor-space anymore. And since you were a film die-hard, by this time it's not just that you can't sell the Steenbeck. You can't even give it away. And it winds up on the curb waiting for somebody to haul it off as scrap metal. And it's your old friend. No, it's 25 years of your life. So part of yourself is out on the curb. And that doesn't really have anything to do with market value. On Jul 2, 2012, at 10:44 PM, andrew lampert wrote: Hi, I received the inquiry below from a novelist and wonder if the collective brain trust that is Frameworks might help me provide an answer. Anyone have an idea? If so, I'll pass along your answers/guesses to her. Thanks a lot! Andrew Lampert Curator of Collections Anthology Film Archives Do you have any idea what a new or used Moviola might have cost in 1980 or so? It's more likely that my character would have bought a second-hand Moviola, maybe one that had been used in the the 1970's. My character is going to resell the Moviola, along with a lot of other nondigital 16 mm equipment (like splicers, a synchronizer, rewinds) in 2005--and get a lot less money for the stuff than he paid for it. So I have to start with some reasonably accurate original price. ___ 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 sound projector speakers
On Jun 29, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Tom Whiteside wrote: It should also give you a ground lift switch, well worth having for those instances when you want to get rid of a 60 cycle hum. Which is pretty much all the time. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] homemade video copies of 16mm
If you're looking for a cheap way to make acceptable-grade copies of films, consider one of the Elmo film chain units. Bad idea. The camera technology is circa mid-1980's. Results not so good... And people selling them usually want alot of money. It's a camera built inside a projector with the proper shutter and some alignment hardware. No need to worry about seeing the grain of a ground glass or defects on a screen. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] homemade video copies of 16mm
You need a 5 blade projector if you're shooting 29.97. You can use a standard projector if your camera will shoot 24fps. Sell the Sony, and buy a used Canon XG-A1. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Cheap Transfer In NYC
If you really want HD for sketches and tests, then borrow an XH-A1 (or similar) and project the film onto a piece of matte board (more smooth and even than a wall) getting the camera as close to the projector as possible to minimize parallax. The results can be surprisingly good. Probably best to use manual iris bracket exposures, and do a few takes. If you want high quality stills, try to borrow an analytic projector, or some other model with a pause function that will project a still frame without burning up the film. Then shoot that with a DSLR. There's more detail in 16mm than any HD transfer can capture. Unless it's footage you know you want to use for a serious project / finished product paying for a good frame-by-frams scan isn't cost effective. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] kickstarter
as a festival programmer will a filmmaker feel that that film will have an unfair chance at my festival? If so, that's there problem. An experienced maker should understand that your own personal interests are not necessarily those of the festival you direct. You should be free to support promising projects that may not turn out at all, or that will lead to productive growth for new makers that still falls short of being competitive at any given festival... As long as you act as Bart, not 'Bart The Director of Videofest there is no line. The email that came inot my mailbox before this was an ad for Boris Soundbite bearing your name. So are people who buy Soundbite to expect a leg up at Videofest, or are you supposed to not work for or comment on Boris or FCP or anything else because you direct a festival? i don't think so. it is tight for me to support a film in this way? Of course most of us do this because we love to support the films we love. but where is the line here? thanks bart ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Vaudeville silent clowns in experimental film?
Entre Act Rene Clair (??) ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] C-mount adaptor for S mount lenses
They'll be fine, as long as it's a parallax Bolex, not a reflex. Lots of K-100s came equipped with some of those kodak-mount into c-mount lenses as standard. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Any good cinema bookstores in NYC?
Does anyone know of any cine-specialty bookstores in New York City? I do not know any specialty stores, but, of course, you'll want to check the relevant sections at The Strand. There might be some books at Mondo Kim's, and the clerks there would probably be able to (condescendingly) point you towards any other booksellers with significant cinema-related inventory. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Fwd: Kodachrome ressurection???
From the Auricon Sound Yahoo Group: Kodak says Kodachrome may come back Posted by: Jack Honeycutt Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:27 pm (PDT) Cross post from 3D users group (from today): I just attended (last night) a SMPTE meeting of the Hollywood Chapter. The subject was The Technology and History of Film, presented by Beverly Pasterczyk of Eastman Kodak Co. Ms. Pasterczyk is a chemist with film R D at Kodak, and she mentioned that Kodak Research is currently engaged in the continuing design and implementation of new emulsions, such as the new version of the Vision III product. Regarding consumer films, she said that they are considering restructuring a new approach aimed at producing these at a reasonable cost in much smaller volumes than in the past. She said that new technology will permit them to continue to produce these in boutique quantities using single coating machines rather than the huge multiple coaters of the past. She said that basically, as long as they had sufficient orders for a minimum of a single master roll 54 inches (almost 1-1/2 meters) wide by whatever length - no minimum stated, they would consider examining production in terms of the economics involved. Future production would primarily be on an on demand basis. This would include the infrastructure for processing, probably at a single lab, either in Rochester NY, or sub-contracted. On demand could conceivably include any film that Kodak has ever manufactured. Someone in the audience asked the inevitable question: Including Kodachrome? Her answer: Yes, including Kodachrome. She added that while small runs of Kodachrome were unlikely, it was not out of the question, since they have had numerous inquiries. To the question How could this be made possible? her answer was intriguing. Volume is the answer. Consumer groups of large numbers of individuals could petition for the return of a specific film. This would include not only large companies, but also individuals banded together such as camera clubs, especially those with a large enough base such that they could collectively join on a national or even international basis. Lots to think about. Re: Kodak says Kodachrome may come back Posted by: Charles MacDonald Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:55 pm (PDT) On 12-03-21 06:27 PM, Jack Honeycutt wrote: Cross post from 3D users group (from today): Ms. Pasterczyk is a chemist with film R D at Kodak, and she mentioned that Kodak Research is currently engaged in the continuing design and implementation of new emulsions, such as the new version of the Vision III product. Regarding consumer films, she said that they are considering restructuring a new approach aimed at producing these at a reasonable cost in much smaller volumes than in the past. She said that new technology will permit them to continue to produce these in boutique quantities using single coating machines rather than the huge multiple coaters of the past. She said that basically, as long as they had sufficient orders for a minimum of a single master roll 54 inches (almost 1-1/2 meters) wide by whatever length - no minimum stated, they would consider examining production in terms of the economics involved. Future production would primarily be on an on demand basis. WOW you could read that several ways now could you not. When Kodak saw that demand for film would drop they responded by trying to be very efficient, they built a HUGE new Highly automated coating machine at Building 38 in Kodak Park. This project also updated another machine in an adjacent building. and they transferred all their film production worldwide to that one complex. This is the reason that for example tri-x still film is now called 400TX and has different developing times. All the other plants were shut down. Toronto (3500 Egglington)is now a housing development for example. The building 38 machine needs 5000 feet of leader to thread it, and another 5000 of run out after a coating job. Plus whatever stock is being coated. It can coat 5000 ft of film is a few minutes. And what What has been mentioned in the APUG.org discussions, it now only run a day or two a week. The second machine is idle, or perhaps dismantled. At the time they were built, both machines ran 7/24 Yes, including Kodachrome. She added that while small runs of Kodachrome were unlikely, it was not out of the question, since they have had numerous inquiries. To the question How could this be made possible? her answer was intriguing. Volume is the answer. Consumer groups of large numbers of individuals could petition for the return of a specific film. The 54 inch wide web that Kodak uses makes 38 strips of 35MM or about twice that of 16mm. With the building 38 machine is is probably not POSSIBLE to make a batch of less than 5000 ft. (190,000 ft of 35 mmmequivelent) That would make 34,500 rolls of 35mm
Re: [Frameworks] digital Bolex
This is bizarre. For $3300 you get an awkward, non-orientable b+w finder, and a silly faux crank mechanism and non-ergonomic handgrip to make it kinda resemble a Bolex? Since the sensor and the viewfinder are spec'ed at 4:3, why are the two output resolutions spec'ed at 16:9? Why don't they mention the CCD vs. CMOS and rolling shutter issues in the copy, if that's a strong point? Sure, it might be nice to have something that isn't as compressed as AVCHD, and has 4:4:4 color, but RAW strikes me as overkill for moving images. By my quick math that's ~4GB per minute. It seems, with the c-mount, that they're trying to make something that will work with all the classic 16mm lenses, but how large can the market be for combining 16mm DOF with the short run times and high cost of the storage format in digital, when you can get an APS-C DSLR that has the same image size as a 35mm movie camera for $700? I mean, if I wanted to shoot on a Bolex, why wouldn't i just shoot on a real Bolex, with film? I can't imagine their 2048 x 1152 mode being prettier than 100D. Am I missing something? ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
Anyone can walk by a painting liking it or not, but sitting in a darkened room as a captive audience may not have quite as many dedicated fans True. But people who walk by a painting not liking it aren't exactly fans. One of the benefits of a proper theatrical screening space is that viewers can leave without creating the sort of interruptions that afflict the comings and goings of typical 'installations.' I've been to two public screenings of Warhol films, both of which started with audiences of 40-50, and when I lights came up I saw that less than 10 other folks besides myself had stuck it out. But I hadn't noticed the deflections. Some of this just involves really simple things like creating a transition space between the 'theater' and the 'lobby' that creates some kind of light block, and making sure the hardware on the door closers isn't super loud. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
Great post Myron!! Myron wrote: The film commodity would have to be dealt with in a way that even a great piece of photography does not require. That's a valid point, but I wonder if it might cut both ways. That is, the cost of maintaining a film might initially be a hurdle for museums since they now hold film in low esteem. But if that 'art-world interest in all things cinematic' keeps rolling, the fragility of the text can actually add to its economic value as it establishes an auratic element. (I honestly don't know, but I'd guess the care required for those abstract expressionist works with sub-optimal pigments and substrate adds to their cache? Does it?) I am thinking that the very nature of film and the experience of it is somehow inherently outside of this commodity model and better kept within the democratic model, since it is all reproduction on one level or another. But some reproductions are better than others, and at some point the difference matters. The premise I'm granting in this whole discussion is the FRAMEWORKS truism that there is something unique in a celluloid print of many works that is worth preserving and trotting out on occasion (which, BTW, I actually believe). And all the things I've observed in the last 20 years indicate that the circulation of celluloid prints cannot be sustained within a democratic model. The rental costs to much compared to the number of people who give a damn. Given the economy of information (circulation increases value) the film print gets caught in a vicious downward spiral -- if suitable digital reproductions are not available. Film projection becomes more difficult to do -- films available only as prints get shown less -- fewer people see and talk about the work -- the work recedes toward the background noise of the culture -- demand continues to decline. Most people know and learn first about art history from reproductions in books, and hopefully, are encouraged to see and experience as much work in the live form as possible, but let us not underestimate the reality and importance of these various forms of reproduction, which may ultimately have to include digital technology for the dissemination of the basic information. Then hopefully one can ideally see a film or two at a museum somewhere. Meanwhile an awful lot can be experienced and learned from these other forms of reproduction. Yeah, baby. Yeah! Currently there is hardly enough readily available digitally formatted material to get much of an overview of the whole scope of experimental/avant garde film. Exactly!! (Roll on brother Myron!) Its all economic I guess. First from the struggling filmmakers who are trying to get some money for all their efforts and sacrifices to the high cost of making good quality DVDs with a questionable market to justify the expense. Which does make me wonder what the numbers are for Criterion's involvement in the Brakhage anothologies I and II. eg. how much did it cost to produce, how much was made, etc. did the numbers really work out, apparently so What is the potential then for the rest of the work in the overall genre? OK, now this is really important. The Hollywood model isn't going to work for experimental film either. Nobody's going to make a significant sum of money distributing experimental DVDs at any price. I mean, I hope Criterion is in the black on the Brakhage disks, and I hope Su Freidrich is getting something back from her DVDs, but even small profits are likely to accrue only to a few 'stars' (just as with print rental income FWIW). But... Would such democratic availability then totally destroy the museum commodity model well maybe no, books on Van Gogh just make the lines for the museum show just that much longer around the block... That's an Ed McMahon, YESS! (Can I get an Amen!) This is why I said the museum model is way more workable for moving image work of celluloid 'original'. If you shoot in 1080P, the only difference between the 'original' and the 'reproduction' is the compression artifacting in the distribution copy, which is hardly enough to support art-object status. But if you can turn film-film into a reasonable facsimilie of an auratic art object, there's your source of income (DISCLAIMER: I don't know Jen Reeves, but I'm just plucking the first hypothetical that comes to mind, so in what follows I'm talking about an abstract 'Jen Reeves' not the actual person...) Let's say 'Jen Reeves' made a DVD of 'Chronic' (with a Kinetta scan, of course ;-), and put an .iso of it on the web under a Creative Commons license, freely available for download and showing. LOTS of film and women's courses would quickly add it to their syllabi. Writing about the film, and 'Reeves' other work would multiply in publications both scholarly and hip/popular. 'Reeves' would receive economic benefit in the form of higher personal
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
Marilynn, implicitly if not explicitly, poses the question: How is it that filmmakers are not considered 'artists' within the 'art world'? To FRAMEWORKers, that question is surely rhetorical. Of course, filmmakers are artists, and it's simply silly for anyone to draw the sorts of distinctions for which Marilyn faults Balsom. But the art world DOES draw this distinction, and it's worth asking why. The history of artists (i.e. painters and sculptors) A very important point slips by in the parentheses; it's not just filmmakers who are 'not artists.' Poets, novelists, composers, musicians, dancers, choreographers, playwrights, stage-directors etc. etc. Only painters and sculptors and the like really count. So, what is the operating definition here? I submit it is this: An artist is a person who makes 'art.' 'Art' is a unique physical object that has commodity status. It can be sold, acquired, possessed, collected and accrue economic value in the process of exchange. Without those properties, creative work has no function within the instrumentalities of the art world: you can't do with it the things that art-world people do. So it's 'not art.' An 'art work' has to have a provenance, and it's history and value as an object becomes tied to the history of it's author. 'Artists' are important in the art world because their imprimatuer affects the commodity status of their work. As such a mediocre film by a painter is more worthy of attention than a great film by a filmmaker, because the painter has an established commodity cache. I feel kind of gob-smacked that so many people seem not to 'get' the basic political economy of art -- or maybe it's an aesthetic economy, but anyway it's some kind of economy -- since Benjamin and Lukacs have laid it out so clearly. Curators still don't what to do with Duchamp. When I visited the Tate a few years back, they had 'Fountain' on display, accompanied by a wall card that noted in very serious language that this was not the ORIGINAL 'Fountain' by Duchamp himself, but rather a 'limited' reproduction created by Richard Hamilton at Duchamp's behest and with his seal of approval. I almost fell over laughing. Benjamin especially nailed how film upsets the whole aesthetic apple cart. No aura, no cult value: an artform by definition liberated from the old way. There was an implicit (if inchoate) leftist politics in the formation of experimental film institutions such as Anthology, FMC and Canyon. If filmmakers were hostile to the museum and gallery world, they had damn good reason to be, on a variety of higher principles. (This is a very different thing than being hostile to the art in the museums.) Here, as synecdoche, I'll just references the writings of Jack Smith, and note that in his later years he was chummy with the post-marxist folks at Semiotext(e), and suggested that they simply re-title the journal 'Hatred of Capitalism,' (which they later used as the title of an anthology). But time moves on, situations change. It is no longer possible for institutions, much less artists, to support themselves by renting celluloid prints. The all-powerful market speaks, and most of us have to find some way to pay for rent and groceries. The only way for an 'experimental filmmaker' to thrive in the art world is to adopt the practices of that world, even though they may be antithetical to the apparent nature of the medium. As Chuck notes, photography faced a similar problem. Photographic prints though, unlike film prints, are subject to significant manipulation in enlarging from the negative. Thus, a photographic print can achieve auratic, commodity status: there is only one 'Piss Christ' and that has been destroyed... Marilyn quotes Balsam: “recent exhibition practices have demonstrated the persistent vestiges of not considering film to be a legitimate artistic medium on a par with, say, painting or sculpture -- unless, that is, it is sold in limited editions on the art market. Despite the increasing interpenetration of the worlds of art and experimental film, these lasting ramifications of their differing models of distribution and acquisition continue to mark out a divide between the two realms and their treatment in the contemporary museum. Woot. There it is. Marilyn, (putting the real skinny in parentheses again): [Further to these points, the selling by filmmakers of limited editions of their work (on celluloid) to museums may, indeed, become more of a norm, as the use of digital reproductions increasingly becomes the norm elsewhere.] In a nutshell, somebody has to pay the bills, and right now the best bet is the 'art-world'. And the only way to extract resources from the art-world is to give them what they value: objects that fit the art world model of purchasing and ownership.(MB) What then do 'film artists' (or their estates) do? Withdraw all prints from circulation, and sell the entire materiality
Re: [Frameworks] Data Recovery
Shane: Just quickly seconding Deco's excellent recommendations. When external drives fail, the most common problems are 1) the connection between the power supply brick and the case has gone bad, 2) the power supply brick itself has gone bad, 3) the data connection port on the case (especially if it's a mini USB) has gone bad. If the drive mechanism has indeed gone bad, it will generally start making some kind of unusual noise. When drives 'crash,' that is not usually actually electro-mechanical failure, but rather corruption of the directory structure, making the drive unreadable by the OS. The data is still there, but the drive has messed up its record of what is where and what goes with what. If you're on a Mac, Diskwarrior is the state of the art tool to rebuild the directory. The utilities from ProSoft (Data Rescue) / SubRosaSoft (Filesalvage) -- basically the same code under two different names -- are the best known tools to retrieve files from disks with totally trashed directories. So, after moving the drive mechanism into another external case, or into the computer case itself, just because it doesn't show up on the desktop doesn't mean it's dead. That is, having gotten around a power or communication problem, you may still have a corruption problem. On a Mac, you'd check to see if System Profiler or Disk Utility or Diskwarrior or Data Rescue can see the drive. If none of those can see the drive, it's probably toast and a candidate for that expensive data recovery service if you really need the content. But, if one of those utilities can see it, try Diskwarrior to recover the directory and if that doesn't bring it back try to retrieve files with Data Rescue / File Salvage. On Windows, a drive that is not mechanically dead should show up under My Computer / Properties / Hardware, or under PC-Wizard or under Everest Ultimate Edition. I am not familiar with Windows recovery utilities, but I'm sure Paragon or Acronis have something (I'd avoid Norton). ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Digital Playback for Festivals, Etc.
Two quick comments on Jon's reply: 1. One of the advantages of the standalone media players such as the WD or the Seagate FreeAgent Theater is that they will read hard drives in all the major formats: NTFS (current PC), FAT (old PC), or HFS+ (Mac). Thus there need be no issues with the FAT 4GB file limit. 2. Jon is indeed correct that the highest possible quality would come from a computer (which could be a laptop) equipped with additional hardware that can allow it to generate 'real video' HDMI/DVI or component out from less-compressed formats such as AppleProRes422. The major players in this sort of video hardware are AJA, Blackmagic Designs, and Matrox. The Blackmagic Intensity Shuttle and the Matrox MX02 Mini are small, easily transportable and relatively inexpensive ($200 - $500) interfaces that can work with laptops, and would be worth considering for makers who travel with their, would be bringing their laptops anyway, and can manage the modest extra expense. For a stationary installation, (e.g. exhibitors) a Mac Pro or a Quad Core Windows machine equipped with a standard PCIe Blackmagic Intensity card ($200) would yield HD-video out about 'as good as it gets'. However, with any computer, you get into limits dictated by the OS and the software: PCs won't read Mac drives; Macs won't write to NTFS; Mac software tends not to like .MKV containers, etc. Which means potentially more work on an exhibitor's end converting submitted files into something that works well with the system. But there's no perfect solution, and this would certainly be far superior to trying to juggle a series of tape and disc physical formats, all requiring different sorts of players. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Meshes of the Afternoon question
Speaking of Meshes of the Afternoon, One shot has always bugged me, because as far as I know, Deren and Hammid made this film entirely on their own, filming each other. The shot that bugs me is the only one in which you see both of them: he stretches out his hands to pull her out of the chair. Maybe it's not his hands, or maybe someone else is filming; the camera is not on a tripod. Any ideas? Occam's Razor suggests they probably had a friend assist them with minor elements on a few especially tricky shots. The shot above is not the only one where two different figures appear and in which the camera moves. At about 6:30, Maya looks out the window and there's an eyeline match to a shot of a hooded figure carrying a flower walking away down the sidewalk. The camera tilts and pans to follow the figure, and BEFORE the figure exits the top of the frame, Maya enters the bottom of the frame running. So, on set, there's Maya, the figure, and whoever is working the camera. The figure is definitely too tall and angular to be Deren. (The costume seems to have been made for someone with shorter legs than the person wearing it here, and in the earlier shot where the camera tracks backward through the tube looking out the window, it seems to cover more of the figure's leg). It could be Hammid, with someone else executing the camera move -- (Sasha certainly would have had friends from his professional work who could handle a simple pan and tilt, and it would have been a lower hurdle to get a friend to do that than to don the costume.) But if we consider that the hooded figure is probably played by Deren earlier (there are splices in the middle of both swish pans from the figure back to Deren's running legs that begin around 3:30), and given that in the shots in 'At Land' where we see Deren and Hammid walking together in the same frame, Sasha appears to be a good head taller than Maya; then the hooded figure at 6:30 is probably not Hammid, but a somewhat shorter male. As for the shot Pip mentions, the camera definitely IS on a tripod, but indeed the camera move could not have been executed either by Deren or by the person's whose hands pull her up. However, the hands barely enter the frame, betraying no individuality. They are also rotated into a different position (thumbs out) than Hammid's were in the previous shot (thumbs in). So my guess would be that those are someone else's hands, and Sasha is behind the camera. While there's no obvious evidence, I would also guess that Sasha had some help in executing that track back through the tube. It would just be so much easier to recruit a friend to act as a grip for a few tough shots than to figure out complex mechanisms to do it ALL yourself. Regardless, whether one takes entirely on their own absolutely literally, or as a bit of mild hyperbole that expresses the functional essence of the situation, the distinction strikes me as trivial. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] First person narrative
Actually to be more precise, I was thinking that CO is in the same mode as Sunset Blvd ... which it is, but neither of them satisfies Gene's original request, because they're in *past tense*. I haven't seen The Opposite of Sex so I can't tell if it belongs. It's grammatically past tense too, though like a lot of narration in fiction it's restricted. That is, though the narrator would seem to be speaking from a point in time well beyond the events being depicted, they rarely reveal any 'spoilers' any sense that they know what's coming. (Gene has clarified that his interest is not in fiction at all, but we can still talk about it...) What characteristics might distinguish a *first person present tense* voice *NOT* to be an interior monolog? I mean to say, couldn't *any* of the first be interpreted as the second? Well, there's two different things there. My little four-part distinction didn't consider the question of tense. So if you add all of the different temporal relationships direct address might have to the unfolding events (which themselves might or might not be in chronological order) there'd be a lot more categories. But to answer the specific question, 'first person, present tense' would NOT be 'interior monolog' in any case where we see the character speaking. That is, what 'interior monolog' is interior to is the characters' mind. This does not necessarily mean the characters' are 'talking to themselves.' Alex is not addressing an actual group of Droogs. He's imagining an audience. But it's not clear where and when he is doing so, or whether this space/time is within the diegesis or the character has been plucked out of his fictionsl world to some meta-position via 'the miracle of cinems'. In 'Taxi Driver' Travis's monologues would seem to be entries he's recording into a diary -- (which makes them a mixture of present and past tense, FWIW). So, anyway, Ferris Beuller and Moonlighting are not interior monologs, nor are Shakespearean asides and so forth. Not that this distinction necessarily makes a difference. Exterior monologs may serve the same function as interior monologues -- obviously traditional theater doesn't employ disembodied voice-over, so characters may speak their thoughts as a convention. Hamlet's soliloquy is external diegetic. In contrast, Ronnie's monolog at the beginning of Act 2 of The House of Blue Leaves is external non-diegetic because he is breaking the fourth wall and speaking to us as an audience. There's not much external-monolog in fiction films, since voice-over is easier to do and a well established convention. So deviating from that convention, as Ferris Bueller does, signifies something or serves some additional function, though I don't know what, whether there's any consistency from film to film, or whether it's particularly important in the big scheme of things. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] First person narrative
I'm guessing from the OP that only Ferris Bueller counts as what Gene is asking for, the others being examples of interior monologues. Another question, Gene, is whether you are seeking examples of this that occur as exceptions within more conventional narrative address, or only instances that dominate the narrative, or only examples where the whole story is told in this form? There would really be 4 fundamental categories of character speech here (as well as examples that blur the distinctions). It might help, Gene, if you could be more specific about your inquiry along these lines. * interior diegetic: What we hear via voiceover is what we imagine the characters are thinking, they are talking to themselves inside the world of the story. (Example: Taxi Driver) Again, I'm assuming that this is what you DON'T want. * interior non-diegetic: We only hear the characters via voice-over, but they are talking to US, breaking the 'fourth-wall' (Example: Sunset Boulevard, The Opposite of Sex) If you think I'm just plucky and scrappy and all I need is love, you're in over your heads. I don't have a heart of gold and I *don't* grow one later, OK? But relax. There's other people a lot nicer coming up - we call them losers. * exterior diegetic We see and hear the characters speak at the camera directly, but the camera is part of the diegesis. Examples would include 'cinema verite' documentary (which differs from direct cinema in being interuptive rather than merely observational), diary films (Sherman's March, Pincus). Double Indemnity. All the 'found-footage' fictions like Blair Witch Project or where parts of the narratives are told via 'news' footage (District 9). * exterior non-diegetic We see and hear the characters speak at US directly, breaking the 4th wall, and other characters in the diegesis are not aware of these asides. (Examples: Ferris Bueller, the TV show 'Moonlighting'.) An example that blurs the last two somewhat is the TV show 'Once and Again' Wikipedia: One of the show's unique aspects was the interview sequences filmed in black and white and interspersed throughout each episode, where the characters would reveal their innermost thoughts and memories to the camera.(http://tinyurl.com/6pbmfve) These 'interviews' had no specified provenance within the diegesis. (There was no frame that a doc was being made about these people.) It was more like an omniscient narrator had the power to isolate them from their location in narrative time and space and solicit their thoughts. But the characters did not address their comments to an external AUDIENCE or acknowledge their part in a story. They spoke as if they were addressing some sort of sympathetic other who might exist in the world of the story, though not involved in the events of the story. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
Maybe we should start throwing out all those silly old books, too. Just FYI they are throwing out the silly old boks, too. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
