Re: [Frameworks] Digital -- was Re: 16mm camera repair & parts
mike figgis (from these parts) who is famous for preaching the virtues of digital, wrote extensively about the importance of learning on film equipment. he argued that the laziness (which isn't essential, but just always seems to come about) when stock isn't a problem can virtually wipe out any cost benefit of digital. so you might only have to pay for hard drives, but then you have to pay extra edit assistants to sit through the hundred hours of re-takes that you only shot because it was free. i shot a film the other month and had a crew (!! - this doesn't happen often). apart from a couple of camera crew, many of them had never worked with film before, despite being professional crew with many years' experience. they were all insanely excited about it, and the weirdest thing was, not one person made a single mistake in the entire four-day shoot. and they all seemed sure that had never happened before - normally you try to stay quiet, find focus or not wander into frame, but it's not much of an issue. i'm not saying any format or working method is better (though obviously i have personal preferences). but in terms of learning, i think it's widely understood by everyone from film artists to industrial employers, and virtually all undergrad students, that there's a serious benefit to having worked on film edwin > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:32:54 -0700 > From: ryder.wh...@gmail.com > To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Digital -- was Re: 16mm camera repair & parts > > True. It's an unfair slander of an incredible (for the price) camera. > And it's not really to my point, either, but rather an example based > on one man's experience. Perhaps it's just a difference in teaching > styles, but those I've known whose education originated on film have > been generally more hesitant to roll gobs of unusable footage, no > matter what format they ultimately end up using. > > RW > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:22 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote: > >> I can't tell you how many "media professionals" I've worked with who press > >> the record button on the 7D > >> and then proceed to tweak lighting or chose a different frame. Meanwhile, > >> cast and crew are standing around twiddling their thumbs, anticipating a > >> decision but without any real hope of experiencing one. I pity the editors > >> who wade through these wasted gigabytes. > > > > Well, this isn't the 7D's fault. It's kind of lame to expect a camera to > > enforce on a maker things they should know how to do regardless. If you're > > dumping massive amounts of sludge on the schmo whop has to log your footage > > (even if you're our own schmo) you're a media bozo, regardless of your > > professional/amateur status. > > > > > > ___ > > FrameWorks mailing list > > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Digital -- was Re: 16mm camera repair & parts
True. It's an unfair slander of an incredible (for the price) camera. And it's not really to my point, either, but rather an example based on one man's experience. Perhaps it's just a difference in teaching styles, but those I've known whose education originated on film have been generally more hesitant to roll gobs of unusable footage, no matter what format they ultimately end up using. RW On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:22 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote: >> I can't tell you how many "media professionals" I've worked with who press >> the record button on the 7D >> and then proceed to tweak lighting or chose a different frame. Meanwhile, >> cast and crew are standing around twiddling their thumbs, anticipating a >> decision but without any real hope of experiencing one. I pity the editors >> who wade through these wasted gigabytes. > > Well, this isn't the 7D's fault. It's kind of lame to expect a camera to > enforce on a maker things they should know how to do regardless. If you're > dumping massive amounts of sludge on the schmo whop has to log your footage > (even if you're our own schmo) you're a media bozo, regardless of your > professional/amateur status. > > > ___ > 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] Digital -- was Re: 16mm camera repair & parts
> I can't tell you how many "media professionals" I've worked with who press > the record button on the 7D > and then proceed to tweak lighting or chose a different frame. Meanwhile, > cast and crew are standing around twiddling their thumbs, anticipating a > decision but without any real hope of experiencing one. I pity the editors > who wade through these wasted gigabytes. Well, this isn't the 7D's fault. It's kind of lame to expect a camera to enforce on a maker things they should know how to do regardless. If you're dumping massive amounts of sludge on the schmo whop has to log your footage (even if you're our own schmo) you're a media bozo, regardless of your professional/amateur status. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Digital -- was Re: 16mm camera repair & parts
Sandra Maliga wrote: > The aesthetics and techniques of > film and photography can be taught using digital equipment. And Jeff Kreines replied: > Well, no. Well, yes and no... Everything Jeff says about the tendencies of the tools is true. But a tool is just a tool, and in teaching, you can devise assignments that require the students to use the tools in certain ways, to teach different things. For example, I used to give my students an assignment where they had to use a video camera as if it were a 16mm MOS camera... no sync sound, set everything manually using a handheld light meter, shoot no more than (x) minutes of footage (all of which must be handed in along with the finished cut). Etc. I can't think of a way to mimic a Steenbeck with an NLE, but I wouldn't want to. > Having to actually pick the right frame to cut on, because you don't want a > string of 1-frame splices, teaches them how to think when editing. That may be true, but's a hard lesson, difficult for beginners to pick-up. Not really the best way to learn. > Decisions have consequences, and can't always be instantly reversed. But a good way to learn about those consequences is to have a working space where they can be instantly reversed and compared. Seeing the differences (again, in the proper pedagogical context) promotes that ability to think about the process. In reality, students get away with a lot of slop doing assignments in film because it's harder to work with: they show a piece in class with a crappy edit (aesthetically and technically) and everyone goes 'oh well, they're learning...'. Where consequences really come is where the work meets the audience's eye, and no matter how much you've been able to putz with the choices, what goes up on the screen in a showing is what people react to. If a piece was cut digitally, there's no excuse for a cut that's off rhythm or has a flash frame, even in production 101. Heck, if making editing harder is a better way to teach it, forget the Steenbacks. Transfer all the film footage to analog video and make the students put it together with a linear editing system w/o timecode --- where once you get to say 3:15 you can't change your mind about at edit at :23 without redoing everything after that. Having cut a number of docos this way, and taught with these tools for a number of years, I have no nostalgia for them and don't think they forced me to learn anything valuable. NLEs were invented, after all, to make cutting video more like working on a Steenbeck. --- > Digital pushes one into a decision-free zone -- any decision can be postponed > -- which leads to bad art. It leads to laziness. Again, I'm not really disagreeing, but saying that a thoughtful teacher can push back. Postponed decisions don't lead to bad art if they eventually get made thoughtfully. Postponed decisions can lead to non-decisions or lightly considered decisions etc., which leads to bad work. But laziness is ultimately up to the maker, not the tools. Maybe digital has fostered lazy work in that lazy people who never could have finished anything in film are now able to get something out. There's just so much more STUFF now, and of course most of it's inept. But I have the feeling people who actual care about making good work still do, and are as exacting in the digital realm as in celluloid. (Ken Paul Rosenthal: if you're reading this, what do you think?) > > Shooting reversal stock is a great educational tool -- because you learn > about exposure, and do not have much latitude. > > Yes, the cost of film is a terrible thing. In the olden times, the cost and > the technical skills required acted as a filter on what films got made. It > required not only some skill, but it forced one to learn how to hustle. > (When I grew up in Chicago, Tom Palazzolo was the master of making films for > no money -- he knew film couriers for TV stations who sold film cheap -- it > fell off their motorcycles -- and lab guys who would sneak it through the > processing machine. I learned a lot from Tom.) > > Now anyone can go to WalMart and get all they need to make a film that could > be shown theatrically. Access to equipment is no longer a problem. The new > iPhone (too expensive for me) shoots great 1080p video. So Coppola's mythic > "fat girl in Ohio" (his words, not mine) will have access to her > camera-stylo, and might make a great work of art. At the same time, 999,000 > others will suddenly be able to shoot and finish the most horrific pieces of > shit, but they end up with "a movie" that they force others to try and watch. > I now feel some degree of pity for festival programmers, who theoretically > have to watch this glut of stuff. > > Yes, 30 years ago they also had to wade through tons of crap, but the > percentage was lower because of the filter. > > When the typewriter became popular, more people tried writing novels, but it > took perseve
Re: [Frameworks] Digital -- was Re: 16mm camera repair & parts
Amen, Jeff. The discipline aspect of a celluloid education is something I've found invaluable. I can't tell you how many "media professionals" I've worked with who press the record button on the 7D and then proceed to tweak lighting or chose a different frame. Meanwhile, cast and crew are standing around twiddling their thumbs, anticipating a decision but without any real hope of experiencing one. I pity the editors who wade through these wasted gigabytes. RW On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM, 40 Frames wrote: > > > In the NW, film camera rentals (16, 35) are still 30-50% of rental house > business. This would fit the somewhat narrow > definition of "media professional". > > Alain > > > -- > 40 FRAMES > Alain LeTourneau > Pam Minty > > 40 FRAMES > 5232 N Williams Ave > Portland, Oregon 97217 > USA > > +1 503 231 6548 > www.40frames.org > www.16mmdirectory.org > www.emptyquarterfilm.org > > > ___ > 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] Digital -- was Re: 16mm camera repair & parts
In the NW, film camera rentals (16, 35) are still 30-50% of rental house business. This would fit the somewhat narrow definition of "media professional". Alain -- 40 FRAMES Alain LeTourneau Pam Minty 40 FRAMES 5232 N Williams Ave Portland, Oregon 97217 USA +1 503 231 6548 www.40frames.org www.16mmdirectory.org www.emptyquarterfilm.org ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Digital -- was Re: 16mm camera repair & parts
On October 19, 2011 4:25 PM, Jeff Kreines wrote: >But even if students are going to end up in a world where there is no film >being shot, a good education will still give them the experience of >shooting >and editing film, because the lessons learned are greater than one might >imagine. Thanks Jeff! I wanted to respond earlier today, but you did a better job of articulating why a film-based production workflow is still a beneficial part of a film education. -Jason Halprin ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
