Re: why we shoot film

From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Mar 05 2006 - 11:05:02 PST

> How is it a red herring? Video projection rigs
> (though often of
> substandard quality, granted) are nearly ubiquitous.
> DVD players,
> computers, and television sets are beyond
> ubiquitous. What better way to
> get the work "out there," as you say, than
> transferring it into a medium
> that is viewable pretty much everywhere, rather than
> only on
> hard-to-come-by _functioning_ 16mm projectors? Sure,

Not all work is on 16mm film. Work is projected on
video projectors. Not just work that originated on
video but quite often work orignated on film. Work
shot on S8 or 35mm often benefit from this as 16mm
projection is the standard in the world of
experimental film and the only other format is often
video projection.

I saw a great film projected this way called "City at
night" by Gerard Holthius. It was shot on 35mm and
projected off video. It was a wonderful experience. A
really magical movie.

I think this is often done. It's great it works.
People also project off 16mm too, and that is also
wonderful and it is great and it works. I don't see
how this is an issue however. I mean if the filmmaker
wants to make a 16mm print then they make a 16mm
print, and if they want to make a video for projection
then they do that. How is this an issue? People do
this all the time and are very happy about it. How can
that be a problem at all!???

> simple availability
> does not guarantee an increase in audience, but it's
> definitely and
> demonstrably a crucial first step.

Availability definitely helps but I don't think that
video projection has anything to do with increasing
availability really. More filmmakers are able to get
their work out there this way it is true and it a
great option to have and people are using it and they
have been for ages. So in this sense it is wonderful.
However If everything was available only on video
tommorow it wouldn't suddenly make people be
interested in the work or enable them to know about
it. In fact it might make them less so.

I mean work has been available for video projection
for some time, and it is available for video
projection, and it is being video projected, so what
you are suggesting, that people could project stuff
off video to make it more available, well, it wouldn't
make any difference because people are already doing
that, it isn't new or anything.

I think why I'm saying this is a red herring is
because the means of theatrical exhibition are not
really a problem in terms of people knowing about the
work. Theres loads of stuff available for video
projection, and that doesn't make any difference
really as to whether people know about it or not. It's
kind of irrelevant.

It's nothing really to do with whether there are loads
of film screenings or something, although that
obviously helps, but it's that nobody knows anything
about this stuff, so why should they come and see it
even if it is being shown.



Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.