From: Myron Ort (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 18 2009 - 14:06:43 PDT
I haven't fullly recovered from the disappearance of reversal color
printing and have to get used to the idea that there is first the
inter-neg stage and then the printing stage, unless one were to do
what JP mentioned, treating the painted original as if it were a
negative, which reminds me of a little factoid, namely that
apparently Jerome Hill was said to be adept at this kind of reverse
color thinking. I also do like the idea you mention about using the
"distortion" resulting from default anamorphic chance operations and
"calling it" "intentional". In any case there is much expense
involved and sometimes this seems out of kilter with my spontaneous
and uninhibited approach coming from the world of AE painting where
we even discarded the bother of "picture frames" through aesthetic
justification. For me, at this point in time, even elaborate optical
printing schemes seem like so much "picture frame", especially if it
has to be farmed out to a expensive "framer". As mentioned I long
ago traded my JK for a couple of magic beans, darn! and then there is
also a life-style choice here having to do with how much sunshine one
wants or needs.
Sorry for the rant.
I do not quite understand how a contact printer could double print
every frame. Anyone else know availability of such a lab process?
On Jun 18, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Freya wrote:
> If it were me, I wouldn't hesitate to just contact print it and
> project it scope. Obviously everything would be stretched out but
> personally I like that kind of thing. You would also loose a little
> to the soundtrack but what the hey! It would be a tiny amount of
> the painted area you would loose, so it depends on how fine
> detailed the images you were creating were and what kind of framing
> you had in mind.
> I think a painted film in scope would be incredibly immersive too! :)
> The other option for me would be to contact print it to academy,
> you would actually loose more of the painted film as there would be
> not just a bit off the side but a little off the top and bottom
> too, however this would be most in keeping with the film as it was
> originally painted as nothing would be stretched. I would also add
> that even with 16mm films the projection area is often a little
> tighter than whats on the film, so it might not be that big a deal,
> it really depends on the actual artwork and how it is. Yes you
> could only play it in certain cinemas but I'm guessing they would
> be a close match for the ones likely to show it anyway.
> 1.851 would play just about everywhere that shows 35mm, however in
> a way it is traditionally seen as the most compromised as it crops
> the print area a lot and also relies on in projector masking to do
> so which can be a little bit variable in reality. It would heavily
> crop your image unless you designed your image to fit that aspect
> Yes it could be optically printed to a pillarboxed 1.85 image and
> this would be very compatible and nice but making 35mm prints is
> expensive enough already, adding the cost of opticaly printing
> doesn't seem worth it to me. I'd rather start again and make a new
> film that could be contact printed.
> It depends a lot on how you are working, what the film is like and
> how you envision the film. Personally I wouldn't hesitate for a
> moment to contact print to scope but thats because I actually like
> the idea of things being stretched out and a little strange. I also
> don't mind trying out things that are more random in nature like as
> you suggest india ink cracking or reticulation, that are a little
> OTOH optically printing would give you loads of control as you
> suggest. I've heard that some 35mm contact printers can do some
> simple speed changes such as printing every frame twice, or a few
> other similar presets, but they can't do anything like the kinds of
> effects you can achieve with an optical printer. (You'd have to
> discuss all this kind of stuff with your lab!)
> Well hope thats plenty to think about. :)
> --- On Thu, 6/18/09, Myron Ort <email suppressed> wrote:
>> From: Myron Ort <email suppressed>
>> Subject: Re: another quirky question....
>> To: email suppressed
>> Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 5:37 PM
>> I am currently thinking that a
>> straight forward approach would be to paint the original on
>> full frame and take it to optical (to make inter neg)
>> at which point the aspect ratio and the speed (eg. print
>> every frame twice etc.) could be determined. The
>> aesthetics of the whole approach would be such that the
>> unavoidable minor cropping (varying according to which
>> format or aspect ration is finally decided upon) would come
>> under the fortuitous chance operational speculative and
>> simply be yet another aspect left to "nature" as it were,
>> not unlike the yielding of absolute control of cracking
>> patterns emerging from india ink etc. After all, this
>> is abstract expressionism, not just little dancing scratched
>> cute gewgaws with a message in front of a horizon line where
>> cropping might be noticeable and undesirable.
>> given this, the above approach, the question might be what
>> would the best format be, maybe 1:85.
>> This is why I was curious about the Sastiaga film.
>> On Jun 18, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Freya wrote:
>>>> Another way of asking this: If you were going to
>>>> attempt to make a hand-painted 35mm film to be
>> shown in
>>>> cinemascope, how would you go about it?
>>> Thats tricky! My immediate thought might be to build
>> some anamorphic goggles and to be sure not to stray into the
>> soundtrack area. :)
>>> More realistically you could pick up a cheap 2x
>> anamorphic projector lens and try and see what you are doing
>> through that while masking off the soundtrack area. Like
>> those ancient paintings with hidden features! :)
>>> 1.85 would be the easiest as you would just have to
>> mask off a certain area of your original and paint within
>> that area.
>>> Lastly if you restrict yourself to art house cinemas
>> that screen older films you could possibly work in academy.
>> Again you would need to work in a smaller area away from the
>> soundtrack and a little bit off the top and bottom. You
>> could look into this as a possibility for the footage you
>> already worked on too, to what extent will losing the
>> soundtrack area and a bit top and bottom of frame affect
>> your film? You could make a cardboard mask and see if this
>> slight cropping would be an issue. You'd need to check with
>> the cinema if they can screen academy of course, but a lot
>> of places that screen old classic films probably still can
>> I'm guessing. Yes you would be more limited in cinemas but
>> is it really that restricting for a weird hand painted film
>> anyway? ;)
>>> Optically printed pillarboxed prints are usually made
>> to fit into 185 and not scope.
>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.