Re: Dialogues between film and digital

From: Myron Ort (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Feb 04 2010 - 13:56:30 PST


Thanks Bryan, I think that starts to point me in the right
direction. Is it then advisable to make the initial transfer to a
hard drive rather than to mini dv? Is this 24 progressive frame per
second a readily available setting at most telecine (Rank?) transfer
services?

On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:16 PM, bryan mckay wrote:

> When you slow something down in Final Cut, for instance, you have
> to turn off "Frame Blending" or else it will start interpolating
> new frames.
>
> Also, if you're using Mini DV as your source, you're working with
> 29.97 fps material, so you're already adding extra frames. There
> are a lot of variables when moving from analog to digital. The most
> important thing if you want to keep from adding any extra frames is
> to output 24 progressive frames per second during telecine.
>
>
> On Feb 4, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Myron Ort wrote:
>
>> My limited experience with this has led me to believe that the
>> quality is better if the "slow down" process takes place at the
>> telecine stage. Seems like rendering the speed change in Final
>> Cut Pro didn't look as good when I tried that. Not sure I started
>> with a 24 "fps" transfer though, and the file was was transferred
>> initially to a mini dv.
>> I need to learn more about all of this.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:27 AM, bryan mckay wrote:
>>
>>> While I don't have specific answers to your questions, I can tell
>>> you it would be a hell of a lot easier to just telecine/scan your
>>> film to a true 24p digital sourceómost post-houses can transfer
>>> your work to a Quicktime file on a hard driveóand perform these
>>> manipulations in your NLE. You'd have better quality and more
>>> control. It's a lot easier to double frames after the fact.
>>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Myron Ort wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am curious about how film telecine machines work. What is the
>>>> scan rate of a telecine machine? If one wanted to "slow down" a
>>>> film, analogous to say printing every frame twice with an
>>>> optical printer which would be 12fps if projected at 24fps, is
>>>> there an "optimum" slow down speed in the telecine process
>>>> which would minimize digital "artifacts" (frames that did not
>>>> reallly exist on the film). Are there some speeds with the
>>>> telecine process which are exact multiples of its scanning rate
>>>> such that there would result a minimum of these "artifact"
>>>> frames. I am not sure how to articulate this question, but
>>>> hopefully I have conveyed it.
>>>>
>>>> Myron Ort
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Mark Toscano wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fred Worden's brilliant and hilarious video 'Amongst the
>>>>> Persuaded' (2004) is, among other things, all about his
>>>>> uncertainty about what it is to make movies on digital video
>>>>> versus film.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Brand made some films that combined optical printing with
>>>>> computer generated travelling mattes, a very unusual
>>>>> aesthetic. Works in the Field (1978) and Split Decision (1979)
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Robinson's And We All Shine On (2006) treats a filmed
>>>>> landscape and a computer generated landscape in certain terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could look at certain flicker films as, in a sense,
>>>>> breaking down film into binary digits of on/off, especially
>>>>> Arnulf Rainer by Kubelka.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many of John Whitney's computer generated films (beginning in
>>>>> 1967 with Hommage to Rameau) used monochrome computer animated,
>>>>> optical printed with color filters and occasional changes of
>>>>> speed to create the final films, which are ultimately hybrids
>>>>> of the two forms (though they were finalized in film). Might
>>>>> be not interesting enough an interaction of the two for you,
>>>>> though. (Other main titles in this vein are Permutations
>>>>> (1968), Matrix (1970), Matrix III (1972), and Arabesque (1975))
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken Jacobs has been making dozens of pieces in the past several
>>>>> years that would be well worth considering. There are digital
>>>>> "animations" of stereoscopic still photos, digital
>>>>> manipulations of early film footage, digital manipulations of
>>>>> his own earlier footage, and even pieces which attempt a sort
>>>>> of (visual) stereoization of nonstereo (non-3D) footage. I
>>>>> would contact him directly rather than try to suggest specific
>>>>> titles myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try to think of some more...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark Toscano
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Thu, 2/4/10, Kim Knowles <email suppressed> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Kim Knowles <email suppressed>
>>>>>> Subject: [FRAMEWORKS] Dialogues between film and digital
>>>>>> To: email suppressed
>>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 5:19 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> Apologies for yet another question. This time
>>>>>> I'm looking for experimental works that involve a
>>>>>> dialogue between film and digital technology for a looped
>>>>>> film programme at the Scottish Gallery of Modern Art.
>>>>>> I'm thinking of films that go beyond simply shooting on
>>>>>> film then transferring to digital, but rather where the two
>>>>>> formats somehow comment on each other, such as Shambhavi
>>>>>> Kaul's 'Scene 32' that screened at Rotterdam
>>>>>> this week, and Thorsten Fleisch's 'Wound Film'.
>>>>>> Any suggestions would, as ever, be greatly
>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Kim
>>>>>> We want to hear
>>>>>> all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell
>>>>>> us now
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> _
>>>>>> 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>.
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> 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>.