From: bryan mckay (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Feb 04 2010 - 11:27:25 PST
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
>> 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
>>> 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>.