Re: I'm intrigued . . . .

From: Anna Biller (email suppressed)
Date: Fri May 07 2010 - 14:08:22 PDT

If you double-splice it, it should last quite awhile. And you can keep
repairing torn sprockets forever and ever. If frames get totally eaten
by the projector, you can just cut them away, and leaves holes or else
insert something else where the missing frames used to be. Thus the
film will "last" as long as you see fit to keep projecting it in its
various states of deterioration. This is what happens to film prints
anyway over time. The only difference is that you don't have an
original to reprint from. A workprint can be beautiful with the
addition of the blurs, jumps and texture the tape splices add.

On May 7, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Alex McCarron wrote:

> Thanks for all the helpful responses.
> I guess you're right about the horse being outside of the barn at
> this point in terms of dirt and scratches. I guess my only hang up
> is how long my film is going to last if I go this route.
> I'm not into permenance though. I always thought Bunuel was a pussy
> for not burning all his films.
> Alex
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:24 AM, JEFFREY PAULL <email suppressed>
> wrote:
> Since you're a film student, what have your film teachers suggested,
> so far?
> This would help us not just repeat what you've already heard. (Or
> don't want to hear)
> Your phrases, " I kind of just want to . . . ", and " your
> wondering, " . . . if I really care anyway"
> make it tough to know how to proceed with suggestions. "kind of",
> and "if I really care" make for a pretty vague situation.
> I'm also puzzled that you say, both, your film is already scratched
> and dirty (OUCH!), and you're "trying to make this film look
> pristine".
> I think, if I interpret you correctly, the pristine horse is already
> out of the barn, so to speak.
> Unless you mean the dirt and scratches are, in fact, what you want
> to preserve as-is, with no further changes.
> - Jeffrey Paull
> On Thu 06/05/10 23:44 , Alex McCarron email suppressed sent:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > So I'm a film student and I trying to figure out how to cut a film
> > I shot on 16mm reversal.
> >
> > I kind of just want to cut the camera original and then figure out
> > how to add a voice over later, printing it when I can afford it and
> > maybe just using a boom box or my own voice before then.
> > I've been warned this is a terrible idea by someone I consider to
> > represent the odious forces of Production Quality but whose
> opinion I
> > otherwise respect.
> > My rationale is this:
> > A.) Pac Lab already scratched my footage, I have some exposure
> > problems and some dirt already on the film from using Temple
> > University projectors. I don't really know how much more I can
> > screw up my film and the film has a deliberate amateurish tone
> anyway.
> > B.) I love the difference between what I shot looks like projected
> > and what it looks telecined. I wonder if I started making prints
> if I
> > would dislike the lack of that originality, if I would lose the
> aura
> > that maybe is part of reversal filmmaking.
> > C.) This film might be illegal and just meant for my friends
> anyway.
> > I recorded a bunch of people's faces on the street and I might end
> > up using copyrighted footage.
> >
> > Really the main problem is money but I wonder if it's a lost cause
> > trying to make this film look pristine and if I really care anyway.
> > I was wondering if anyone on here had any thoughts though.
> >
> > Sorry for the long message.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex McCarron
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________
> 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>.