From: Bernd Luetzeler (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 20 2010 - 10:43:18 PDT
ok so I gotta join this discussion now (although I haven't read each and every post so I hope I won't repeat what others have written before...)
So I'm almost finished with my work on an 16mm film that's gonna be blown up to 35. It's the first time I'm working in that format, earlier I was did some stuff in Super-8 and much more in video. Anyways, now I'm in this 16mm celluloid space and my film required a lot of single-frame-editing. So I decided to work on an optical printer. This work has become a really traumatic experience for me, partly because it was the first time I worked like this, and there were quite some misunderstandings about the workflow between me and the person who owns this machine. But mostly because this person seems to on the one hand love his equipment, but at the same time hate to work with it. Now I was not allowed to even touch it, so for 4 days I kept counting frames and keeping track of the right order of frames. The problem for me was that the owner of the printer - and he's a really sweet person otherwise - kept treating me so badly, and I guess mostly because this work is really slow and exhausting and not really appreciated by anyone nowadays, that I really felt bad with each and every frame we exposed. So I don't wanna go into the details of this, but I think the fact that still a lot of this old technology is in the hands of frustrated old men, is also a reason for people to go digital. And it's so sad because me and him we are in the same space, and he's frustrated because this technology dies, and I'm frustrated because he gives me such a hard time, and therefore I keep thinking that next time I just go for a DI. And I think that's quite a global phenomenon, same thing happened with the music industry in the 90Ts, so many musicians were just happy to bypass the studio technicians. But maybe I will recover from that trauma and next time again stay optical, lets see...
On 20.07.2010, at 22:52, Sam Wells wrote:
> To go back to the idea of the "future"... who cares what "future" there is for film? Or for anything?
> Are you joking ?
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
FrameWorks mailing list