Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Fred Camper)

From: Janis Lipzin <jlipzin_at_aol.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:48:22 -0700

Fred Camper asked:
What is there about your
particular practice that depends only on celluloid and could not be
accomplished with video?

Here is a very brief answer pertinent to my own practice.

  My conscious decision to begin with film is based on that medium's
unduplicable and capricious response to light. I use darkroom
processes to produce outcomes that allude to but don't truly describe
color in the natural world. I then interweave the results with the
more controllable properties of digital technology. This process
expands the realism of color expression that original film allows but
is deeply indebted to the photo-chemical processes particular to the
film material. Starting with the Kodak palette of color, I can
choose to extend beyond it by subjecting the film material to unique
influences of pigmentation resulting in an artisanal hand-made work
rather than a transparent carrier of information.

Janis Crystal Lipzin
jlipzin_at_aol.com
ph/fax: 707-823-3946




On Aug 19, 2011, at 8:46 PM, frameworks-request_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
wrote:

> Send FrameWorks mailing list submissions to
> frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> frameworks-request_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> frameworks-owner_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of FrameWorks digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. More films (info)
> 2. Re: More films (craig baldwin)
> 3. Quo Vadis Celluloid? (David Tetzlaff)
> 4. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Fred Camper)
> 5. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Pip Chodorov)
> 6. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Steven Gladstone)
> 7. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Fred Camper)
> 8. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Pip Chodorov)
> 9. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Anna Biller)
> 10. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (malgosia askanas)
> 11. RIP Robert Breer, did I miss this thread? (Huckleberry Lain)
> 12. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Anna Biller)
> 13. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (malgosia askanas)
> 14. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Jake B.)
> 15. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Jason Halprin)
> 16. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Jake B.)
> 17. Re: Quo Vadis Celluloid? (Anna Biller)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:06:21 -0700
> From: info <info_at_oddballfilm.com>
> Subject: [Frameworks] More films
> To: <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <CA73E61D.59B08%info_at_oddballfilm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> More 16mm films for sale.
> For local browsing and pickup only.
> Mostly educational but lots of odd reels and odds and ends.
> Email for times to swing by.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stephen Parr
> Director
> Oddball Films
> Oddball Film+Video
> www.oddballfilm.com
> 275 Capp Street
> San Francisco, CA 94110
> Phone 415-558-8117
>
>
>
>
>
>
> About Oddball Films
> Oddball Films is the film component of Oddball Film+Video, a stock
> footage
> company providing offbeat and unusual film footage for feature
> films like
> Milk, documentaries like The Summer of Love, television programs like
> Mythbusters, clips for Boing Boing and web projects around the world.
> Our films are almost exclusively drawn from our collection of over
> 50,000
> 16mm prints of animation, commercials, educationals, feature films,
> movie
> trailers, medical, industrial military, news out-takes and every
> genre in
> between. We?re actively working to present rarely screened genres
> of cinema
> as well as avant garde and ethno-cultural documentaries which
> expand the
> boundaries of cinema. Oddball Films is the largest film archive in
> Northern
> California and one of the most unusual private collections in the
> US. We
> invite you to join us for our award-winning weekly offerings of o
>
> The Archive
> www.lostamerica.com/oddballfilm
>
>
> Facebook and Twitter
> http://www.facebook.com/oddballfilm
> http://twitter.com/Oddballfilms
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/
> attachments/20110819/a4d0ab96/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:34:58 -0700
> From: craig baldwin <othercine_at_hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] More films
> To: <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <BAY166-W126FA54A3A6F2B731A9565AA2A0_at_phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> steve, as i asked before, please let me know if you have any
> working Eikis (or equivalent)..if so, then let me know viewing
> times (I might have something for you that you'd be interested
> in).thanx
>
> Craig Baldwin
>
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:06:21 -0700
> From: info_at_oddballfilm.com
> To: frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> Subject: [Frameworks] More films
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> More 16mm films for sale.
>
> For local browsing and pickup only.
>
> Mostly educational but lots of odd reels and odds and ends.
>
> Email for times to swing by.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Stephen Parr
>
> Director
>
> Oddball Films
>
> Oddball Film+Video
>
> www.oddballfilm.com
>
> 275 Capp Street
>
> San Francisco, CA 94110
>
> Phone 415-558-8117
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> About Oddball Films
>
> Oddball Films is the film component of Oddball Film+Video, a stock
> footage company providing offbeat and unusual film footage for
> feature films like Milk, documentaries like The Summer of Love,
> television programs like Mythbusters, clips for Boing Boing and web
> projects around the world.
>
> Our films are almost exclusively drawn from our collection of over
> 50,000 16mm prints of animation, commercials, educationals, feature
> films, movie trailers, medical, industrial military, news out-takes
> and every genre in between. We?re actively working to present
> rarely screened genres of cinema as well as avant garde and ethno-
> cultural documentaries which expand the boundaries of cinema.
> Oddball Films is the largest film archive in Northern California
> and one of the most unusual private collections in the US. We
> invite you to join us for our award-winning weekly offerings of o
>
>
>
> The Archive
>
> www.lostamerica.com/oddballfilm
>
>
>
>
>
> Facebook and Twitter
>
> http://www.facebook.com/oddballfilm
>
> http://twitter.com/Oddballfilms
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/
> attachments/20110819/b1739b56/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:31:12 -0400
> From: David Tetzlaff <djtet53_at_gmail.com>
> Subject: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <B0B2B9CB-A99C-43CD-9E70-1A7B54A9B1F9_at_gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Kodak has begun trying to sell off it's digital technology patents
> in an attempt to recoup some value for shareholders. Things have
> not been looking good in Rochester, and a number of financial
> analysts are predicting this sell-off won't work. Among other
> problems, Kodak is facing a $1.2 billion pension shortfall.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4xwmyzg
>
>> ?It?s kind of a dead-man-walking stock. There?s not a good
>> prognosis for it.?
>>
>> Derivatives traders are betting there is a more than 90 percent
>> chance that Kodak is headed toward default...
>>
>> Kodak?s ?viability on a go-forward basis may be not only
>> challenged but hard to defend. They do have values embedded in
>> patents and other technologies. Someone is going to buy the
>> company and tear it apart.?
>>
>> Buyers may include Microsoft, the world?s largest software maker,
>> Samsung, the Suwon, South Korea-based maker of Galaxy phones and
>> tablet computers, and Google.
>
> Now, nowhere in the current business reports does it say what would
> happen to the Kodak's photochemical film business under any of the
> possible scenarios. I would guess if they can get enough revenue
> from the patent sale to stay afloat they'll keep on keeping on for
> awhile. But if they default, or get bought by Microsoft or Google,
> who knows? There's no guarantee at all that the film business will
> continue. What does Microsoft or Google care? They could just
> shutter the film business altogether. No more camera stocks, print
> stocks, chemistry, anything. The biggest scream would probably come
> from commercial movie theaters, most of which still rely on prints
> for projection. The bigger chains would have a forced conversion to
> digital, while the smaller exhibitors would just quit, drastically
> reducing the number of screens and causing some short term pain for
> the studios. Again, one wonders whether Microsoft or Google would
> care, whether it would even show up on their radar, or w
> hether, if it did, they'd even be happy to have it happen,
> quickening the onset of an all-digital future and increasing the
> value of all the high-end digital image patents.
>
> Now, I'm totally speculating here, and if anyone actually knows
> something real about where the Film Division could be headed in
> Kodak's possible futures, please do post it.
>
> But I'm just wondering what we would all do if Kodak just quit. It
> seems somehow impossible to imagine a world without celluloid film,
> or what would be left of cellulloid practice with Kodak gone. But
> it's possible, and maybe even soon. WTF then?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:02:20 -0500
> From: Fred Camper <f_at_fredcamper.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <20110819160220.13352yd9jm75r4ao_at_fredcamper.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"
>
> I doubt Microsoft or Google would be interested in buying Kodak. They
> tend to buy new technology companies.
>
> I have a question, though, for those horrified by the possible (but,
> in my view and hope, not impending) demise of celluloid. I am
> horrified, too, in terms of the resulting inability to replicate older
> works made to be shown on film. But this is a question for present
> practitioners. Imagine a good high-def or very high-def image shown on
> a projector (DLP?) or monitor of your choice. What is there about your
> particular practice that depends only on celluloid and could not be
> accomplished with video? How major would the loss be for you, and what
> kind of loss is it, and why would it be so major?
>
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 00:08:10 +0200
> From: Pip Chodorov <frameworks_at_re-voir.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <p0624081fca748039574b_at_[192.168.0.11]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> The question has nothing to do with whether film and video LOOK
> different.
> The fact is that they ARE different. That's it.
> If a great cook needs goat's milk for a specific recipe and can only
> get buttermilk, the result will not be the same.
>
> Anyway, I wanted to share with you all an idea that Jonas Mekas has
> been cogitating about for some time. Since the National Film
> Preservation Society is preserving 140 million feet of film and has
> acquired "a bevy of sparkling new film processors" (see page 3 of:
> http://www.amiaconference.com/techrev/V10_02/papers/weismann.pdf),
> then film stock is a national necessity, and its production should
> therefore be supported and sustained by the government. The
> government gave many billions of dollars to the car industry a few
> years ago, then to the banking industry. Maybe the government should
> sponsor Kodak to create the film stock it needs as a primary resource
> to preserve its national heritage. Once Kodak shuts down, it will be
> much more expensive to build a facility to make stock and find and
> train the technicians. And we (the USA) don't want to depend on Fuji
> or Orwo, do we? Jonas' idea is to circulate a petition among the most
> influential film personalities and film preservation agencies to
> raise consciousness about the issue and eventually lobby congress.
> Cinema is probably America's most prominent national export, reaching
> every country in the world. Surely, Kodak is a worthwhile target of
> government support. What do you think?
>
> -Pip
>
>
>
> At 16:02 -0500 19/08/11, Fred Camper wrote:
>> I doubt Microsoft or Google would be interested in buying Kodak. They
>> tend to buy new technology companies.
>>
>> I have a question, though, for those horrified by the possible (but,
>> in my view and hope, not impending) demise of celluloid. I am
>> horrified, too, in terms of the resulting inability to replicate
>> older
>> works made to be shown on film. But this is a question for present
>> practitioners. Imagine a good high-def or very high-def image
>> shown on
>> a projector (DLP?) or monitor of your choice. What is there about
>> your
>> particular practice that depends only on celluloid and could not be
>> accomplished with video? How major would the loss be for you, and
>> what
>> kind of loss is it, and why would it be so major?
>>
>> Fred Camper
>> Chicago
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:23:11 -0400
> From: Steven Gladstone <Steven_at_gladstonefilms.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <4E4EE24F.3090101_at_gladstonefilms.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 8/19/11 6:08 PM, Pip Chodorov wrote:
>> Surely, Kodak is a worthwhile target of
>> government support. What do you think?
>
> It is a nice dream, but without getting political, the U.S. Govt. has
> been trying to legislate against Kodak for years, and in today's
> financial situation, it ain't going to happen.
>
> --
> Steven Gladstone
> New York Based Cinematographer
> Gladstone films
> Blog - http://indiekicker.reelgrok.com/
> http://www.blakehousemovie.com
> http://www.gladstonefilms.com
> 917-886-5858
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:18:41 -0500
> From: Fred Camper <f_at_fredcamper.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <20110819181841.14885mc4pfcbwi88_at_fredcamper.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
> format="flowed"
>
> Quoting Pip Chodorov <frameworks_at_re-voir.com>:
>
>> The question has nothing to do with whether film and video LOOK
>> different.
>> The fact is that they ARE different. That's it.
>> If a great cook needs goat's milk for a specific recipe and can only
>> get buttermilk, the result will not be the same.
>
> Yes, but how different will it taste? My guess is that sometimes it
> will taste different enough to matter, but that with some recipes and
> some cooks, no one will be able to tell the difference.
>
> There have been tests that have shown that wine "connoissuers" are
> often fooled by the label, preferring a cheap wine to an expensive one
> when the labels are switched.
>
> I don't think using film or video or digital are moral issues. What
> matters is results. For a few filmmakers, there will be things that
> only film can do, but I suspect that this is not true of for most. You
> can even get filmic "flicker" with DLP, right? I don't think we should
> have mystical, or fetishistic, attachments to any particular media,
> but rather, explore the possibilities of whatever media we are able to
> use.
>
> The US government actually made a profit on the bank bailout. They
> will arguably make a profit on the auto bailout if the costs of having
> let GM and Chrysler shut down are factored in. I do think someone
> should keep print stock available, but let's be clear on the facts.
>
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 01:37:26 +0200
> From: Pip Chodorov <frameworks_at_re-voir.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <p06240820ca74a03ad776_at_[192.168.0.11]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> Hi Fred,
>
> my argument is not related to how much film and video may or may not
> resemble each other.
> My argument is that they are of a different nature completely.
> It is not like comparing two wines. It is like comparing an aardvark
> and an artichoke.
> I don't think results matter - I think the thing itself matters.
> It just so happens that both can be used to make images, but the
> resemblance stops there.
>
> Regarding profit - preserving American Film Heritage for 600-2000
> years, as the article states, could be the most valuable asset for
> the country's future.
> As an anecdote about the potential profits of investing in film stock
> and developing, this is from the Wikipedia entry on Lucille Ball. In
> 1951, before reruns and syndication, TV was aired live from New York
> - Ball prefered to live in Hollywood. The time difference meant the
> show could not be live and in prime-time.
>> Sponsor Philip Morris did not want to show day-old kinescopes to the
>> major markets on the East Coast, yet neither did they want to pay
>> for the extra cost filming, processing and editing would require,
>> pressuring Ball and Arnaz to relocate to New York City. Ball and
>> Arnaz offered to take a pay cut to finance filming, on the condition
>> that their company, Desilu, would retain the rights to that film
>> once it was aired. CBS relinquished the show rights back to Desilu
>> after initial broadcast, not realizing they were giving away a
>> valuable and durable asset. Desilu made many millions of dollars on
>> I Love Lucy rebroadcasts through syndication and became a textbook
>> example of how a show can be profitable in second-run syndication.
>
> -Pip
>
>
> At 18:18 -0500 19/08/11, Fred Camper wrote:
>> I don't think using film or video or digital are moral issues. What
>> matters is results. For a few filmmakers, there will be things that
>> only film can do, but I suspect that this is not true of for most.
>> You
>> can even get filmic "flicker" with DLP, right? I don't think we
>> should
>> have mystical, or fetishistic, attachments to any particular media,
>> but rather, explore the possibilities of whatever media we are
>> able to
>> use.
>>
>> The US government actually made a profit on the bank bailout. They
>> will arguably make a profit on the auto bailout if the costs of
>> having
>> let GM and Chrysler shut down are factored in. I do think someone
>> should keep print stock available, but let's be clear on the facts.
>>
>> Fred Camper
>> Chicago
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:44:29 -0700
> From: Anna Biller <pbutterfly_at_earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <CDD1D0D3-BC53-4926-A472-87A9D4429F7D_at_earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> But if both goat's milk and buttermilk are available at the market,
> what would be the point of the cook pondering ahead of time on what
> he/ she would do if having to use buttermilk? Why wouldn't he/ she
> just buy the goat's milk and make the recipe? Once goat's milk was
> no longer available, then of course the cook would have to adjust,
> and I'm sure he/ she would. But no cook would ever worry about that
> if they could still get the ingredient. What would be the point?
> And would that cook be accused of being a fetishist if they were
> attached to that ingredient instead of some other, or be accused of
> not exploring other ingredients because that was what they wanted
> to use in their recipe? What's wrong with being a fetishist anyway?
> Isn't that part of being discerning? No true wine connoisseur would
> ever be fooled by switched labels. Discerning/ fetishistic and
> exploratory/ resourceful need not be mutually exclusive, and seldom
> are when we are talking about serious artists.
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>> Quoting Pip Chodorov <frameworks_at_re-voir.com>:
>>
>>> The question has nothing to do with whether film and video LOOK
>>> different.
>>> The fact is that they ARE different. That's it.
>>> If a great cook needs goat's milk for a specific recipe and can only
>>> get buttermilk, the result will not be the same.
>>
>> Yes, but how different will it taste? My guess is that sometimes it
>> will taste different enough to matter, but that with some recipes and
>> some cooks, no one will be able to tell the difference.
>>
>> There have been tests that have shown that wine "connoissuers" are
>> often fooled by the label, preferring a cheap wine to an expensive
>> one
>> when the labels are switched.
>>
>> I don't think using film or video or digital are moral issues. What
>> matters is results. For a few filmmakers, there will be things that
>> only film can do, but I suspect that this is not true of for most.
>> You
>> can even get filmic "flicker" with DLP, right? I don't think we
>> should
>> have mystical, or fetishistic, attachments to any particular media,
>> but rather, explore the possibilities of whatever media we are
>> able to
>> use.
>>
>> The US government actually made a profit on the bank bailout. They
>> will arguably make a profit on the auto bailout if the costs of
>> having
>> let GM and Chrysler shut down are factored in. I do think someone
>> should keep print stock available, but let's be clear on the facts.
>>
>> Fred Camper
>> Chicago
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:28:37 -0400
> From: malgosia askanas <ma_at_panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <p06240801ca74ae26e20b_at_[192.168.111.3]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At 4:44 PM -0700 8/19/11, Anna Biller wrote:
>> But if both goat's milk and buttermilk are available at the
>> market, what would be the point of the cook pondering ahead of
>> time on what he/ she would do if having to use buttermilk? Why
>> wouldn't he/ she just buy the goat's milk and make the recipe?
>
> The point is precisely to grasp the _difference_, no? I think many
> great cooks ponder these things all the time. "What happens if in
> this recipe I use ingredient y instead of x? It tastes slightly
> different, but in what way? And how can I use the difference to
> advantage? Does each recipe have a context for which it is more
> appropriate? Maybe if I change some other ingredient at the same
> time the difference will gain in interest?" And so on, and so
> forth. Don't artists frequently engage in these ponderings?
>
> -malgosia
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:40:47 -0700
> From: Huckleberry Lain <huckleberrylain_at_gmail.com>
> Subject: [Frameworks] RIP Robert Breer, did I miss this thread?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID:
> <CAHG3CVinsEEw+trZNToPQqKDYW-NpzhaJCz1iV_iEMz-
> ybAi9A_at_mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Does anyone have any more insights. I love his films and haven't
> seen them
> for years.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/movies/robert-breer-pioneer-of-
> avant-garde-animation-dies-at-84.html
>
> --
> hypnotic visions - huckleberrylain.net
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/
> attachments/20110819/df3714f8/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:56:47 -0700
> From: Anna Biller <pbutterfly_at_earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <9CA61593-C691-4C5C-A924-6BCC5825601B_at_earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Yes, you're correct that great cooks (and artists) experiment. But
> my point is that great cooks don't sit around worrying about what
> would happen if a favorite ingredient was unavailable, when the
> ingredient is in fact available. They don't go, "I'd better get
> used to cooking without garlic, in case there is no more garlic in
> the future."
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:28 PM, malgosia askanas wrote:
>
>> At 4:44 PM -0700 8/19/11, Anna Biller wrote:
>>> But if both goat's milk and buttermilk are available at the
>>> market, what would be the point of the cook pondering ahead of
>>> time on what he/ she would do if having to use buttermilk? Why
>>> wouldn't he/ she just buy the goat's milk and make the recipe?
>>
>> The point is precisely to grasp the _difference_, no? I think many
>> great cooks ponder these things all the time. "What happens if in
>> this recipe I use ingredient y instead of x? It tastes slightly
>> different, but in what way? And how can I use the difference to
>> advantage? Does each recipe have a context for which it is more
>> appropriate? Maybe if I change some other ingredient at the same
>> time the difference will gain in interest?" And so on, and so
>> forth. Don't artists frequently engage in these ponderings?
>>
>> -malgosia
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:07:49 -0400
> From: malgosia askanas <ma_at_panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <p06240802ca74b7ca2464_at_[192.168.111.3]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> OK, I must have missed the urging to getting used. I thought your
> post, and Pip's, was in answer to Fred's trying to coax out some
> articulation of what exactly would be different or lost in the
> absence of film.
>
> -malgosia
>
>
> At 5:56 PM -0700 8/19/11, Anna Biller wrote:
>> Yes, you're correct that great cooks (and artists) experiment. But
>> my point is that great cooks don't sit around worrying about what
>> would happen if a favorite ingredient was unavailable, when the
>> ingredient is in fact available. They don't go, "I'd better get
>> used to cooking without garlic, in case there is no more garlic in
>> the future."
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Jake B." <planet_jake_at_yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID:
> <1313803192.71963.YahooMailNeo_at_web32508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I think this is an interesting question and perhaps more complex
> than the food metaphor is allowing. Also, to be fair to Fred, I
> don't think he's asking anyone to sit around and think about what
> they might do if film stops existing. I think he's asking us what
> draws us to making film to begin with.
>
>
> To be candid, I began working with video out of a lack of means.
> Even if I were to buy a Super 8 camera (which I did) and film it
> still wasn't even remotely as cheap as video could be. Yes, video
> can be expensive, too. But I work with what I can, which is
> sometimes much, much less than what other people work with. I'll
> sometimes get asked what editing platform I use. I barely know what
> an editing platform is. When my iMovie died I started editing with
> Quicktime. When that stops working I'll do something else. For
> years I tried to simply make videos as I had conceived of the films
> I couldn't afford to make. I was only moderatley happy with
> anything I did. I felt it was derivative, plain, stupid and overly
> conceptual (which remains true). I then saw the videosof Kyle
> Canterbury. I can't tell you what an effect they had on me. I was
> immediately jealous of what he'd done. I remember watching one of
> them and literally saying out loud "Why hadn't I thought of
> video like that?!"
>
> Legend has it that when Buster Keaton began making films, he took
> it upon himself to disassemble a camera and learn about what each
> individual part inside of it did. Looking at his films today it's
> easy to see what he was after. His body movements are practically
> DESIGNED for 18 frames a second. In any event that's what seeing
> Kyle's work did to me. I even took apart video cameras and
> consulted old manuals to learn about the specific parts (one was a
> gift from my mother in law). I shot thousands and thousands of
> tests (something I still do today) to learn what kind of colors
> certain cameras could handle and what certain movements would and
> could do to an image. It took years but I finally began making work
> I was really happy with. I create images with video that are not
> possible with film. So, no, I didn't sit around and think about
> what I would do if I had to work with video. I just worked with
> video. Pretty soon I began thinking like video. I don't
> want to work with film but if I had to stop making videos I would
> simply find another way.
>
>
> -JB
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Fred Camper <f_at_fredcamper.com>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 4:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
>
> I doubt Microsoft or Google would be interested in buying Kodak. They?
> tend to buy new technology companies.
>
> I have a question, though, for those horrified by the possible (but,?
> in my view and hope, not impending) demise of celluloid. I am?
> horrified, too, in terms of the resulting inability to replicate
> older?
> works made to be shown on film. But this is a question for present?
> practitioners. Imagine a good high-def or very high-def image shown
> on?
> a projector (DLP?) or monitor of your choice. What is there about
> your?
> particular practice that depends only on celluloid and could not be?
> accomplished with video? How major would the loss be for you, and
> what?
> kind of loss is it, and why would it be so major?
>
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/
> attachments/20110819/1643dbff/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Jason Halprin <jihalprin_at_yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: "Jake B." <planet_jake_at_yahoo.com>, Experimental Film Discussion
> List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID:
> <1313804025.84467.YahooMailNeo_at_web161520.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Is there a "like" button on frameworks?
>
> -Jason Halprin
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jake B. <planet_jake_at_yahoo.com>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 8:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
>
>
> I think this is an interesting question and perhaps more complex
> than the food metaphor is allowing. Also, to be fair to Fred, I
> don't think he's asking anyone to sit around and think about what
> they might do if film stops existing. I think he's asking us what
> draws us to making film to begin with.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:53:50 PDT
> From: "Jake B." <planet_jake_at_yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> Message-ID: <300239.54461.qm_at_smtp104-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> There should be! Maybe se should start thinking about moving
> Frameworks to Facebook? ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 8:33:46 pm
> To: "Jake B." <planet_jake_at_yahoo.com>,"Experimental Film Discussion
> List" <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> From: "Jason Halprin" <jihalprin_at_yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
>
> Is there a "like" button on frameworks?
>
> -Jason Halprin
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jake B. <planet_jake_at_yahoo.com>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frame
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:46:50 -0700
> From: Anna Biller <pbutterfly_at_earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
> To: "Jake B." <planet_jake_at_yahoo.com>, Experimental Film Discussion
> List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <70292255-4980-4B11-A4CC-7B14F89B2120_at_earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Fred is not merely saying "What draws you to film?" Fred's question:
>
>> What is there about your
>> particular practice that depends only on celluloid and could not be
>> accomplished with video? How major would the loss be for you, and
>> what
>> kind of loss is it, and why would it be so major?
>
>
> exactly fits with the food metaphor. He is specifically talking
> about "loss," and asking practitioners to defend their choices
> against other choices. He suggests through these questions and
> through his statement: "I don't think we should have mystical, or
> fetishistic, attachments to any particular media," that people who
> insist on working with film are closed-minded luddites. I have been
> hearing these sorts of pointed questions for more than twenty years
> leveled at people who work with film. I would never demand of any
> practitioner of art to justify their choice of medium, or tell them
> what they should or shouldn't fetishize.
>
> I also would never put video down as a medium. Video is really
> great, and for some projects I'm sure it's much preferable to film,
> but as Pip said they really are very different. One could go into
> various technical aspects such as flicker or resolution or grain or
> whatever, but the closest I can get is a description of how they
> feel in my body when I watch them. Film feels organic and human,
> video feels more slick and crisp. I guess it all depends on what
> you are going for. Of course so much depends on how you use the
> media too. But especially in watching experimental films there are
> effects which one COULD get on video, but which you would never
> think of trying because they are not organic to how video works.
> It's the same for editing. The way one organically works with
> digital and analog processes tends to be different. I am so struck
> in viewing experimental films from the '60s how often they use
> things such as paper cutouts and handmade silhouettes, or images
> superimposed
> on top of one another, or overexposed images, or psychedelic
> colors. No one would ever think of using a matte made with scissors
> these days when mattes can be made with a click of the mouse. And
> so the images don't look the same. Not better or worse - just
> different. WIth digital processes being what they are, almost no
> one makes anything by hand anymore. So, some of the difference is
> in how it is one works with film or video. The images you get from
> a heavier camera are different. If you don't have to white-balance,
> that's different. If you can't play back what you've just filmed,
> you'll make different choices. If your stock is more expensive, you
> may plan your shoot more carefully. If you have to wait for the
> images to come back from the lab or to appear in your chemicals, it
> can be like a magical process that's imbued with emotional meaning.
> The immediacy of video has a different emotional meaning. Not
> everything is "result." I think that in making art, a lot of it is als
> o "process," at least for the artist.
>
> When this question came up before, I said that film handles color
> and especially whites and blacks differently. And that is probably
> the single biggest technical difference. I find the white whites,
> black blacks, and red reds of film, which can be screamingly bright
> without hurting your eyes, are some of the best things about film.
> With analog processes you can turn things up really high without
> distorting them so they're ugly. Video has a very small contrast
> range. I get very excited about how bright you can make colors on
> film, and how they never bleed. If you like dark or muted colors,
> video handles those better. Video is great for midtones. Even when
> people use film nowadays, they seldom light it very much. Film
> doesn't seem to be about light much anymore. If you're not going to
> really light it - (what was once considered normal lighting in
> movies is now nearly universally called "overlighting" ) - then I
> suppose it doesn't matter as much. I can see getting into video, as
> Jake said, for its own qualities and being happy with it. But
> they really are so different. And I much prefer how people look on
> film. On a personal note the first film I ever shot was on video,
> and because of glitches in the equipment, I lost all the raw
> footage and the final version, which disappeared into ever-
> increasing white glitches until it was completely gone. The
> experience made me quite bitter. I had worked a year with extreme
> intensity on that video. I know video is much more reliable now,
> but I have never quite gotten over that first experience. After
> that I bought a Super 8mm camera at a garage sale, which changed my
> life.
>
> I sometimes get ill when watching HD projections in the cinema. My
> eyes are sensitive also to LCD computer light. My eyes get very
> tired looking at a computer screen, and I get searing headaches. It
> can be quite painful. I get motion sickness too when watching
> projected video. I once had to quit a job as a video operator
> because of the motion sickness I got looking through the
> viewfinder. Also, because the cameras are so light and so easy to
> hold by hand there tends to be so much more camera movement in
> films shot on video. Because of this and the jumpy video image
> there are few new films at festivals that I can sit through without
> becoming physically ill. I had a job as a festival juror last year
> which was hell because of this. But that of course is due in large
> part to the way the medium changes what is made. I personally am
> worried that when I edit my next film I may not be able to cut it
> on a flatbed, and what worries me most is not the loss of my
> fetishistic indulgence,
> but whether or not I can physically handle the demands of looking
> at a computer screen for that length of time - whether my own
> footage will make me ill.
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2011, at 6:19 PM, Jake B. wrote:
>
>> I think this is an interesting question and perhaps more complex
>> than the food metaphor is allowing. Also, to be fair to Fred, I
>> don't think he's asking anyone to sit around and think about what
>> they might do if film stops existing. I think he's asking us what
>> draws us to making film to begin with.
>>
>> To be candid, I began working with video out of a lack of means.
>> Even if I were to buy a Super 8 camera (which I did) and film it
>> still wasn't even remotely as cheap as video could be. Yes, video
>> can be expensive, too. But I work with what I can, which is
>> sometimes much, much less than what other people work with. I'll
>> sometimes get asked what editing platform I use. I barely know
>> what an editing platform is. When my iMovie died I started editing
>> with Quicktime. When that stops working I'll do something else.
>> For years I tried to simply make videos as I had conceived of the
>> films I couldn't afford to make. I was only moderatley happy with
>> anything I did. I felt it was derivative, plain, stupid and overly
>> conceptual (which remains true). I then saw the videos of Kyle
>> Canterbury. I can't tell you what an effect they had on me. I was
>> immediately jealous of what he'd done. I remember watching one of
>> them and literally saying out loud "Why hadn't I thought of video
>> like that?!"
>>
>> Legend has it that when Buster Keaton began making films, he took
>> it upon himself to disassemble a camera and learn about what each
>> individual part inside of it did. Looking at his films today it's
>> easy to see what he was after. His body movements are practically
>> DESIGNED for 18 frames a second. In any event that's what seeing
>> Kyle's work did to me. I even took apart video cameras and
>> consulted old manuals to learn about the specific parts (one was a
>> gift from my mother in law). I shot thousands and thousands of
>> tests (something I still do today) to learn what kind of colors
>> certain cameras could handle and what certain movements would and
>> could do to an image. It took years but I finally began making
>> work I was really happy with. I create images with video that are
>> not possible with film. So, no, I didn't sit around and think
>> about what I would do if I had to work with video. I just worked
>> with video. Pretty soon I began thinking like video. I don't want
>> to work with film
> but if I had to stop making videos I would simply find another way.
>>
>> -JB
>>
>> From: Fred Camper <f_at_fredcamper.com>
>> To: Experimental Film Discussion List
>> <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 4:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
>>
>> I doubt Microsoft or Google would be interested in buying Kodak. They
>> tend to buy new technology companies.
>>
>> I have a question, though, for those horrified by the possible (but,
>> in my view and hope, not impending) demise of celluloid. I am
>> horrified, too, in terms of the resulting inability to replicate
>> older
>> works made to be shown on film. But this is a question for present
>> practitioners. Imagine a good high-def or very high-def image
>> shown on
>> a projector (DLP?) or monitor of your choice. What is there about
>> your
>> particular practice that depends only on celluloid and could not be
>> accomplished with video? How major would the loss be for you, and
>> what
>> kind of loss is it, and why would it be so major?
>>
>> Fred Camper
>> Chicago
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/
> attachments/20110819/c1961605/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
> End of FrameWorks Digest, Vol 15, Issue 25
> ******************************************

_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Received on Tue Aug 23 2011 - 12:52:47 CDT