[Frameworks] Modern 16mm features, distributed on film

[John Woods]

Amanda, why did you choose a 2k scan, instead of a 4k? Strictly a cost savings? Seems that TVs will be 4K before we know it. Even if you were lucky to afford a DI and get a 35mm print, I've heard from several lab guys that 2K DIs were always a little soft compared to a traditional contact print. But I would agree that a DCP is a realistic way to finish the film.


While I'm a proponent of using film as a capture medium and even went to the trouble of doing 16mm prints on my last few shorts. I am realistic that as an exhibition medium its pretty dead and an unnecessary cost for a DIY artist without major backing or funding. Printing my 3 minute shorts is a manageable cost, but to make a print of a feature film, its just a huge cost for very limited venues, hence my curiosity as to who is still going to such lengths. 



On Friday, July 18, 2014 1:31:43 PM, Amanda Christie <amanda at amandadawnchristie.ca> wrote:
 


speaking of 16mm films having longer life than 35mm....

i had been hoping to finish my latest project, Spectres of Shortwave, on 35mm... it's a 2 hour long landscape film of radio towers... but given that i knew it would be at least 2 years in the filming process (as they were tearing down the radio towers and i couldn't rush them, and i wanted all 4 seasons)... and it was right when a lot of labs were closing their 35mm labs and theatres were getting rid of projectors... even though i didn't care about commercial theatres,  i was still worried that if i pursued a 35mm finish, that by the time i was ready to finish, that 35mm sound options would have dissappeared, and i would be screwed over by the sound aspect, and have to scan it all and finish digitally anyway... on a tight budget i couldn't afford risking the expense of workprint AND a scan if 35mm sound went bust, so i decided to scan everything 2k and finish to DCP... le sigh.... I'm at that stage right now... logging and editing... dealing with
 proxies, codecs, etc. etc.... while my 35mm intercine sites alone, unused and bereft.

i will get this one done... 
somehow...

but i swear... dammit!.... that my next one will be finished on a print... i bought a 35mm camera while making this one (with everything that was happening so fast in 2011 and 2012 in the industry, and with a project that would involve 2 years of filming... it was cheaper for me to buy than rent, and cameras were going dirt cheap).... so i own an arri 35mm bl 4...  and my next film will finish to film... and it will be projected... well... wherever there is a 35mm projector.  

(this is the voice of one frustrated with codecs and proxies)

16mm too... i want some more of that.  

xoadc



On 2014-07-18, at 4:17 PM, John Woods wrote:

Thanks for the many replies! I'm primarily interested in films produced in the 2010s. 45+ minutes in length, with an actual 16mm print struck. 
>
>
>With the end of 35mm distribution in the past year, I've been wondering about how much longer 16mm prints will stick around. James Benning complained about the poor state of 16mm projection when he finished his last 16mm feature, RR, in 2007 and switched to video. 
>
>
>With the abundance of compact projectors, it looks like 16mm prints will have a slightly longer life than 35mm, at least as an artist's medium. There is still a surprising amount of shorts being produced, but a 16mm feature seems like quite a passion project and its looking like Differently, Molussia is the most recent feature. 
>
>
>John
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20140718/9326a6bf/attachment.html>