[Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup

[Mark Toscano]

Hi Chris,

I'm glad you asked, as it's a subject I feel fairly passionately about.

I'll first just clarify that the super 8 to 35mm blowup I'm seeking is
purely for a project of my own which has to do with the large stretch
between the two formats (i.e. it's a film which has specifically to do with
the extra large blowup).  As soon as I have the details hammered out on
that, I'd be happy to say more about it...

As for blowups in general, though - since it's no longer possible to do
run-of-the-mill contact printing in 8mm or super 8, and since there's
already a decades-long tradition of blowups of 8 to 16, I think it's a less
problematic way to make smaller gauges viewable on film, when duplication
is necessary.  It's still a translation, though.  Some filmmakers shot
super 8 with the express intention of blowing up (as with some of
Brakhage's films, James Otis's films, and many others), some shot and
printed super 8 with only that intention, no blowup in mind, but then
decided later on to blow up to 16 for whatever reasons (usually a matter of
making the work more accessible, preserving it, etc.)

Blowing up 16mm to 35mm on the other hand has nearly always seemed a really
problematic step to me (unless of course the artist has that specifically
in mind).  From a preservation standpoint, it can cost twice or even 3-4
times as much as doing the work in 16mm, it's inherently changing the
nature of the film in terms of scale, grain structure, etc., and it makes,
I think, a somewhat elitist political statement that only venues capable of
showing 35mm will now have access to that film.  I've been saying (here and
there, to whomever would let me blather about it) for a dozen years that,
on top of these aesthetic/political concerns, the preservation question of
35mm being somehow more "archival" or likely to have increased longevity
over 16mm was almost certainly going to be totally false.  In terms of
archival stability, the stocks in 16 and 35 are the same in these purposes,
and would have the same chemical longevity, more or less.  And preserving
in a gauge not the film's own changes its essential nature, so that very
aspect of its identity (its gauge) is lost in the preservation.  Plus I've
never followed the logic that primarily commercial archiving entities make,
that bigger/sharper/faster/etc. is better, because it's clearly bullshit.
What's better is preserving a film as unfussily in its original format as
is possible.  And as for 35 outlasting 16, we've seen where that's gone -
only a handful of devoted cinephiliac venues and museums can handle 35mm
now, and a lot of those handle 16mm too.  PLUS, any number of classrooms,
galleries, microcinemas, backyards, whatever, can and do show 16mm on any
number of projectors kicking around out there.  The 35mm projection
knowledge base (especially regarding maintenance) is supremely limited,
whereas a ton more folks have figured out how to run and even maintain, to
some degree, the 16mm projectors they have.

Anyway, I'm ranting.  But bottom line, my feeling is to preserve 16mm as
16mm as long as it's possible!

Mark Toscano


On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, <director at lift.on.ca> wrote:

> Mark,
>
> Since we're on the subject, is there a reason you're going to 35mm rather
> than 16mm? Although 35mm is definitely more robust and beautiful (with a
> great soundtrack potential), my sense now is that a 16mm print might have
> longer life than a 35mm print.
>
> Now that so many places have taken out their 35mm projectors, its less of
> a presentation medium for many places. 16mm, on the other hand, is still
> very portable, so you can always bring the projector in if there's
> interest.
>
> My 35mm prints sit on the shelf. My 16mm prints occasionally get taken for
> a spin.
>
> Do you have a more positive take on the future of 35mm vs 16mm?
>
> thanks
> Chris
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150317/55ce7953/attachment.html>