[Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup

Wed Mar 18 15:35:07 UTC 2015

>
> Thought I'd mention that there just happens to be an "all 35mm"
> experimental film screening tonight in London, Ontario -
> http://www.lomaa.ca/lomaa-blog/altering-perceptions-march-18


> Given the interesting dialogue around this, I'm glad to note that there
> are still (rare though they may be), exhibition opportunities for
> experimental films in this lovely gauge :)


   -C.

>


> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: charlotte Lipman <calipman at earthlink.net>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:49:45 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup (from Ross Lipman)
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>
>
> Ross here (writing from Charlotte's account) -
>
>
>
> as always you make many excellent points!  However I thought it important
> to write, because I fear that some of the opinions expressed here veer
> dangerously to "thou shall not!" which I'm sure is not your intent.  I'll
> stay away from engaging in a point-by-point debate (especially as I agree
> with a lot of what you say),  but will clarify my own take, stated simply:
>  "there are occasions when blow-up is desired, and others where it's not."
>
>
>
> the fun of course, is determining what those cases might be..
>
>
>
> my (hopefully non-elitist) two cents.  and good luck with your project!
>
>
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
> www.corpusfluxus.org
>
> www.filmbysamuelbeckett.com
>
> From: Mark Toscano <mrktosc at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List <
> frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:21 AM
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Super 8 to 35mm Optical Blowup
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20150318/88292083/attachment.html>