 |
 |
Belated clarification: Warhol used a Bolex for the earlier, short silent films (roughly 1964-66). A one hundred foot roll of 16mm lasts 2'45" @ 24fps, or about 4'30" @ 18fps, which is the speed many of the films were projected at. For the sync sound films Warhol used an Auricon, a "single system" (newsreel)camera that records either optical or magnetic sound onto the film's edge during filming, like Super 8 sound cameras, or, ahem, video camcorders, Nicky Hamlyn. Sutton, Damian writes: > I suspect you're right as it's before he got the Arriflex, which held longer reels. The first film with that I think is Henry Geldzahler. > > Damian > > ________________________________ > > From: Film-Philosophy Salon on behalf of William Brown > Sent: Wed 7/11/2007 23:16 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: One-shot films[Scanned-Clean] > > > > To follow on from Mike Frank's first paragraph below, we might say > that ALL film (material film) consists of frames attached together - > whether the next frame is from another reel of film or simply the next > on the same reel. > > All film, according to this model, is an 'edited' version of reality > (ipso facto!). > > By this rationale, might one follow Mulvey, Branigan, Rosen, Doane and > others of late, whose ideas on death and the image and stillness could > conceivably be used to posit an argument whereby a still photograph is > (already?!) a "film" - and the only, true 'unedited' "single-shot > film" (although this was not quite what the original email asked for). > > As for Damian Sutton on Blow Job: the changes of reel are very obvious > indeed, sir, since the screen goes white every 4 or 5 minutes, in > accordance with the average amount of film that could be held on the > average spool for the Bolex that (I think - if memory serves) Warhol > was using... > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:07:21 -0400 > From: "Frank, Michael" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: One shot films > > > >>>The reel changes ARE edits (in the sense of 'cuts'), btw. > > hmm . . . maybe, maybe not . . . if an edit is understood as any > mechanical process of attaching one length of film to another, > regardless of what images are on those two lengths of film, then yes, > reel changes are ipso facto edits > > but if we understand editing more phenomenologically as a shift - > however big or small - is the perceptual POV provided by two lengths of > film where they join, then reel changes of the kind hitchcock employed > are not strictly speaking cuts. > > mike > > * > * > Film-Philosophy salon > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] > Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. > * > Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com > Contact: [log in to unmask] > ** > > > * > * > Film-Philosophy salon > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] > Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. > * > Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com > Contact: [log in to unmask] > ** * * Film-Philosophy salon After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **