Hello, again
Thanks for your comments, Brooke. I wonder if we're talking about two
different types of filmmaking (not to mention, cameras!) here...one with a
budget, and one without. I work on the latter, and this may be where some
of the miscommunication lies. As I said, I'm old-school.
I use an old H-16 Bolex -- or a 16mm Beaulieu when I'm feeling "rich"....
Either way, neither are crystal synch. I could slave the former to a Nagra
(yes, I still use a Nagra!), though. Even when I use a 16mm Éclair or an
Arri, I've never had the luxury of gadgets for doing the filmming for me!
Again, I'm travelling in a different circle of filmmakers...one where
process is the project, and one where process gets in the way. The one
thing in common is that there's much of a budget.
And, I should add that I've never known anyone to use a still camera for
time-lapse images that are intended ultimately for motion picture. I've
used the Nikon Super 8 for this, and don't mind setting up the camera with
the intervalometer and leaving it to do the work. No, I don't walk away
from it, but I might point it out my bedroom window and then go about my
business for a day or so. Then I transfer the Super 8 footage onto 16mm,
and don't find the increase in grain to be a big deal. Again, though, I'm
not making the kind of films where that would matter.
And, as far as sending my film to a lab to have them push it a few stops?
Nope. I hand process my footage, and, even though I often push my film when
processing, it doesn't matter how much I push if there was not enough light
in the first place -- because I can't process what isn't there. Processing
by hand can be risky, but is possibly something more and more filmmakers --
filmmakers of a certain type, that is -- may find themselves resorting to in
the future, as less and less labs continue to process film. I mean, it's
getting hard to find a lab that will strike a work print, let alone process
black and white reversal! And hardly anyone cuts on a flatbed anymore...let
alone their kitchen table....
Film school is a great place, I agree, but sadly this is a dying (not quite
dead) institution, and it's truly heartbreaking to imagine budding
filmmakers of today having no idea what the emulsion side of film tastes
like.... Not that this could possibly make one a better "filmmaker," but the
tactility of manually cutting a piece of celluloid with a splicer, rather
than editing a digital image on a computer, does, I believe, make a
difference.
It just might be that I'm sentimental, but it might not. Maybe it's about a
relationship between the material, the material image, and the filmmaker --
to the physicality of film -- that digital images and working on a computer
just can't stand up to. I suspect I'm not quite hitting the nail on the
head with my explanation, and would like to hear what others think about
this. Is it just another version of the vinyl vs. CDs argument?
And one more thing -- apropos of nothing -- it irks me when people refer to
"videos" as "films." And I am stunned how the average person cannot seem to
tell the difference between the two mediums.... I'm thinking about Godard on
this one, his indictment of film as contained in "Histoires du Cinema." With
the strength of HD, can cinema (now) find it's ("true") "place in the sun?"
Oy, it's late where I am, and I'm getting maudlin.
Thanks again for your comments, and for keeping this thread alive. I just
hope I haven't killed it!
TL
*
*
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 online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
