From: T. Siddle (email suppressed)
Date: Thu May 06 2010 - 21:11:21 PDT
Hi Alex,
The person whose given you warnings is probably concerned with you
having a viable print for reproducibility or permanence. If you use
your camera original and project it repeatedly eventually it will
deteriorate, every projection providing an additional level of wear.
It seems from your statements that reproduction and permanence aren't
your concerns with this project and I like your idea of speaking
and/or providing some other external audio to your piece, this would
allow it to cross into the realm of film performance or live cinema
which might be a really exciting realm to work with. Maybe you can
perform with your original and take notes of its content and attempt
to reenact it when it eventually becomes unusable maybe your
directions for putting it back together could become a sort of score
or script. Anyhow, you should look into some other people who are
doing work with film performance, I'd recommend especially looking at
some of the work of Zoe Beloff, Bradley Eros, Joel Schlemowitz, and
Roger Bebe to provide you with possible alternate modes of cinema
production/presentation.
I'd not worry too much about the legal issues.
Best,
Tessa Siddle
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Alex McCarron <email suppressed> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> So I'm a film student and I trying to figure out how to cut a film I shot on
> 16mm reversal.
>
> I kind of just want to cut the camera original and then figure out how to
> add a voice over later, printing it when I can afford it and maybe just
> using a boom box or my own voice before then.
>
> I've been warned this is a terrible idea by someone I consider to represent
> the odious forces of Production Quality but whose opinion I otherwise
> respect.
>
> My rationale is this:
> A.) Pac Lab already scratched my footage, I have some exposure problems and
> some dirt already on the film from using Temple University projectors. I
> don't really know how much more I can screw up my film and the film has a
> deliberate amateurish tone anyway.
>
> B.) I love the difference between what I shot looks like projected and what
> it looks telecined. I wonder if I started making prints if I would dislike
> the lack of that originality, if I would lose the aura that maybe is part of
> reversal filmmaking.
>
> C.) This film might be illegal and just meant for my friends anyway. I
> recorded a bunch of people's faces on the street and I might end up using
> copyrighted footage.
>
> Really the main problem is money but I wonder if it's a lost cause trying to
> make this film look pristine and if I really care anyway.
>
> I was wondering if anyone on here had any thoughts though.
>
> Sorry for the long message.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex McCarron
>
> __________________________________________________________________ For info
> on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.