From: Julia Nimhuiri (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Dec 16 2010 - 12:56:47 PST
Yes, it is one one of the boards at the back. They measure about 6 inches by 5
and there is about 4 of them.
Thanks for the tip, I will contact those people and see what can be done.
Thanks so much.
Julie
When you say "pull out board", I think audio boards on the front left of the
machine, but from the rest of your
description it sounds like you fried a capacitor on the main power board,
which is common for Steenbecks.
You could send the board for repair to Dwight Cody (in Cape Cod) or Paul
Tomasko (in upstate NY; service tech for NYU who
makes it into the city at least once a week). Paul services our machines.
Alain
________________________________
From: "email suppressed"
<email suppressed>
To: email suppressed
Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 2:41:08 AM
Subject: FrameWorks Digest, Vol 7, Issue 23
Send FrameWorks mailing list submissions to
email suppressed
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
email suppressed
You can reach the person managing the list at
email suppressed
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of FrameWorks digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Can my super 8 cameras read different ASA's? (Kevin Timmins)
2. Steenbeck 4-plate 1600 (Julia Nimhuiri)
3. Re: Can my super 8 cameras read different ASA's? (jeanne LIOTTA)
4. Re: Steenbeck 4-plate 1600 (40 Frames)
5. some late afternoon reading / interview on Bombsite (Jessie Stead)
6. Re: Ho Ho Holidayze! (Francisco Torres)
7. Re: Ho Ho Holidayze! (Amanda Christie)
8. Re: Ho Ho Holidayze! (Thomas Dexter)
9. Re: physical water within expanded cinema. (David Kidman)
10. film vs digital (Joan Hawkins)
11. Re: film vs digital (miriam sampaio)
12. Re: film vs digital (40 Frames)
13. Re: film vs digital (40 Frames)
14. Re: film vs digital (email suppressed)
15. Re: film vs digital (David Tetzlaff)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:11:54 +0000
From: Kevin Timmins <email suppressed>
Subject: [Frameworks] Can my super 8 cameras read different ASA's?
To: <email suppressed>
Message-ID: <SNT127-(address suppressed)>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I have used both my super 8 cameras over the past few years without worrying to
much about film speed or f-stops and my film has always come out pretty good.
However lately I've been paying more attention to how my little super 8 cams
operate and I have some questions which hopefully someone can shed some light
on.
Is my Nizo 481 marco and my Canon 514XL-S capable of reading the full range of
asa's? I've read that some camera's only recognize the standard speeds of 40 and
160 asa and are thus under or over exposed when using ektachrome 64t. Most the
time I film with automatic exposure enabled, with ektachrome 64t cartridges, and
with the daylight setting on (tungsten filter disabled). Have I been filming
correctly or do I need to change my operation for better results?
For example should I be filming on tungsten or the daylight setting when indoors
and outdoors? Also, say if I were to change my exposure manually how much would
I have to shift the f-stop? For example if my light meter is telling me the
light entering the camera is 5.6.... what do I change it to for correct
exposure?
ThanksKevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/93704102/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:15:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Julia Nimhuiri <email suppressed>
Subject: [Frameworks] Steenbeck 4-plate 1600
To: email suppressed
Message-ID: <email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi all,
I blew a component on one of the pull-out boards on a four-plate model 1600
Steenbeck.
If anyone is able/willing to help me repair it, I would be very appreciative.
Also, I have the (original!!) specs in prose and block diagram form which I will
be happy to scan and make into a pdf for anyone who would like. From a quick
gander at the pages it appears the manual applies, in some bits, to all models.
Although the component itself is utterly blackened and showered surrounding
ones with black soot, the silver conduits underneath seem to be intact and
solders seem ok on the rest of the components. I couldn't find the diagram or
description in the manual to match the board, so am a bit lost.
ok, a lot lost.
thanks,
Julie Murray
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/65452351/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:58:27 -0700
From: jeanne LIOTTA <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Can my super 8 cameras read different ASA's?
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID:
<email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
dude check out the wonderful world of wiki!!!! The Super8 WIKI is a treasure
trove. Por ejemplo, here's the page on new stocks for old cameras:
http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Super_8_EKTACHROME_64T_motion_picture_film_exposed_in_old_cameras
have fun!!
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Timmins <email suppressed>wrote:
> I have used both my super 8 cameras over the past few years without
> worrying to much about film speed or f-stops and my film has always come out
> pretty good. However lately I've been paying more attention to how my little
> super 8 cams operate and I have some questions which hopefully someone can
> shed some light on.
>
> Is my Nizo 481 marco and my Canon 514XL-S capable of reading the full range
> of asa's? I've read that some camera's only recognize the standard speeds of
> 40 and 160 asa and are thus under or over exposed when using ektachrome 64t.
> Most the time I film with automatic exposure enabled, with ektachrome 64t
> cartridges, and with the daylight setting on (tungsten filter disabled).
> Have I been filming correctly or do I need to change my operation for better
> results?
>
> For example should I be filming on tungsten or the daylight setting when
> indoors and outdoors? Also, say if I were to change my exposure manually how
> much would I have to shift the f-stop? For example if my light meter is
> telling me the light entering the camera is 5.6.... what do I change it to
> for correct exposure?
>
> Thanks
> Kevin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
--
www.jeanneliotta.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/bf3d72d7/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:23:18 -0800
From: 40 Frames <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Steenbeck 4-plate 1600
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTik1=email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Julia Nimhuiri <
email suppressed> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I blew a component on one of the pull-out boards on a four-plate model
> 1600 Steenbeck.
> If anyone is able/willing to help me repair it, I would be very
> appreciative.
> Also, I have the (original!!) specs in prose and block diagram form which I
> will be happy to scan and make into a pdf for anyone who would like. From a
> quick gander at the pages it appears the manual applies, in some bits, to
> all models.
> Although the component itself is utterly blackened and showered
> surrounding ones with black soot, the silver conduits underneath seem to be
> intact and solders seem ok on the rest of the components. I couldn't find
> the diagram or description in the manual to match the board, so am a bit
> lost.
>
>
>
When you say "pull out board", I think audio boards on the front left of the
machine, but from the rest of your
description it sounds like you fried a capacitor on the main power board,
which is common for Steenbecks.
You could send the board for repair to Dwight Cody (in Cape Cod) or Paul
Tomasko (in upstate NY; service tech for NYU who
makes it into the city at least once a week). Paul services our machines.
Alain
--
40 FRAMES
Alain LeTourneau
Pam Minty
40 FRAMES
Attention: Pam Minty
PO Box 15207
Portland, OR 97293
USA
+1 503 231 6548
40frames.org
16mmdirectory.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/c39f3ab9/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:52:06 -0500
From: Jessie Stead <email suppressed>
Subject: [Frameworks] some late afternoon reading / interview on
Bombsite
To: email suppressed
Message-ID:
<AANLkTik2U-mS5ji8k4po3N=f54Sr=email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Frameworks,
Bomb magazine published an interview with me where I discuss some
motion-picture habits, it can be read here
http://bombsite.com/issues/1000/articles/4753
Thanks for your attention!
Sincerely,
Jessie Stead
--
www.jessiestead.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/feb2c38d/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:11:01 -0400
From: Francisco Torres <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Ho Ho Holidayze!
To: email suppressed, Experimental Film Discussion List
<email suppressed>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinRAtPd3riWeQBV3XJEPcDmAL7mz1rS=uDjOr=email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Happy Holidays Mr Conrad! Slapping Pythagoras made me very happy this year.
Named my cat after you. Hope you dont mind.
Greetings,
FJ Torres
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/47b24510/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:19:49 -0400
From: Amanda Christie <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Ho Ho Holidayze!
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID:
<email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
interesting....
On 15-Dec-10, at 6:11 PM, Francisco Torres wrote:
>
>
> Happy Holidays Mr Conrad! Slapping Pythagoras made me very happy
> this year. Named my cat after you. Hope you dont mind.
> Greetings,
> FJ Torres
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:28:09 -0500
From: Thomas Dexter <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Ho Ho Holidayze!
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
What is SCANTA bringing you this year?
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Amanda Christie <
email suppressed> wrote:
> interesting....
>
>
>
> On 15-Dec-10, at 6:11 PM, Francisco Torres wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Happy Holidays Mr Conrad! Slapping Pythagoras made me very happy
> > this year. Named my cat after you. Hope you dont mind.
> > Greetings,
> > FJ Torres
> > _______________________________________________
> > FrameWorks mailing list
> > email suppressed
> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
--
Thomas M. Dexter
347.452.9223
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/a12e3f96/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:48:21 +0100
From: David Kidman <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] physical water within expanded cinema.
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID: <email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Jennifer,
The projector in OTNOT projects an image onto a paving stone in the water. You
can see it in the film on my website as we construct the installation. The rain
machine drips onto the paving stone.
David
Sent from my iPod
On 14 d?c. 2010, at 22:43, jennifer cadger <email suppressed> wrote:
> Dear Frameworks,
>
>
>
> I am still working on my dissertation re: physical water within expanded
>cinema. Unfortunately there is an extreme lack of information about some of the
>artist I have found and believe me I have JSTOR, Wilson Web?ed and Googled!
>
>
>
> Caroline Locke?s ?Breath? (2002)?
>
> If you have seen this work could you answer a few questions?
>
> Can you hear the sound of the heartbeat in the gallery space?
>
> In the Aluminium tanks I am presuming there is a vortex of water??
>
> How then does the sound of the heartbeat affect the water?
>
> Is there the equivalent of a hammer that copies the heartbeat or is it the
>physical sound vibrations that affect the water i.e are there speaker inside the
>tank?
>
> There is also a mention of video loops.
>
> What are the images on the video loops?
>
> What surface are the video loops projected onto?
>
>
>
> Alexander Hahn ?On the nature of things? (1996)
>
> I have watched the video of this installation on ?Vimeo? and have information
>about the work however, I noticed on the list of materials is 1 Projector.
>
> What was the projector projecting and onto what surface was it projecting?
>
>
>
> I have basic descriptions of the following installations;
>
>
>
> Rafael Lozano-Hemmer?s ?Pulse Tank? (2008)
>
>
>
> Michael Brown ?Turbulent Landscapes? (1996) and ?Meanderings? (1993)
>
>
>
> Lulu Quinn ?Jetty Greenwich Millennium village? London (2008)
>
>
>
> Pearl Hirshfield, various installations ?Autumn?, ?Summer?, etc (1984)
>
>
>
> Jim Hamlyn ?1728sqft, 16070Ltrs? (1991) and ?Broken English? (1993)
>
>
>
> David Hall ?Narcissus I? and ?Narcissus II? (1976)
>
>
>
> If you have seen these installations, I would be grateful if you would write a
>review of your experience of the work.
>
>
>
> Thank you all in advance.
>
> Jen
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/65a0a6bf/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:00:29 -0500
From: Joan Hawkins <email suppressed>
Subject: [Frameworks] film vs digital
To: email suppressed
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimzg14Ce5o5LOJBHfK-G3D-ODVPDGvR=email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Frameworkers, I have spent two months trying to get approval for a
concentration in film production in our
dept. Another dept that's invested in digital production has been raising
objections, seeing this as an encroachment on their territory.
Now, we already teach the film (16 mm) classes; we're just trying to get an
actual notation on the students' transcripts saying they've completed a
cycle of 4 production courses.
I just came home from the most exhausting meeting with two deans and the
other dept's chair trying to explain why"film" really means film and is not
just some catch-all term for all modes of production. I kept explaining
that the students work in 16 mm , they have to send their film to a lab for
processing, that their projects sometimes are ruined, that the Digital
group's students always mess up their first projects because we AREN'T using
the same cameras etc etc until I felt as though my head were going to
explode.
And then my digital counterpart told me that no matter what medium the
students were working in, it all came down to lengthy projects that tell a
story and follow a narrative arc.
Ye Gods! Sorry, but I had to rant and the poor cat has already gone into
hiding for the night.
Joan
--
Joan Hawkins
Associate Professor and Director of Film and Media Studies
Indiana University
Dept of Communication and Culture
800 E. Third St
Bloomington, IN 47405
office phone 812-855-1548
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/fecfdde3/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:18:28 +0000
From: miriam sampaio <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] film vs digital
To: <email suppressed>
Message-ID: <COL102-(address suppressed)>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello Joan
I sincerely wish you much luck and strength in dealing with these....
I can only imagine how exhausting it is to be proving that 16mm film or film is
incredibly valuable!
Good luck and much strength!!!!!!
miriam
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:00:29 -0500
From: email suppressed
To: email suppressed
Subject: [Frameworks] film vs digital
Dear Frameworkers, I have spent two months trying to get approval for a
concentration in film production in ourdept. Another dept that's invested in
digital production has been raising objections, seeing this as an encroachment
on their territory.
Now, we already teach the film (16 mm) classes; we're just trying to get an
actual notation on the students' transcripts saying they've completed a cycle of
4 production courses.
I just came home from the most exhausting meeting with two deans and the other
dept's chair trying to explain why"film" really means film and is not just some
catch-all term for all modes of production. I kept explaining that the students
work in 16 mm , they have to send their film to a lab for processing, that their
projects sometimes are ruined, that the Digital group's students always mess up
their first projects because we AREN'T using the same cameras etc etc until I
felt as though my head were going to explode.
And then my digital counterpart told me that no matter what medium thestudents
were working in, it all came down to lengthy projects that tell a story and
follow a narrative arc.Ye Gods! Sorry, but I had to rant and the poor cat has
already gone into hiding for the night.
Joan
--
Joan Hawkins
Associate Professor and Director of Film and Media Studies
Indiana University
Dept of Communication and Culture
800 E. Third St
Bloomington, IN 47405
office phone 812-855-1548
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101216/2ff2f16d/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:31:34 -0800
From: 40 Frames <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] film vs digital
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID:
<email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Joan Hawkins <email suppressed> wrote:
> Dear Frameworkers, I have spent two months trying to get approval for a
> concentration in film production in our
> dept. Another dept that's invested in digital production has been raising
> objections, seeing this as an encroachment on their territory.
> Now, we already teach the film (16 mm) classes; we're just trying to get an
> actual notation on the students' transcripts saying they've completed a
> cycle of 4 production courses.
>
> I just came home from the most exhausting meeting with two deans and the
> other dept's chair trying to explain why"film" really means film and is not
> just some catch-all term for all modes of production. I kept explaining
> that the students work in 16 mm , they have to send their film to a lab for
> processing, that their projects sometimes are ruined, that the Digital
> group's students always mess up their first projects because we AREN'T using
> the same cameras etc etc until I felt as though my head were going to
> explode.
>
> And then my digital counterpart told me that no matter what medium the
> students were working in, it all came down to lengthy projects that tell a
> story and follow a narrative arc.
> Ye Gods! Sorry, but I had to rant and the poor cat has already gone into
> hiding for the night.
> Joan
>
>
>
I think it was in the early-to-mid 80s that Aaton was running ads in
American Cinematographer that used the line...
HD16
I liked it, as it complicated the either/or issue. Sure, the formats are
unique, but seeing the two mediums as part of a
whole shows how the formats can compliment each other. Of course, one still
has to understand that HD and 16 are
two different formats. Actually, HD is many formats, but you get my drift.
No comment on the "narrative arc" bit... hardly worth commenting about.
Alain
--
40 FRAMES
Alain LeTourneau
Pam Minty
40 FRAMES
Attention: Pam Minty
PO Box 15207
Portland, OR 97293
USA
+1 503 231 6548
40frames.org
16mmdirectory.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/c02ad802/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:36:19 -0800
From: 40 Frames <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] film vs digital
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, 40 Frames <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Joan Hawkins <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> Dear Frameworkers, I have spent two months trying to get approval for a
>> concentration in film production in our
>> dept. Another dept that's invested in digital production has been raising
>> objections, seeing this as an encroachment on their territory.
>> Now, we already teach the film (16 mm) classes; we're just trying to get
>> an actual notation on the students' transcripts saying they've completed a
>> cycle of 4 production courses.
>>
>> I just came home from the most exhausting meeting with two deans and the
>> other dept's chair trying to explain why"film" really means film and is not
>> just some catch-all term for all modes of production. I kept explaining
>> that the students work in 16 mm , they have to send their film to a lab for
>> processing, that their projects sometimes are ruined, that the Digital
>> group's students always mess up their first projects because we AREN'T using
>> the same cameras etc etc until I felt as though my head were going to
>> explode.
>>
>> And then my digital counterpart told me that no matter what medium the
>> students were working in, it all came down to lengthy projects that tell a
>> story and follow a narrative arc.
>> Ye Gods! Sorry, but I had to rant and the poor cat has already gone into
>> hiding for the night.
>> Joan
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think it was in the early-to-mid 80s that Aaton was running ads in
> American Cinematographer that used the line...
>
Sorry, I meant to say early to mid 1990s (not 80s). I think the ads were run
in 1996?
Alain
>
> HD16
>
> I liked it, as it complicated the either/or issue. Sure, the formats are
> unique, but seeing the two mediums as part of a
> whole shows how the formats can compliment each other. Of course, one still
> has to understand that HD and 16 are
> two different formats. Actually, HD is many formats, but you get my drift.
>
>
> No comment on the "narrative arc" bit... hardly worth commenting about.
>
>
> Alain
>
>
> --
> 40 FRAMES
> Alain LeTourneau
> Pam Minty
>
> 40 FRAMES
> Attention: Pam Minty
> PO Box 15207
> Portland, OR 97293
> USA
>
> +1 503 231 6548
> 40frames.org
> 16mmdirectory.org
>
--
40 FRAMES
Alain LeTourneau
Pam Minty
40 FRAMES
Attention: Pam Minty
PO Box 15207
Portland, OR 97293
USA
+1 503 231 6548
40frames.org
16mmdirectory.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/c494b7d9/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:35:18 -0500 (EST)
From: email suppressed
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] film vs digital
To: email suppressed
Message-ID: <email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In a message dated 12/15/2010 5:00:52 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
email suppressed writes:
And then my digital counterpart told me that no matter what medium the
students were working in, it all came down to lengthy projects that tell a
story and follow a narrative arc.
Ye Gods! Sorry, but I had to rant and the poor cat has already gone into
hiding for the night.
Joan
What were they trying to do? Block your program?
Because of TV, digital to these guys always seems to mean "following a
narrative arc," as if that's the extent of the medium's possibilities. It's one
more reason why I hate video-- Oops sorry, I mean "digital filmmaking."
BTW, what does a "digital counterpart" look like-- do they get all broken
up when they stop making sense?
Film is probably now better placed in the art department. The dept heads
probably prefer digital because it's cheaper. And it has something to do with
Facebook etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20101215/dd935fd3/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 02:40:59 -0500
From: David Tetzlaff <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] film vs digital
To: Joan Hawkins <email suppressed>
Cc: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID: <email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Joan:
You didn't ask for thoughts on your dilemma, but I'll offer mine anyway.:
> I have spent two months trying to get approval for a concentration in film
>production in our
> dept... we already teach the film classes; we're just trying to get an actual
>notation on the students' transcripts saying they've completed a cycle of 4
>production courses.
Why? You're in a Studies oriented program, rooted in the Humanities. Four
courses hardly constitute a 'concentration.' It seems that offering any academic
program under the rubric of 'production' is working against your department's
core mission, perhaps aiming to attract enrollment by promising something you
can't really deliver. If the students are taking the classes for the right
reasons, they should be satisfied with the substance and not concerned about
what it's called, right?
> Another dept that's invested in digital production has been raising
>objections, seeing this as an encroachment on their territory
I looked at the course descriptions in your Dept. and in Telecom and they DO
overlap. You offer a Documentary class taught on video. So do they. The catalog
description for your C460 Advanced Motion Picture Production reads "Students
produce one personal project (narrative, documentary, or experimental) from
script to screen, using either 16 mm. or digital video." I see a more specific
(and I assume more recent) description in the term-by-term course listings that
indicates the course has been reframed towards the experimental and is taught
exclusively with 16mm MOS cameras. Not to excuse the silly territoriality of
your colleagues, but one could see how they might be confused.
The description of your C360 Basic Production class reads:
> This class is a hands-on introduction to the technical and aesthetic basics of
>making l6mm silent films. In one semester you will learn and practice how to
>produce, shoot,and edit a short film. You will become familiar with the basics
>of treatment and script writing, cinematography and lighting, and even animation
>and sound.
The most recent description of C361 Intermediate Motion Picture Production
reads:
> This class introduces students to the making of 16mm sound films, including the
>recording and editing of sync sound. You will learn how to use a sync sound
>camera, a digital tape recorder, a flatbed editor, and a digital editing system,
>and you will participate as a crewmember in the other students'productions.
>Aside from these more technical subjects, we will also address questions of
>scriptwriting, directing, acting, and the like.
What is your rationale for teaching sync sound, and narrative
scripting/directing/acting in 16mm? I notice C360 is offered every term, while
C361 was most recently taught two years ago. How is this a coherent 4 course
sequence? If you've moved back to Bolexes and Filmos for C460, are you still
maintaining sync 16mm for one class, or are you in the process of reformulating
C361, if and when you offer it again?
> I just came home from the most exhausting meeting with two deans and the other
>dept's chair trying to explain why"film" really means film
No, as a description of actual educational practice, 'film' does NOT mean
celluloid. Your department's studies classes no doubt examine Hollywood
naratives shot on celluloid, Hollywood narratives shot and edited digitallty,
documentaries on celluloid, documentaries on video, TV shows created with a
variety of technologies, all under the rubric of 'Film'. Film scholars can write
about 'South Park', no? By the same token, many 'Film' programs teach what
production courses they have on video, but call the work 'film' because the
sensibility that informs it is best invoked by that word as opposed to the
sensibilty invoked by 'video.'
> [Film] is not just some catch-all term for all modes of production.
Yes, but what distinguishes 'film' from other modes of production is not the
ever-collapsing technological distinctions, but different sets of
communicative/aesthetic purposes and approaches. TV journalism 'packages' are
not 'films', nor were they 'films' when they were shot with CP16s instead of
Ikegamis.
> And then my digital counterpart told me that no matter what medium the students
>were working in, it all came down to lengthy projects that tell a story and
>follow a narrative arc. Ye Gods!
Well, your course descriptions kinda seem pitched towards stories and narrative
arcs. Even the C460 description reads:
> We will also study a variety of non-traditional approaches to cinematic
>storytelling, such as film diary, montage, cine-essay, structuralist film, and
>others... we will view films by filmmakers as diverse as George M?li?s, Hans
>Richter, Maya Deren, Stan Brakhage, Bruce Connor, Jonas Mekas, Hollis
>Frampton...
Why frame experimental work as a subset of 'storytelling'? What's the story in
Rhythmus 21, Meditation on Violence, Black Ice, Marilyn x 5, Zorns Lemma?
16mm technology does not constitute a coherent pedadgogical focus, which your
production sequence seems to lack. I see two possible routes to creating a focus
for a production sequence within a 'studies' program.
One would reframe the whole production curriculum along the lines of your C335
Production as Criticism class. That is, the aim of production classes would be
for theory to meet practice, to explore the concepts of critical interpretation
from the other side. Applied semiotics. Here students WOULD work within more
mainstream forms, not for the purpose of career training, but in order to better
understand film language and film culture. That WOULD involve stories and arcs
and whatnot, but it would be best taught with cheap sync sound gear with an easy
technological learning curve (so students can focus on the conceptual issues),
which means video. In some ways, this approach would make the most sense for the
overall mission of the Department, and you could argue with the Dean that what
makes your course offerings completely different from those in Telecom is your
humanities based approach, as distinct from the pre-professional
connections-to-the-business-school tack of the othe
r program.
Though that's a better argument than one of technological distinction, I doubt
the T-Com folks would be cool with it, as it would threaten their claim to
academic legitimacy in some ways (and rightly so, but...) Their turf-protection
could grow beyond blocking your 'concentration' being put into the catalog into
actual messing with your ability to offer the courses, hire staff for them etc.
The other approach (and you did post your rant to Frameworks, not Screen-L or
the UFVA listserv) would be to stay with 16mm but refocus the classes onto the
kind of experimental work that arguably needs 16mm or at least makes sense
pedagogically with 16mm as a tool in the 21st century. That would mean dropping
all mainstream terminology from the course descriptions and concepts. No
privileging of story, no studio-system-type crew positions, no sync sound. No
directors, actors, screenwriters, cinematographers -- just film artists pursuing
the expressive possibilities of the medium. This would clearly distinguish your
production sequence from the offerings of the Telecom department. "No, the
projects are short, and don't have stories or arcs, at least not as you
understand them." The question then becomes: what is the rationale for an
experimental orientation (more typical of the Fine Arts) within a humanities
program focused primarily on critical interrogation of the dominant
culture? The answer would be to connect the two via complementary contrast. The
experimental breaks open the reification of mainstream norms - the idea of "of
course, that's how it has to be done." the avant garde's otherness would be
treated as fundamentally deconstructive. (I know many people would not choose to
approach experimental film that way, but it's an approach that fits a
Communication and Culture program, where other approaches would not.
Perhaps fewer students would sign up for a 'production concentration' defined on
such terms. Good. The dirty secret of many 'communication' programs is that they
offer a smattering of production coursework mainly because it helps build
enrollment, and while they may or may not actually make false promises about the
curriculum, they do little or nothing to prevent students from drawing the wrong
idea about the true nature of the program. I spent a good chunk of my career
working with students who thought they were signing up for something very
different than what they got as Comm majors, and it's no fun for them, no fun
for the poor schmo who has to try to teach them, and it messes things up for the
students who actually are in tune with the broader intellectual agenda at hand.
Let the hard-core Hollywood wanna-bes go to Telecom, where they belong, and hold
onto the ones who actually care about exploring film as discourse.
I was SOO happy to get out of Communication and get to do my thing under a
distinct 'Film Studies' nomenclature... But these questions still push my
buttons, thus my counter-ranting...
My cat has just emerged from hiding. Must feed her and get some sleep.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
End of FrameWorks Digest, Vol 7, Issue 23
*****************************************
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks