Andrzej Ford

seems as though im going to have to think of another way around this as this hardware is definitely out of my budget. but thanks alot!

Thanks for the input, I dont suppose if you know what type of dedicated hardware and expense/difficulty it requires to have this dedicated hardware?

Hi, for my most recent project, i was hoping to recreate live blue/green screen as seen in Science of Sleep or weather reports. http://images.pingmag.jp/images/title/gondry.jpg is a screen example of what i'd like to achieve, and i have previously worked with green screen, so i feel comfortable with the technical aspects of that. but i'm not quite sure how or where to start with live green screening. the equipment i will most likely be using is a macbook pro, canon 7d and a generic projector/monitor. thanks in advance! Andrzej

Yes definitely am going to find that Le Grice book, and i was going to ask if you had read Film Art Phenomena by Nicky Hamlyn? Also i realised wanting a "film art" magazine is stupid, because the course im moving to next year is a multidiscipline course, and im doing it because i want to be with people doing sculpture/painting even if i dont do </>. So i already knew my answer, which is. man up and buy frieze! haha, yeah i just wanted to lighten the mood of the thread! :) And right yet again, i was meant to say to Oskar Fischinger, i just mixed both these artists up!

These are the kind of responses that im very happy to have in this thread, and if i did come across as pretentious i really didn't mean to; because i really appreciate all the help from this website and respect all types of art (be they conceptual or not, professional or not). But this is a good point to make, that art is as subjective as beauty.

what if...

Maybe i was a bit hastey with this, but i at least think you have written the most accurate description of conceptual art, but and im not sure if youre being sarcastic, but denied it to be art. maybe its not the whole broad case of art, but it's definitely the most intelligient description of conceptual art.

I think you should expect a response of similar tone when almost attacking other posters, "Monet didn't hold up a blank canvas and tell everyone that his painting was actually a deconstruction of painting that was meant to challenge the viewer's perception of paint. " - And if you think comparing a film to a painting is wrong, i think that's a pretty void opinion. And no i dont think readers of this forum havent read about certain artists, but i was just backing up my points, and everyone forgets things. "There is no such thing as 'fine art cinema'. And to bring it a step further, art that intentionally strips itself of the aesthetics and mechanics that make it art, choosing instead to confront the viewer with an intellectual challenge, is no longer art." is probably the most ridiculous sentence i've heard from someone who i thought was a learned person. And lastly i was happy that quite a few people gave their opinions on an interesting topic, however i didnt think there'd be some overly defensive people who wanted to start an arguement in this thread. Without being rude, please add your aggressive opinions somewhere else. Also i believe i mentioned countless times that i didn't mean to offend anyone; my course like almost all courses in the UK and i'd assume other countries use the title "fine art", hense why i used that term. It wasn't for any of your nonsensical "im better than you" megalomaniac idea. So please i really mean this, please can you respond to somewhere elses thread if youre going to be bitter.

This is probably the most to my point i was trying to get, 'fine art' is abit of an outdated and exclusionary term but i really didnt mean it in that way. And the idea of lack of use, derives completely from Duchampian ideas (who made movies with Man Ray) is a very valid idea, because it can be argued that the whole point of conceptual art is to express an idea, if the 'art' then has a use aswell it is almost always detracting from the idea of the piece of art. And yes alot of video art is often seen as documentation/records but then the videos of Stan Brakhage which i urge any filmmaker to watch are not the same at all, his pieces consisted of practices such as placing moth wings/leaves inbetween two sheets of clear film stock, then presenting that; or other examples are painting straight onto the film and i am pretty sure he did some work for Disney but then was soon regarded as too abstract. "Zen for Film" by Nam June Paik is also a great example of film art where he projected a completely clear film for approx 23' and his concept behind this was the whole idea/beauty behind being able to project vision then the art was also considered as evolutionary as it would change and differ with the addition of dust/dots formed on the film. And yes as i expected fine art publications are the best way to go, i was just wondering if there were any specifically focused on film, but now i realise that'd be quite negative to exclude myself from other art. You're completely right with the idea of how fine art has been used aswell, but i definitely fail to see where it excludes volumes of work within a medium? As i previously mentioned 2008 Turner Prize i think all shortlisted pieces were film, and if not the winner was a piece of film art. And i completely disagree with you saying that 'fine' results in the full potential of a medium, because some pieces of fine art do utilize and showcase this. But only if that is the related concept. Stan Brakhage's films are all about stopping the viewer from immersing themselves into another reality via the film, and are you saying his work isn't "fine"? Furthermore i'm not quite sure where you back up the idea of 'fine' work utilizing the medium to it's full potential, because would you say a Monet painting isn't 'fine'? Because his paintings are't necessarily utilzing the medium to the full potential when compared to Rembrandts paintings?

ok, i think through not be able to go to sleep having given up i may have solved it. and sadly if i read into more depth what people had previously told me i wouldnt be up at this time. i think only question i really have to ask now is, the video was filmed in - apple intermediate codec so i am taking the previous suggestions and staying native, however there isn't much help when it comes to staying native and deciding on exporting size?

ok, so it's 5am (i'm not in the best of moods). and for some reason i didn't note down how i exported my previous video. which makes me want to end it all right now, but i guess the so called silver lining is the fact i now am trying to figure out the correct way to convert rather than just the first one that worked. so i am going to ask a very idiotic and elongated question whilst providing as much information as possible. I recorded with a canon hf100, 17mbps, frame rate 50i, the raw file gives details of - 1920 x 1080 dimension - apple intermediate codec - HD (1-1-1) color profile - 2 audio channels - and then varying bit rate of 90,000 to 98,000 the camera uses interlaced film and its a consumer camera etc etc etc, so it wont be best quality. however what i want is to just keep pretty much the quality of the video that i view via final cut slug viewer, and im fine with the quality obviously downgrading slightly with the exporting process. I'm looking for hopefully the video being no larger than 800mb. However this is open to change, i just would like decent quality when viewing at 1280x720 (and yes i guess filming at 1980x1080 was a very amateur mistake, however i dont have the chance to reshoot). And i was hoping someone would be kinda enough to help me with the exact information i need to fill in within the settings/size parameters of FCP export using quicktime conversion. I know this is probably a stupid, long and precise question. but i have spent the last 4 hours googling/youtubing answers with the patethic success of finally learning how to remove mouse teeth. I think i am slowly and surely learning what each part of the video converting means, with interlacing and progressive - and the use of different codecs, however i feel like i've gone long enough with trying on my own and really need someone to help me out. sorry if any of this doesn't make sense or im repeating myself, but its 5am. and i cant sleep not knowing how to convert a video i spent so long to create. tldr: desperate need of help with filling in/understanding the correct parameters for settings/size FCP quicktime conversion with above camera settings/type.

ok cheers, yeah i'm going to go through variable testing and this time NOTE what it causes. And it doesnt help that i don't know if my film is progressive or not.

so when i go to size options in export, and the tick box option "Deinterlace source video", should i not tick it?

sorry i messed up attachments, here's the flaw

Sadly i noticed 3 mistakes when i watched "unwitnessed" again on vimeo, and i forgot to note what settings i exported the video with and i keep getting a flaw in the videos with exporting and im going to link a screen of the flaw. and some notes of settings. I think it has something to do with interlacing or not interlacing or deinterlacing or maybe fps. anyway, here they are.