Jump to content

Carl Looper

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,462

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Carl Looper

  1. Carl Looper
    Yes, there's no objective measure of what is good and bad. It can only ever be an opinion. And as Satsuki rightly suggested, one's opinion on various different films and TV shows only counts if one is in a position where one's opinion counts. More often than not the opinion that counts has already been established, and one is working within that framework. When making one's own work, of course, the problem of opinion completely disappears. One gets to implement exactly one's idea of how it should be done and look. Or working on someone else's project where one has been given the same license or trust. Arguing what is good or bad is really quite pointless because it's not as if anyone is going to change their opinion on the basis of someone else's opinion. The exception is where one is directing a way forward or otherwise negotiating a team decision to be made. One discusses these things in order to find agreement, or otherwise enforce agreement. Disagreement is easy. That's where one begins. It's not where one ends - not if a work is to be made. C
  2. Carl Looper
    Speaking of digital intermediates In the digital animation work I do, the image can be rendered to any pixel size one might like (16K, 32K, etc), and at any bit depth one might like, but the result has no way of being displayed using any current digital display technology. Rendering it out to film and projecting it becomes the alternative way to appreciate what is otherwise locked up in computer memory - that only the computer can see :). One can use fine grain stocks for this. Indeed, using stock designed for optical sound track recording is a good choice. It is fine grain and very contrasty (has very rich completely opaque blacks). The contrast is useful and can be cancelled out where required by rendering the image with the opposite contrast. But how to render it out to film? Where are 64K film out printers? A technique I've been testing at a theoretical level involves physically jittering a 4K display in which the displayed image is syncronised to this jitter. In practice it's the lens which is jittered as it's a lot less weight to move around, but the effect is the same. Each of the re-sampled images being exposed effectively interfere with each other to produce the higher definition image one is otherwise rendering on the film. While a lens acts as a low pass filter, it's not a cut-off filter - it's frequency response rolls off rather than comes to an abrupt stop. It may still have an ultimate limit in terms of frequency response (due to all sorts of factors) but one can at least counter-act the roll off. This is done by increasing the contrast of the image at it's highest frequencies, counter-acting the lenses insistence on reducing the contrast of those same frequencies. Using high contrast film helps a lot in this regard. The resulting projected image is not contrasty - it's as perfectly balanced, in terms of greyscale values as one likes. C
  3. Carl Looper
  4. Carl Looper
    The thing is that all film making, whether for fun, or for profit, or both, or neither, is something that happens. And great work can be found across all of these contexts, in both the experimental and narrative veins. From small studios to big studios. All films arguably begin in experimental films. And reboot themselves there. The term "experiment" comes from science and refers to doing things in practice, as distinct from in theory. So one will have, for example, experimental physicists that work with instruments doing experiments which test out a theory or otherwise provoke the creation of a new theory. And one will have theoretical physicists that propose a theory and are otherwise provoked into writing new ones. In this sense, one could say all films are experimental films in the sense that they constitute film making in practice - as distinct from: in theory. On this forum, of course, it is more film making in theory, since one can't practice film making here. Of course the term "experimental film" will tend to classify a subset of films made in practice. In other words: not all films are experimental films. Experimental films can be regarded as those films which explore what might be the fundamentals of film making. Every filmmaker worth their salt begins in experimental film making. Experiments, by their very nature, are not always "successful" (in the conventional sense). But they don't need to be. No matter what occurs, there is always something to be discovered in the process because it's a physical result - rather than just a theoretical one. For example when we teach students to bracket exposures we're teaching them experimental film making. We're saying: in theory the exposure should be this, but in order to test that out we vary the exposure to see if there is not a better one, in practice, that might be used. That's what experimental films are all about - testing ideas out in practice, instead of just being a slave to such ideas. It is out of this work that both the rules are created in the first place, as much as that which escapes the rules and become more powerful than the rules. C
  5. Carl Looper
    Audiences come in all shapes and sizes. Not just the tiny and the large. They do exist. Indeed more importantly they can be created. Through the social network, be it word of mouth, websites, mailing lists, facebook, etc. Who is arguing against marketing? Not me. C
  6. Carl Looper
    I make films or work on films that have an audience (both here where I live, and around the planet), and they directly, or indirectly pay my bills. And the last time I looked I wasn't a big studio spending (and making) millions of dollars. Doesn't mean I'm eating scraps out of rubbish bins, although I've certainly been there and done that in my youth. I'm a film producer. As a film producer it means I invest in films. I'm an investor. That means time (and money) goes out my back pocket and into a film. The investment itself might seem weird but it's the return on investment that pays the bills. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to make films. C
  7. Carl Looper
    This is a work by Jackson Pollock. Or rather, it isn't because it's a photograph of a work by Jackson Pollock: This is part of a movement for which art historians have coined the term: "Abstract Expressionism". When talking about "abstract art" it is typically the work of this particular art movement one is referencing. Not that the term "abstract" belongs any more to this work as any other. It's just that without further clarification works such as this are not a bad bet as to what is being meant. However there is certainly abstract art that could be just complete drivel. This one isn't. When the Australian government purchased this for $1.3 million dollars there was the typical bogan (redneck) response - that anyone could do this. There was outrage. People got really fcuking angry. I was only a kid at the time but I really liked this painting. One needs to look at it in the flesh of course. As one does all paintings. This painting is now worth a hell of a lot more. Which could very well prove Tyler's point - that it's all about money - which might also mean its all about fooling people. I don't see it that way. Jackson Pollock wasn't doing this work with the idea that he could sell it for millions of dollars. Nobody at the time he was painting it would have thought it could fetch the prices it eventually did. Indeed even today many can not believe it. It is simply because they do not understand art history. But more to point, there's no evidence whatsoever that Jackson Pollock was trying to fool anyone with this work. He, like myself, find a form of "pleasure" in such work. But as always it's not everyone's cup of tea. C
  8. Carl Looper
    Well Tyler was talking about that. But I wasn't. For some reason Tyler thinks that whenever one is talking about film making it must be either big budget studio films, or must be some personal project shot for the next door neighbour and their pet cat. There is whole range of film making practice, in between these two poles, that is being completely ignored. But I otherwise understand your point. Your context was specifically Tyler's tirade. C
  9. Carl Looper
    Indeed. That's the point I was making. The story isn't necessarily in some script written prior to the work. It can emerge in the arrangement of sounds and images. It is the film which becomes one's paper, and the camera which becomes one's pen. The work can create a "mood" as you say. These don't have to begin in a story - for they can end up as a story - such as a story talking about "mood" or "organisation of those sounds". And that's what many experimental films explore. They operate on that level. They precede the story they otherwise tell. They create the story they are telling, rather than being created according to some story that precedes it. Scriptwriters are overrated. And filmmakers are underrated. C
  10. Carl Looper
    Well, it's also like figurative painters throwing paint on a canvas and calling it "art". One could argue that it too, is only "art", because THEY say it is. The fact is, that abstract art, as much as figurative art, (or any other art for that matter) has an audience. In other words, it's not just the artist calling it art, but the audience for such as well. One can interpret any art as "fooling the audience" but that ugly idea applies to all types of art - not just abstract art. Indeed many filmmakers of the non-experimental vein, are convinced they are doing precisely that: fooling their audience. They think of their audience as "average people" and make their films accordingly - the result being average films. Fair enough. Each to their own. There are experts at all kinds of art - including abstract art. The ability to throw paint on a canvas, in a way that works (be it figuratively or abstractly), requires expertise which only practice can develop. Whether that guarantees some idiot in the audience will appreciate it doesn't really matter. You are looking for your audience, not anyone elses. C
  11. Carl Looper
    The last 16mm film I did, which was also a narrative work, the shooting ratio ended up being 4:1. The previous one was 3:1. So if nobody is shooting with this kind of ratio I must be that nobody. The exception which proves the rule perhaps. A filmmaker I know made a film with the smallest shooting ratio I've ever seen. It was a one second shot, where the print made from such was about 15 minutes long. I quite enjoy the discipline of working to small shooting ratios. I don't have any particular ratio in mind when making the film. I'm just ensuring that the film is worked out in such a way that what is shot, is what is meant to be shot. The only reason the ratio isn't any smaller is due to mistakes that are inevitably made. The performance misfires. An iris left open. A microphone in shot. Some bystanders inadvertently walking into shot. Etcetera. This isn't necessarily the best way to make a film, but it's certainly not the worst. There's a particular kind of film that results from such which I very much enjoy. Its not about saving money. That's just a nice byproduct. It's about getting a particular kind of film on the screen. C
  12. Carl Looper
    Even when messing around at home, screening for a few local people, it doesn't hurt to care about what one shoots on. More important than which gauge you shoot on is making the most of whichever one you do decide to shoot on (for whatever reason you do shoot on it). Its not only fun to experiment there is also an audience for such. Entire film festivals are devoted to experimental films, all around the world. Not everyone's cup of tea but it's an existant audience. There are all sorts of film festivals. Animation festivals. Science fiction festivals. If you are not getting paid, it doesn't mean only a handful of people will see the work. It depends on how well you distribute it. Multiple screens world wide isn't a bad result for a short film. Film making is about telling stories, but it's not only about that. If it were only about that, why bother with film at all - just write a novel. And with experimental films (for which there is an audience) the story aspect is not necessarily that important. Music videos are examples of film making where the "story" is not that important. All films tend to have a story of some sort whether you, as the filmmaker, intend it or not. The moment you start to write about any film (including music videos, etc) you are writing some aspect of it's story. The rest of the world can see your films. There are film festivals across the entire planet screening short films and feature films. Start there and work back to what you want to show there. C
  13. Carl Looper
    Hey Christian - thanks for the video you posted. The music is great. Love it. Carl
  14. Carl Looper
    Thanks Christian. Yes, 16mm is a good medium to work in. I like it a lot. It's also obvious that 16mm of a particular stock is going to have better image quality than Super8 of the same stock. I mean it doesn't take many brain cells to work that one out. But by the same token one could say 35mm would have even better quality, so why shoot 16mm? Or taking it another step: 65mm has better quality then 35mm, so why shoot 35mm? One begins to realise that "image quality" is only one consideration amongst many many others. Eventually one begins to appreciate different gauges for what they are rather than relative to some idealised concept of image quality. Working with any gauge requires one understand and appreciate the limitations of such. Be it Super8, 16mm or 65mm. It's not a rule as such. It's just a way of ensuring you are able to make the best of a particular gauge, and are not getting too fustrated by it. You find which medium feels right and exploit it. Which might indeed push the boundaries on what was considered it's limits - if only because you realise it's not as limited as others might have argued. That it's limits will be elsewhere. This is a way of understanding limits - that assumed limits need not be real limits. One experiments with a particular medium to find it's real limits. Myself, I've developed an appreciation of Super8, 16mm and 35mm, but in different ways, and for different reasons. There's no single framework or set of principles to which I ascribe that determines which one is better than any other. A lot of it depends on what kind of work I'm being motivated to do. Currently it is a Super8 project, for blow up to 16mm. Tomorrow it might be a digital animation project, for completion to 35mm. The day after it might be a painting. Or a comic book. C
  15. Carl Looper
    Apparently Super8 is very big in Germany - much bigger there than it is here in Australia. Or at least that's what german artists here in Australia tell me. I don't know if that is due to it having never disappeared, or it having returned in some way. It all depends, I guess, in which circles one moves. The art scene is probably the best place to make connections and find out where one can get one's hands dirty. The commercial world is not necessarily the best place to start. One can easily become battered by too many loud mouth "professionals", with condescending attitudes grounded in nothing but hot air, and rule of thumb formulas they think were chiselled into stone somewhere. C
  16. Carl Looper
    Well, with film, like any medium, it helps to have a bit of an affinity with it. One needs to enjoy the material. Not just the image on the screen, but the means by which that image is created. If it's all a bit of a chore, one may as well find some other means of making a work. Many find video and digital attractive because they like both the ease with which a work can be made as well as it's very clean (sterile?) aspect. They like the control that digital provides. And I do too. But I also like the earthy organic nature of film. Even when it's scratched and dirty, and splices jump in the projector. Once you know that is what is going to happen (because of your means) then you can work with that rather than against it. You exploit it. The lo-fi sound of 6Mhz optical sound tracks can be made to sound completely and utterly awesome if you understand those limitations. Art can be made with anything. But typically you'll make it with whatever materials and technology suits you. Film isn't for everyone. C
  17. Carl Looper
    The thing is that when Super8 "died" it only did so in terms of the mass market. If we use the mass market as our benchmark, then the only thing of relevance today is what the mass market produces. Many people, of course, just assume that's the only way of assessing the present moment in time. Their clocks, if you like, are syncronised to a narrative in which the mass market is the central protagonist in some modernist dream of indefinite technical innovation,. An ongoing "out with the old, and in with the new" philosophy. But if Super8 died, it also returned the very next day in the form of a ghost. Ghosts are far more powerful than their particular day in the sun, and the resulting corpse. Because you can't kill a ghost. It's already dead. It's understanding this ghost (rather than it's corpse) which is far more important than reliving the sixties and seventies, or appropriating such in some retro-nostalgic fantasy of such. The power of this ghost is embodied in those who have continued to shoot film, and who learned how to process it themselves, and who created a camera such as the Logmar, and inspired the Kodak camera, and those who have returned to such. This is not some retro-nostalgic impulse. It's recognition of film as a contemporary medium. In the same way that a guitar is a contemporary instrument, despite it being ancient technology. Or the wheel for that matter. It's not a question of denying other ways in which history inspires. The emergence of digital technology is inspired by equally powerful ghosts. It is history in operation here. Not nostalgia. History is that which survives the past. Nostalgia is that which (intentionally or otherwise) attempts to send history back into the past. To bury it. But you can't bury a ghost. You can only bury a corpse. And even then something survives, as archeology testifies. Nostalgia is looking at a rusting car in the backyard and dreaming of it's day in the sun. History is pulling the tool box out, and getting the engine going, and taking the car out for a drive. C
  18. Carl Looper
    Yes, even if the transfers are average (or indeed because they are average) it's what you (or someone else) does in post that will be equally important. One really has to become familiar with the world of post-production, as much acquisition. The entire pipeline, from capture to delivery becomes important. Basically the work of film making involves attending to everything up to an including how it's publically screened. C
  19. Carl Looper
    To put it another way, one can be inspired by music - be it the Beatles, or Jazz, or classical music, or punk - it doesn't matter. Whatever haunts you. Otherwise the day the music died will be at some mythical moment in time, the date of which you may as well mark as the day you also died. C
  20. Carl Looper
    Anything that has died is just a rotting corpse, wrapped in nostalgia, and destined for oblivion. History, on the other hand, is an altogether different beast. It is that which survives the deathly strangle hold of nostalgia, and by such means informs the future. The means by which it does so is by "haunting" the future. It seeks out those trapped in the past, and shocks them out of their desire to disappear. C
  21. Carl Looper
    Oh yeah. I agree. One can read it, not so much as animation, but another way of mediating/rendering an image. And doing so by hand means the image passes through an artist's body which allows for all sorts of compelling results. The work done by algorithms isn't necessarily any less compelling. It's just that the artist proper becomes the developer of the algorithms, rather than the holder of a brush (pen, mouse, etc). If we feel excluded by such art it's possibly because we can't relate to how they are doing their work. Are algorithms art? I think so, but I also understand how alien that can be to many. C
  22. Carl Looper
    That and the fact that film encodes the source image (encoded in light) in a fundamentally different way from how a digital sensor does. Film encodes information which digital misses, (and vice versa). One's preference for one or the other will be a function of which information one prefers. But far more interestingly, film codes it's information in a way that makes it available for subsequent transfer to digital. A subsequent digital transfer would otherwise fail to pick up that information. It is this ability which makes film desirable as an acquisition technology - be it for photochemical post/delivery or digital post/delivery. Film is able to refactor an original image in a way that a direct-to-digital system can't. It becomes particularly obvious when doing grading. C
  23. Carl Looper
    I'm not a great fan of rotoscoping. And as a kid I really couldn't quite get into Bakshi's use of such. I much prefer it when an animator is making up the result, rather than just tracing photography. That said, it's still seems to look better than a machine doing the same. But how much better? Or perhaps machines are more appropriate systems for this sort of thing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/08/31/this-algorithm-can-create-a-new-van-gogh-or-picasso-in-just-an-hour/ Or perhaps not: http://join.lovingvincent.com/ C
  24. Carl Looper
    A blow up from 16 to 35 involves a lens. A digital scan of 16 involves a lens. So if the blowup loses crispness, it is not due to any additional lensing used with respect to digital. The reason for various differences are not so much due to the generic ideas involved (such as the use of lenses) but the particular implementation - what kind of lens, what kind of film stock, what kind of digital processing, etc. And various assumptions don't always prove correct even if they otherwise stand to reason (or seem to). For example, one could say there are losses when going from film to digital, and conclude from such that surely it stands to reason that going direct to digital (as in making/using a digital camera) should give a better result, since one has removed a generation. The reason this isn't necessarily so requires some understanding of the physical differences between film and digital systems, how they interact with each other, and how perception works through all of this. C
  25. Carl Looper
    This one is pretty good as well: A lot of what makes this work, and Jose Luis Villar's work technically impressive, is not just the cameras used, and the film stock used, but the transfers to video and the post work done. A lot of Super8 available online can look technically wanting due to the rather average transfers done - and lack of post work done. But this sort of thing is not everyone's cup of tea. You could get equally impressive work (if in a very different vein) shooting on a crappy camera, with crappy filmstock, and otherwise doing a really good transfer and really good post - if you know what you are doing. It's ultimately not the technology, as much as how you exploit it. In whatever way you do. And that includes the video side of that. Which, for online work, must include video as part of that work. A lot of really good Super8 is offline - to be appreciated in a projector. C
×
×
  • Create New...