schnozzle

Oh yeah, about the vault...this pertains more to still photography, but I think the principle's the same: Did anyone happen to see a copy of "Another Vietnam"? It's pretty fascinating, it's a book of combat photos taken by Vietcong (rather than American) photographers. One really interesting thing was to see how well the individual photographers had maintained their negatives over the course of 30+ years. One guy had kept his in a plastic bag behind his bathroom sink, and of course they were pretty deteriorated, but one guy buried his, I think in a cannister of some kind, and they were in beautiful condition. So maybe the DIY equivalent of a vault is to bury your negative?

Mmm...yeah, that's the thing, how many of us have access to a temperature & humidity-controlled vault? Well, maybe some of us do, but I'm not so lucky. Me, I do most of my work on 2D computer animation software, so I'd have to get them transferred to film before I could think of archiving them. I would like to do that, though...hmmm....

Oops. I just noticed that I posted this in the wrong forum, it should have gone into general discussion. Can it be moved somehow? Anyway...yes, I THOUGHT that cd-r's and dvd-r's should be stable, but there are two points to this that I've run across, which are: (1) I've had a few (not a lot, but enough to scare me) carefully-stored cd-r's and dvd-r's fail on me for no reason that I can figure out, and this in a matter of months, which I don't think is long enough to attribute to oxidization, and (2) there's no guarentee in the digital world that today's hardware and software encoding standards/formats will be supported even 10 years down the line. I imagine that dvd's will be with us for a while, but I have friends who got sold on Syquest disks ten years ago and...well...too bad for them. As for film itself: yes, I trust the archival properties of Kodachrome and black and white (as long as it's not on nitrate). But what about the vast majority of film shot today, which is on color neg? How well does it hold up?

How are you folks archiving your work? If you've shot a project that you're really proud of, do you expect that it will still exist in some form in 50 years? Archival stability is a big issue among still photographers but I don't see it often addressed among cinematographers. I'm especially interested to hear how people who use digital systems handle this. I have yet to use a digital storage medium that has not failed on me, sometimes for no apparent reason. Floppies, hard drives, zip & jaz disks, cd-r's, dvd-r's...I've had examples of all of these work fine and then suddenly show up as unreadable. Any thoughts?

While I love HD (anybody see "Russian Ark"?) there's a big downside to digital, which is that all of my friends who think they're filmmakers are now making 120-minute-unwatchably-boring-monstrosities instead of 10-minute-unwatchably-boring-monstrosities, just because they can. Anybody gone to a student film festival (or even a smaller regional festival) lately? OH GOOD LORD. Somebody stop these people! Or at least force them to do some more editing and pre-production! Or ANY editing and pre-production, for that matter. Just because you can afford to shoot more doesn't mean you should! Arrrrrgggghhh! I've also noticed that with so many shoestring-budget indie films and music videos now being shot on digital, anytime someone pops up with a project that was shot on film, even Super-8, it kinda stands out. Especially when projected. This reminds me of my cousin berating me for shooting black and white medium-format still negatives on my Rolleiflex while he cranks out 15 million billion overcompressed jpegs on his Coolpix. Then again, I'm trying to emulate Alfred Eisenstaedt, and I think he's trying to emulate the guy who shoots highschool yearbook portraits at Sears. Sigh.

I just thought I'd revive this for a sec: I vaguely recall that a teacher of mine at CalArts rigged up a compuer-controlled system several years back to digitally scan Super8mm film. He had some sort of film movement or gate attached to motorized rewinds that could move frame-by-frame--it was basically like the projector end of a Super8mm-sized optical printer, but built it from scratch. He also had a video camera with a macro lens pointed at the Super8mm gate; the camera's output fed into a Mac via a "Snappy" interface, which was capable of scanning .jpg stills from the video signal. The Mac was also attached to a little black box (I never figured out what it was) that controlled the rewind motors; my teacher then wrote a code that would first instruct the rewinds to advance a frame and then tell the Snappy software to scan a frame. Something like this is way, way past my ability to put together, but the point is that you could just turn it on and it would scan an entire reel of Super 8 by itself, and it didn't cost much to put together.

What exactly is involved in recelling? I don't actually know--is this something one can do one's self, or do you have to send it out to have it done? I have no problems living with a fixed lens in a Scoopic (in the still camera world I use a Rolleiflex). I heard someone disparage the quality of the Scoopic's lens once, but I don't remember having any problems with it. It's been years, though.

Most of John Waters's films through, I think, "Polyester." Although maybe they're more infamous than famous. Also not really famous, but very interesting, are most of Guy Maddin's films, all of which, except for (I think) "Twilight of the Ice Nymphs," were shot on either regular 16 or super 16.

Let us say one were to save one's money for a good 16mm mos reflex camera. If portability, steady registration, and a bright viewfinder were the criteria, what would you all suggest? I've used Bolexes, K-3's, and Scoopics in the past. I found the Bolex's viewfinder kind of dim, and the K-3 I used had problems keeping its loop. I liked the Scoopic but I understand that it has proprietary batteries that are a pain in the ass to keep going. What are the other choices? Has anyone tried the Beaulieu R16? Any other suggestions?

Personally I am not in favor of the reductionist definition of "dork" as defined above. To me a "Charles In Charge" fixation places one firmly in the "geek" category. In my experience: A geek is defined by a willful pursuit and embrace, beyond all reasonable standards of enthusiasm, of a subcultural phenomenon; whereas A dork is a person who, by virtue of personal and sometimes physical eccentricities, is just plain weird. Therefore, geekdom is a matter of personal choice, and dorkdom is a socio-biological category.

Yay, it's comforting to know dorkiness is international. I'll check to see about the Pro 8mm deal. I thought about that but I'm pretty sure I only need 200 feet. How sad that an extra hundred feet of film actually makes a difference to me at this point. Oh well.

Excellent suggestion! Although, I have to admit, I'm not a DP, I'm more of an animator. How about a dorky pseudo-hipster exchange program? That goes for me, actually. I have no idea if you're a dork or not. Do you have dorks in the UK? ANYWAY--to get back to the original subject, I'd be very happy to hear about peoples' various experiences in processing & telecine-ing small runs of 16mm. I gather everyone is in agreement that there's no real advantage in using reversal stock for this application?

John-- Thanks for the labs list. I assume these labs are also good for 16mm? I adore Super 8 but, alas, all I gots is the Bolex H16.

A bit off-topic, but since you bring it up: I would trade LA for the UK at any time. I know many will disagree, but, in my opinion: the constant sunshine is only nice if you are within a few miles of the coast, where the ocean keeps temperatures relatively steady. But housing is outrageously expensive there, meaning most of us have to live inland where it's essentially a desert. Very hot and very dry, it gets very oppressive very quickly. Also, we have the worst air quality in all of the United States (officially, according to the EPA), horrible traffic due to inadequate public transportation (we have trains, but they only run North-South, not East-West. Brilliant), a population that rises by 80-100 individuals every day, and, I just learned, currently the worst levels of unrelieved stress on the San Andreas fault in 1500 years, meaning the probability of one or several large earthquakes within the next couple of years is very high. And as for the mountains and beaches, everyone who lives here goes ape over them when they first move in and then never have any time to take advantage thereafter. The last time I was at the beach I didn't notice that it was against the rules to bring along a glass bottle and got a ticket for $180. So, in essence, the standard of life here, unless you are very wealthy, is crap. And palm trees frequently have rats living in them. They like to hide in the old fronds, you see. Still want to live here?

Rachel, can you suggest a lab for this (assuming you're in Los Angeles, which may be an incorrect assumption)? No offense to Pro 8mm either--I think I investigated it first because I was attracted to the "one-stop-shopping" concept, but I can very easily believe there are better options. I should note that the amount of film involved would be very small (200-300 feet max for this project).

I haven't shot film in a long, long time and a lot of things (namely digital editing) have happened since. But I've brought my 16mm camera out of the mothballs to work on a music video project--the piece will be a combination of dv footage and 16mm and it'll be edited on Final Cut Pro. The final product is aimed at tv and a net streaming only, so no film release print in the end. My question is: given that the film I shoot will go straight into the computer and not touched afterwards, is there an advantage of shooting negative rather than reversal film? I've looked at Pro 8mm in Burbank and they offer a package to sell, process, and telecine 16mm negative (I think it's short ends) to Mini DV, which would be handy for dumping into the computer. The whole process works out to be about $100 for 100 feet of film; I'm having a hard time figuring out if this is a good deal, or if just buying 16mm reversal film and having somewhere else process & telecine would be more cost-effective. Any suggestions would be very much appreciated...it's been a long time and I've forgotten a lot. Thanks!

Lucky kids! That's very kind of you.

Personally I prefer to travel to the laboratory via dirigible.

Every so often I see a Maurer 16mm camera for sale. They never seem to go for very much but seem quite solid as opposed to a Bolex...has anyone ever used one? Are they practical machines, or just big paperweights at this point? I imagine repairs might be a problem.

Now that I recall, back at school I was told there was only one qualified Oxberry repairman in all of Los Angeles and that he was retiring soon...and that was a couple of years ago. Maybe an old Oxberry's not such a good idea after all...

Christian, I would absolutely buy it if I didn't have to deal with shipping issues from Germany. But thank you for the Oxberry suggestion, I forgot that the cameras themselves sometimes leave their stands. I will certainly think about that one, and if anyone knows of one (16 or 35) gathering dust somewhere, please do let me know...

Hi all-- I'm an animator, and while I usually work on the computer I've recently hauled out my old H-16 for some film work, which has been very gratifying. I've thought of shooting animation on a rented 35mm camera from time to time but rental packages here in Los Angeles can be quite expensive, so I'm satisfied to go back to my Bolex for stop-motion/animation work. I've noticed recently, though, that there are a couple of used 35mm models that pop up on Ebay and the like now and then--specifically the Eyemo and the Konvas--that are well within my purchasing range. My question is, though: are either of these models adaptable to single-frame work? Is anyone aware of a single-frame motor designed for them? Has anybody tried this? My other option for buying a 35mm for single-frame appears to be the Bell & Howell 2709, which I frequently see cited as an animation workhorse because of the accuracy/stability of the film movement. It is a hand-cranked silent camera, though, so I presume some sort of additional motor is involved. These cameras appear to hover about in the $3-4,000 range which, while certainly not cheap to me, is still less than an Oxberry. Does anyone have any experience with this camera? I'd be grateful to hear about other alternatives, too. Thanks very much!