Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

So if my film had 173 individual digital files or movie clips I would be correct in saying I post processed 173 reels for the movie?

I'm processing 6-3/4 hours of digital content composed of 174 separate files. To upscale it and spit out a finished file it takes 3+ hours. Does that sound right or is my computer way behind? It is a new desktop, albeit lower end model with added RAM.

What about digital files. Are they still called reels?

What are the individual film shorts used in post processing that are combined to form the final film called. Are they called 'film clips' or is there a more proper terminology? Thanks

Now, Perry will tell you upscaling loses sharpness. And that it does...if you use a microscope. I've done lots of upscaling with still photos. It has its use, but it not a magic bullet. https://danieldteolijrarchivalcollection.wordpress.com/2019/04/27/to-upscale-or-not-upscale/ But the question here is not how upscaling works for the pixel peepers, it is how does upscaling work in the real world for TV and the big screen when viewed at normal viewing distances. When I shot 'Offshoots...' I had to use a relatively low res camera. It produced a 1280x720 file. When I used higher res cameras I got too much moiré while shooting the tablet's screen. nsfw I made standard def DVD and Blu-ray 1080 of 'Offshoots...' The upscaled Blu-ray looked very good. Much, much nicer than the standard def DVD. I also made an upscaled file that was 3840x2160. When I burned a Blu-ray of it, the 3840x2160 looked basically the same as the 1920x1080 version on a 70 inch TV and I didn't see any benefit to it one way or the other, even when viewed a few feet from the screen. (I was mainly looking to see if it was less sharp and that is was not.) But my question is this... I don't have means to project it bigger. Has anyone upscaled for the big screen? Would there be any benefit in the 3840x2160 image over the 1920x1080 for projection on big screens? (And if you have not upscaled for the big screen, then what are you basing your opinion on?) Thanks

With the naked young boy dangling his penis for a good chunk of the beginning, I wonder if Jodorowsky's 'El Topo' could be made today in the USA? Or would his ass get canned by the kiddy porn police? The other night on the news they hauled someone in. Beside kiddy porn they said he had child erotica. First time I had heard of child erotica. But I have heard that parents got in legal trouble for taking photos of their kid naked in the bath / shower. Someone told me back in the day the laws were different. It might boil down to 1970s = OK 2019 = not OK. Although if made in a different country, then it may not be any problem.

Finally finished film. This is the 'FAH' version. (FAH = **(obscenity removed)** a Hater) Original film was about 6-3/4 hours long. I sped it up 10X and got it down to 43min5s. I'm sick of social documentary (people) work for a while. Spent 2018-2019 on IG documentaries making 67 films by looking through 200,000+ IG posts on thousands of accounts. But I got nowhere to go...I'm not a sunset shooter. Short backstory is at end of film. I'd like to put a hi-res version on Blu-ray. Still trying to figure it out. All my software does in standard DVD. I will have to make a non 'FAH' version for those that don't like the FAH. But I think if they don't like the FAH because of language, they wont like the film because of the content either. So maybe I will just leave it FAH. Gotta be true to your art when you are underground. There is no $$...no notoriety...so if you can't be true to your art when underground...what do you have??

I haven't read the post that caused the hubbub as I like to read threads backwards sometimes. Maybe it is an ADD thing. So, I hope to eventually get to it...if I don't get bored! They got all types in the world...+ and - , we just got to make do best we can dealing with the + and -. On a photo forum that banned me, and just a short time after joining, someone PM'd me. He/they said they worked at an art school that had some of my hand-printed artist's books and photos in their collection and he/they thought my books didn't really mean much since they were self-published, donated and not critically reviewed. He/they were a proff at the school. He/they said only purchased photos and commercially published books 'counts.' And while he/they is generally right, Twentysix Gasoline Stations was in a similar boat and sells for... https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30035858856&searchurl=an%3DEd%2BRuscha%26sortby%3D1&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title4 I can only hope the proff was more encouraging with their students. Luckily there are no photo police to demand an accounting...we only have to please ourselves. If you approach art as a job, then $$ is everything. If you approach art as your life, then $$ is a side issue. A true artist uses their art to make sense of the world and must do it irrespective of $$, fame, success or notoriety.

Yes, concur. I can only be an experimental filmmaker. Producing on schedule and $$ demands ruins it for me...that is WORK! Agree on health. Gained 60 pounds working on computer PP. Sleep goes too!

Yes, good advice. Kerouac may have said it best.."you've got to stick to it with the energy of a benny addict.” Expose yourself to as many areas of inspiration as possible. You never know where success may sprout from. Good luck!

OK, will check them out...Thanks!

Why do you say optical is dead? Use it all the time. Only issue I have with optical is the amount of data they hold. OK, now who uses floppy any more...but you can still get lots of USB floppy drives in 2019. So tech seems to stick around a little longer than many think. The reason I brought up CD's earlier was in response to Perry saying the hardware will be gone in a few years. 34 years later and no shortage of CD readers...with no end in sight. Personally I keep my material on HDD, a very few SDD and DVD's. I'd like to add LTO, but the cost is prohibitive as of now. It is all magnetic media so to speak. The closest thing to film is optical, not magnetic. (Not in terms of film look, in archival qualities.) Although I have some early reel to reel tape from the 50's that is still good. So tape may offer good archival qualities as well, but I think 'M' discs are more stable.

Thanks Perry...but I've never seen any tape drives remotely priced like that. More like a few thousand $$ each, albeit new. And that is the issue...LTO's = $$. I'd be scared buying used $300 tape drives unless I really knew the backstory on them. Too bad the LTO's don't come down to an affordable price like $500. Have any of you bought used tape drives? How did you do?

Sure, everything you say is true...in a perfect world and if $$ is no object. Since we are having this media conversation I pulled down the M (4.7gb) disc I was testing to give it a try. I was planning on keeping it up for a year in the sun, but tested it after 3 months. Worked great. All other optical media (silver / gold) failed after a month in the sun. The M disc seems promising, providing you can get the hardware to read down the road. They have M discs that hold a good deal of data, but nothing like tape. I think 100gb is the max. Still a lot of data in a disc...if you can't afford LTO.

In the old days DVD's were burnt at 4x. Then they improved to 8x and 16x. Has anyone noticed any benefit burning at lower speeds than the media recommends? Or just stick to the max speed the media is rated for.