Super 8 Book

[Blue Demon]

Very bad sleuthing, Steve. I never said I was a high school student.

[Douglas Hunter]

There's also a substantial recent monograph on the films of Kenneth Anger, if you care for his work, and a couple of interesting books of essays by Brakhage.

 

For Tarkovsky fans, his diary has just been published in French by the Cahiers du cinéma.

 

 

Brakhage should be required reading.

 

do you know if the new French Tarkovski materials are the same as those previously published by Kitty Hunter-Blair in English or do they contain new material?

 

Thanks.

[steve hyde]

Brakhage should be required reading.

 

do you know if the new French Tarkovski materials are the same as those previously published by Kitty Hunter-Blair in English or do they contain new material?

 

Thanks.

 

Doug,

 

I haven't read Brakhage. What makes the book unique?

 

Steve

[Guy Bennett]

do you know if the new French Tarkovski materials are the same as those previously published by Kitty Hunter-Blair in English or do they contain new material?

 

I don't know the Hunter-Blair edition, so cannot say to what extent the materials are the same. What I can say is that this edition runs some 600 pages, and includes the complete text of his diary (1970-1986), as well as a number of reproductions of drawings, photographs, and ms diary pages. There have also been a number of additions to the first French translation of the diary, published by the Cahiers du Cinéma in 1994. Regarding the additions, here's a rough translation of the opening lines of the preface by Tarkovsky's son: "This book is the latest revized and augmented edition (after the Italian edition) of my father's diary. It has been enriched, following its first French translation, with many pages and notes found in both the Florence and Moscow archives of the Andrei Tarkovsky International Institute. It can be considered, with its additions and corrections, as the definitive version."

 

I should add that it was published in 2004, not in 2006, as I had imagined.

 

 

I haven't read Brakhage. What makes the book unique?

Steve

 

I'm not sure what book by Brakhage you're refering to, but if you want to get a sense of his writing, check out Essential Brakhage: Selected Writings on Film-Making. It's a compilation of writings from throughout his career.

[Douglas Hunter]

Doug,

 

I haven't read Brakhage. What makes the book unique?

 

Steve

 

 

Brakhage like several of the other filmmakers mentioned here had a unique and provocative point of view. His ideas about vision and the cinema's relation to vision and what this meant to him represent an important moment in the American Avant-Garde. I admit that I like reading those few filmmakers who have attempted to "define" the cinema and actually are able to produce more than a few well worn truisms. Of course watching their work is more important than reading what they wrote and Brakhage is no exception. There is also a pretty good doc on Brakhage by Jim Sheden (SP?) called Brakhage, one of the best things about it is the inclusion of parts of Stan's films "text with light"," window water baby moving" and a couple others. That Doc is available on netflix.

[Rod Otaviano]

Speaking of books, has anybody here read "Notes of a Cinematographer" by Robert Bresson ? I'm curious to know what people think about it. I am now at chapter 3 of "Sculpting in Time" by Tarkovsky and it's indeed an excellent book. I've always had some difficulty understanding art and this book has been helping me clear up the concept.

[David Mullen ASC]

Speaking of books, has anybody here read "Notes of a Cinematographer" by Robert Bresson ?

 

The Bresson book really isn't about cinematography per se, more general intellectual concepts on filmmaking as I recall.

[Rod Otaviano]

The Bresson book really isn't about cinematography per se, more general intellectual concepts on filmmaking as I recall.

 

 

Oh yeah, I know that, actually I suspect this book has some similarities with "Sculpting in Time" ... among them the possibility to look into the director's mind. I'm just wondering if it's worth reading or not. I read somewhere the good thing about this book is not what he wrote it but the way he wrote it. I'm kind of curious about that.

 

I've seen three of his movies this last week and am very impressed by his style.

[Guy Bennett]

Speaking of books, has anybody here read "Notes of a Cinematographer" by Robert Bresson ? I'm curious to know what people think about it.

 

IMO the Bresson book is quite interesting. As someone has pointed out, it's not about cinematography, technically speaking. It's more a book by an artist about film.

[Douglas Hunter]

IMO the Bresson book is quite interesting. As someone has pointed out, it's not about cinematography, technically speaking. It's more a book by an artist about film.

 

 

The Bresson is more of a loose collection of thoughts, descriptions and rememberances, it does indeed have the feeling that one is getting inside Bresson's head. I admit that I got impatient with it, and I usually am a total sucker for that sort of thing. It does have some very interesting moments though but it does not have the same relationship to his work that a book like Sculpting in Time has to Tarkovsky's work.

[steve hyde]

Brakhage like several of the other filmmakers mentioned here had a unique and provocative point of view. His ideas about vision and the cinema's relation to vision and what this meant to him represent an important moment in the American Avant-Garde. I admit that I like reading those few filmmakers who have attempted to "define" the cinema and actually are able to produce more than a few well worn truisms. Of course watching their work is more important than reading what they wrote and Brakhage is no exception. There is also a pretty good doc on Brakhage by Jim Sheden (SP?) called Brakhage, one of the best things about it is the inclusion of parts of Stan's films "text with light"," window water baby moving" and a couple others. That Doc is available on netflix.

 

 

Thanks Doug. I think I'll track down these "texts"...

 

Steve

[Sam Wells]

It does have some very interesting moments though but it does not have the same relationship to his work that a book like Sculpting in Time has to Tarkovsky's work.

 

I'm not so sure. My copy is packed away so I can't bring it out & quote it but... insofar as it 'gets inside his head' (Bresson's) I wouldn't say it doesn't have a similar kind of relationship... it's more eliptical, but so, arguably is Bresson...

 

Re Stan Brakhage we should note quite a bit of his later period photographed work (80's & some 90's) was shot in Super 8 & blown up to 16mm for distribution....

 

-Sam

[Douglas Hunter]

I'm not so sure. My copy is packed away so I can't bring it out & quote it but... insofar as it 'gets inside his head' (Bresson's) I wouldn't say it doesn't have a similar kind of relationship... it's more eliptical, but so, arguably is Bresson...

 

Re Stan Brakhage we should note quite a bit of his later period photographed work (80's & some 90's) was shot in Super 8 & blown up to 16mm for distribution....

 

-Sam

 

What I mean is that Tarkovsky is following a program, laying out step by step the basic beliefs that inform his cinematic practice. I think Bresson is trying to achieve something different in "notes". For me the better description of his book is disjunctive, not in a pejoritive sense, its just to say that the method of presentation of his ideas in "notes" feeds on juxtaposition and does not strives for the same kind of philosophical synthesis in relation to his work that Tarkovsky does. but perhaps I'm getting too academic here.

[Guy Bennett]

What I mean is that Tarkovsky is following a program, laying out step by step the basic beliefs that inform his cinematic practice. I think Bresson is trying to achieve something different in "notes". For me the better description of his book is disjunctive, not in a pejoritive sense, its just to say that the method of presentation of his ideas in "notes" feeds on juxtaposition and does not strives for the same kind of philosophical synthesis in relation to his work that Tarkovsky does. but perhaps I'm getting too academic here.

 

 

Perhaps that's why Bresson describes it as "notes" on Cinematography...

 

Re Stan Brakhage we should note quite a bit of his later period photographed work (80's & some 90's) was shot in Super 8 & blown up to 16mm for distribution....

 

Are you sure it was shot in Super 8 and not in standard 8? I thought it was the latter.

[Rhonda L. McReynolds]

I second the Malkiewic book. I purchased one from a used book store before I enrolled in film school, and it has helped me much more than some instructors!

[Sam Wells]

Perhaps that's why Bresson describes it as "notes" on Cinematography...

Are you sure it was shot in Super 8 and not in standard 8? I thought it was the latter.

 

Notes, good point.

 

Yes, the later (photographed) work that was 8mm was Super 8. (The Songs from earlier period were std 8).

 

(hand painted was 16, 35, two or three were 70, one was on IMAX)

 

-Sam

[Guy Bennett]

Notes, good point.

 

Yes, the later (photographed) work that was 8mm was Super 8. (The Songs from earlier period were std 8).

 

(hand painted was 16, 35, two or three were 70, one was on IMAX)

 

-Sam

 

 

That makes me wonder if Brakhage ever worked in Super 8. Does anyone know if indeed he did?

[Sam Wells]

That makes me wonder if Brakhage ever worked in Super 8. Does anyone know if indeed he did?

 

Huh ??? That's what I just said !

 

(all the films that were shot in S8 were blown up to 16mm)

 

-Sam

[Guy Bennett]

Huh ??? That's what I just said !

 

(all the films that were shot in S8 were blown up to 16mm)

 

-Sam

 

 

I'm sorry Sam, I misread your earlier post!

[Nicholas Kovats]

The Santos of the world would rather snipe then appreciate Lenny Lipton's systemic attempt at bringing clarity to the Super 8 scene of the 70's. Lenny had a distinct voice and was a good writer. Has anyone written a knock out primer on modern DV cams that trumps Lenny's writing style? Nothing comes to mind at the moment...

 

And an excellent challenge, David!

 

You referenced two superb engineered cameras. Whilst the truly wealthy independent filmmakers amongst us..if they really really must shoot S8/Single 8 with these type of high end cameras why not just have these instruments converted to shooting Double Super 8 (16mm) wide? :) Overkill you say?

 

Back to shooting and financial reality.

 

A smaller lighter new S8 camera with single strand coaxial magazines would be interesting but there does exist a good choice of older cameras with C/M mounts to mix and match your shooting style(s), i.e. Fujica ZC1000, Leicina Special, Beaulieu 4-5-6-7000's and the very wicked little superb Nizo 156 Macro (Schneider 7-60mm fixed lens). I apologize if I am preaching to the converted. But I am only speaking to what machines I am directly familiar with, use or own.

 

The Nizo 156 is well balanced, light and even allows burst filming speeds in the middle of a time lapse shot. I suspect I just elevated this camera's eBay auction value. Merde!

 

My 40, 100 and 200 Asa B/W transferred with Justin Lovell's excellent frame by frame transfer to HD AVI file format and digitally projected has been amazing.

 

In fact this may be my point re this post. Transfer your exposed film immediately to a digital format as quickly as you can. This effectively reduces this tiny format's susceptibility to scratches, electrostatic buildup, dust gouges, etc.

 

And yes, Dennis most S8 cameras are old, there are no new camera's manufactured (..maybe S8 Pro 7008 mods "might" qualify but barely..." and I believe the Beaulieu 7008 series were the last new cameras to be pumped out.

 

Hey, Dennis! Don't you have some respectable pull with Hollywood machining types that might be interested in prototyping a newish camera for this frikken little sexy format that refuses to die?!?!?

 

...it's good to be back and shooting S8.

 

NK in TO

 

 

 

 

 

 

To clarify my snipe back at Santo's sniping, I wouldn't dismiss the nostalgia element in filmmaking, even 35mm production let alone 16mm or Super-8. We don't work in a vacuum, only in the present, we need to respect the history of our artform even if the origins are humble.

 

Besides, if one really only wanted to think of Super-8 from an engineering standpoint and was only concerned about maximizing image quality, then eventually you run into the fact that you are dealing with a film frame that is smaller than a fingernail. So you have to recognize that you are attempting to improve a format that has limitations by its basic design.

 

It's a little like people who want to fit 35mm cine optics to a consumer DV camera -- yes, you can improve the quality, but before you spend too much time and effort to do so, you have to ask yourself if you may get better results in a simpler fashion by changing the format or camera.

 

Personally, I think it would be great if someone built a new Super-8 camera from the ground up, perhaps modelled on the Aaton A-minima or Arri 416. Spinning mirror reflex, 200' mags, quiet, crystal-sync, multiple frame rates, bright viewfinder, 16x9 gate, etc.

 

I have a question: are all Super-8 cameras used? Are any of the companies still making new ones? If not, when was the last new Super-8 camera manufactured?