This is topic Advice required RE projection and destruction in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007823

---

Posted by Sam Hallett (Member # 3480) on January 15, 2013, 02:53 PM:
 
A bit of background: I am a digital media student studying at the arts university of bournemouth. For my current project, which I am working on at the behest of a client, I have been asked to produce something in video that mirrors the self destructive nature of an acetate vinyl disc or "dubplate" as you may or may not know these are records normally cut to test the sound of track and will normally become very damaged after only about 10 plays.

The Idea is to loop about 3 minutes of 8mm film on a projector which will be destroyed live during the installation by audience interaction(via a system of sensors). My first thought was to set up a mechanism that delivered single drops of bleach onto the reel but thinking about it in more detail later I realised I really don't know the kind of effect that would have on the film let alone the projector and if looping on an 8mm projector is even possible.

So my questions are: is it possible to loop on an 8mm projector and if not are there any easy appropriations that would make this feasible.

What would be the best way to denature the film over a period of maybe 6 hours , I can set up my system to deliver bleach , heat or any kind of photographic chemical though if a liquid is the solution I envisage building some kind of sponge arm to keep too much of it getting into the workings of the projector.

Sorry if this is somewhat demanding any advice would be valued highly

thank you.
 

---

Posted by Maurizio Di Cintio (Member # 144) on January 15, 2013, 03:26 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Sam Hallett (Member # 3480) on January 15, 2013, 04:47 PM:
 
could you be more specific i'd just like to know what deteriorates 8mm film slowly in a way that might be visually interesting.

and if you can loop

thank you
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 15, 2013, 06:33 PM:
 
Sam

You are on a forum that is dedicated to preserve and exhibit film, not destroy it in a way you have described "thats dumb" and the same goes for projectors.

Graham.
 

---

Posted by Jake Mayes (Member # 3292) on January 15, 2013, 06:54 PM:
 
If he is doing it for this purpose it might be very intresting... I would say take say a metre of film, thread it in the projector and splice it in a loop. Maybe expose the film to extreme heat (such as a hair dryer or fan heater) this WILL cause damage to the projector lamp in the long run, or acetone will destroy film, in an 'interesting way' but would probably ignite upon reaching the gate due to the heat of the lamp. Or maybe splice a longer loop of film and have some of it in a place far from the projector and over a container full of acetone, the loop still running through the projector. the vapours will very quickly begin to degrade the acetate base. I cannot speak for polyester film, but it might affect the dyes. Make sure you take fire precautions, acetone vapours will 'trail' and it is very flammable. I bear no responsibility, take all precautions and comply with any laws in your area. Have the loop say 10 seconds long looping the same scene with the acetone method, will be interesting to watch the scene loop and slowly be destroyed.

Another way would be to have some fine grit sandpaper and have it contacting the base and emulsion as it is running through, will be 'interesting'. Use a junker projector due to particles that might come off in the projector. ways of slowly (over several minutes) degrading or damaging gelatin would be another idea. Bleach i would not advise unless using a junker projector and at high temperatures can release chlorine gas (projector gate/lamp). Use a junker and scratching projector for this experiment, do not ruin a good one!

Sounds like sacrilege i know, but it can be interesting with a junker film. For fun i have creatively found ways to destroy bits worthless vinyl, reel to reel tape and cassettes, and film to see how much punishment they can take. With vinyl the best one was a vintage turntable with a damaged stylus and heavy tracking, you could watch it wear the groove with funky results, or using a sharp knife to 'play' the record, having it attatched to a thin magnet and coil and wiring this up to a tape decks' head input. Hissy, funky but interesting result, and you could hear the music playing on the knife.

With tape its about weaking the binder, or in the case of MP tapes oxidizing the metal as well. The base in the case of acetate tape.
With film it is about damaging either the base, emulsion, dyes or reacting/removing silver in the case of B/W. Creatively reacting the dyes to fade them is a good idea as well, you can buy film bleach, that can be used with the older generations of coupler-based film that slowly bleaches the dyes. (Wittners velvia 50 would fit the bill for this nicely, E100D i doubt. household bleach would do just that as well, to any film. Careful of water and electricity. Or have a lit candle near the film which will slowly begin to degrade it! Or if you can get your hands on some old kodachrome film, many old 3 min movies exist on the bay on kodachrome, a BRIGHT HOT high-intensity lamp or flame pointed at the film not close enough to melt will fade the dyes within an hour, it had a rapid fade time under light (especially projection, with super 8 this normally did not matter as each frame is exposed to the lamp for a tiny period of time the film is in the gate, coupled with the shutter giving protection, especially a 3 blade shutter), but had extreme dark and chemical stability.

That is my two cents, hope you find the information useful, and satisfying for your needs. I would not destroy a cart of film i had shot personally, the carts are expensive and it is a waste, but a common digest for a quid or so in a junker projector? fun fun fun. Or maybe put say a 500+ watt bulb that is many times more powerful in place of the original bulb and wire it to an external supply. Use kodachrome and you might get some fun results. 18 fps and a 2-blade shutter to boot if possible. I am an analog guy in every way, and have for fun searched the weaknesses of the mediums! If you use sound film as icing on the cake have a permant magnet near the magnetic strip but not too close, say just under an inch (test first) with every pass the sound would degrade.

I say go the acetone vapor route or sandpaper route, taking needed precautions. or soak a cotton bud or cotton roller in bleach and have the film pass over it, ventilating the area!! means it keeps the film damp but not dripping wet in bleach. USE VENTILATION.

Play safe!

P.S Don't take this the wrong way guys, i carefully look after my films and audio/video tape and vinyl, alot of the tape and film containing unique and sentemental content, but it is nice and fun to know the weaknesses in any recording medium, for experiments like this. I have yet to try bathing a B/W print in acetone or a colour print (stills) in bleach for example, but it is on my list to try, for fun. I ensure very little money is spent.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 15, 2013, 07:20 PM:
 
I'm sorry boys but are you sure this is the forum you wish to be
on, Personally,after years of building a collection of film and
maintaining it, I find the idea of wanton destruction of cine film
and equipment distasteful,usually this kind of "art" is performed
by people who have never had a creative thought in their lives,
it's all been done before.A different experiment that would be
entertaining would be a 1000' spool of Nitrate film with the audience waving sparklers,now that would be a crowd pleaser.
 

---

Posted by Jake Mayes (Member # 3292) on January 15, 2013, 07:25 PM:
 
I fully understand that, i edited my post with a P.S. He is not onto destroying large quantities of film, either and if someone wishes to spend money on creatively destroying something, thats up to them. I personally would never do it to anything important, i like to experiment and i have done, but its been for educational, i would never do this on any large scale. I have carefully documented family history as art on many different mediums over the past decade of my life, settling on film as the primary medium, and each medium i have tested, CDs and hard drives included. harming nothing sentimental in the way. I am just answering his question in depth, whats life without experimenting! Watching something slowly being 'degraded' can be classed as an art in itself, just like cutting a photo up and sticking it as a collage. The likes of the BBC destroyed half their film archives... I do care for my film and other collections, keep equipment clean and maintained to ensure they are safe, sometimes going to extreme lengths to look after my collection, just clarifying that point. If someone wants to creatively destroy film doesn't make them any more destructive than a collage made from say cutting up and sticking a magazine or photo.

+1 on the nitrate film one, taking extreme caution and doing it outside away from anything flammable, as a nitrate fire cannot be put out by usual means. I wouldn't go as far as to say that this is only done by people who have never had a creative thought for art, who is anyone to judge that or what forms art take? Even if it involves 'destruction', all it is doing is changing energy, even exposing and developing film does just that. Art is just an expression of energy and vibration. Yes i do see art in such a deep way, and it can take many forms. Music, images, drawings, paintings, collage, the lot. And i cannot draw to my satisfaction, hence me using photography and the characteristics of reversal film and other darkroom tools and methods with many types of film to express my feelings in creativity, the loss of 100D upset me for this reason, a surreal experience can be created with film at reasonable cost. I home process for even more control over this. good thing we have wittner. I love velvia, and cannot wait to shoot a V50 cart, as velvia slides are amazing and i have the means to adjust the colour pallette using the FD time, bringing out greens, or deepening the blues, or both... Some ways of altering home processing can be seen as destructive, one of my films was processed at 41C for its own look and colour bias, would 'ruin' the film in a lab's eyes but did what i wanted to do for art for that particular shoot and film. intense saturation and contrast, coupled with a warm golden like colour bias gives such a spiritual surreal look. I record any experiments in this aspect. I plan on doing a home processing write up for specific colour biases/colour saturations i record but the cost of reversal film limits me in this respect, for little more than clip tests then to use it on a final product. Some recording artists used to cut up their tapes and splice them together to make art and then work this into the master. Destroys the tape for any other purpose? yes. Worked for their purpose of expression? yes.

Art is art. Everything is of our own creation, whatever form it takes.
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 15, 2013, 09:24 PM:
 
Sam, I don't really get it what you are going to do, but if you are asking about 8mm looper, you can check here:

www.looper8.ch

In fact the owner has just posted in this forum. Here is the link:

Super8 Film Looper Available

He is exactly saying that this looper is needed by art people. So contact David Pflugger in this regard.

Good luck!
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 16, 2013, 03:24 AM:
 
Winbert,these people are using the hobby, as a vandal uses a wall
with spray paint, and you're wishing them good luck!
Anyone that destroys something and calls it "Art", is akin to a
child pulling legs off insects and calling it fun.Pathetic.
You're missing my point Jake, I DON'T want precautions taken,
it will be an interesting experiment watching all those people
making for the exits as the fire takes hold,think of all the pretty
colours those flames will make.

[ January 16, 2013, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Hugh Thompson Scott ]
 

---

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on January 16, 2013, 05:28 AM:
 
From Jake's last post......

"and if someone wishes to spend money on creatively destroying something, thats up to them."

That is "apparently" ART. Now at long last we know what was in the "minds" of Kaiser Bill and Adolf Hiltler: they instigated the First and Second World wars as "creative Art experiences".

In passing,"Creatively destroying" is probably the most inane OXYMORON I have ever come across!

The best thing to do with this thread is to IGNORE it from now on. My life experiences over 75 years tells me that's the best way for an OLD FOGEY like me.

Martin

[ January 16, 2013, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: Martin Jones ]
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 16, 2013, 05:35 AM:
 
Martin, you're absolutely right,I've no doubt that it's just attention
seeking and destroying something of worth can't be called "Art".
I suppose anything can be construde as art if in that mind set,
no wonder Psychiatrists are always in work.
 

---

Posted by Jake Mayes (Member # 3292) on January 16, 2013, 06:36 AM:
 
Comparing this to adolf hitler is the most ridiculous thing i have read in a while... I don't want this to turn into a right/wrong debate, he wanted information and i gave it. from what he described as well he is looping and destroying a single roll of film, I don't see the problem, it is ONE roll. Not 'something of worth', he is buying something for an intended purpose, how many people sell their family movies on ebay to make a few bob? that is what i would call destructive in the way of being disrespectful. If he wished to buy a reel of film, regardless of what was on it, if the contents meant nothing to him and obviously didn't to the seller, and he was using it for an intended purpose (slowly destroy by chemical or physical means and document it in progress), why not? it would only sit and rot for several years until the base or dyes degraded in most cases if both parties cared not about the contents... Get over it... He is harming no one or anyones collections in the process.

That sort of thing can be interesting... My belief in any subject is do what you want, but harm nobody, animal, plant or human. Comparing this to adolf hitler who helped cause millions of deaths is out of context... I am not pushing anyone to agree, but comparing to adolf hitler?... really that is going a bit far. Why not just help the guy rather than moan? I baby my film collection as i have said, so am i destructive towards film in general? Don't take what he is trying to do out of context, if he did the same to an audiotape, videotape, hard drive, or CD would you still be complaining? He politely asked for advice. He was not rude, and he doesn't deserve to be compared to adolf hitler!
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 16, 2013, 07:06 AM:
 
Jake, I think you're on the wrong forum, if some people get their
thrills destroying things, fine, but the members of this forum
spend their time trying to preserve film.Like I said before, all this
sort of clowning about was done in the '60s,and it was boring then.I fully support Martin and his views, especially in not getting
too involved in what is a stupid post to begin with.
 

---

Posted by Jake Mayes (Member # 3292) on January 16, 2013, 07:32 AM:
 
I understand your view, however I do not think I am on the wrong forum, i have discussed some good things on this forum, and it is a great community dedicated to film. He posted this in 8mm general, for all 8mm discussion is it not? yes the idea is boring for some, but remember he has been asked specifically by a client to do this as well. I understand why you disagree, but the fate of a single roll of film shouldn't be a concern and it would have been much more polite to help the guy, while stating your opinions if you wanted that you do not like the idea of it being destroyed. It is not suggesting the destruction of people collections, film in general, or anything else for that matter. it is about a single roll or two and an attempt to find a creative way to slowly degrade the film with people watching. Two rolls at most, that is it. It may have been boring in the 60s but remember its a new generation of people we are discussing. I do not know the age of sam mind... Curiosity is not a sin... I am only 18, myself. I have seen many in college fascinated, and i know more people with turntables than CDs, for example. Some people are bound to want to experiment with these things. And who can help them better than the generation who grew up with it?

Maybe i shouldn't be writing so many replies dedicated to this, but it is just i can see no harm in what he is doing, the adolf hitler argument took what he was doing and my comments well out of of context. It turned a civilised discussion and debate to something quite the opposite. I will not keep trying to press this point, i have other stuff i need to do and would rather contribute to other topics now i have given my contribution to this one.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 16, 2013, 08:23 AM:
 
Jake, at your tender age you have much to learn about all the
things life has in store for you.On this very forum, there are many
learned people who will help you along the way in this hobby of
ours, people who spend time, effort and money on trying to keep
films free from damage and keeping very tired projectors in good
repair.Me, I'm a builder by trade,and it saddens me when I see
beautiful buildings demolished to make way for the Lego sets
they call modern building these days, I DON'T take delight in
wanton destruction of anything, to build or create something
from nothing is an art, not thinking of ways to destroy.Sticking
sandpaper on film projectors or soaking films in alkaline is not
art or clever.Far better to learn how to create on film,not harm
it.Perhaps Sam should join a science class and study how film
is made up.
 

---

Posted by Sam Hallett (Member # 3480) on January 16, 2013, 09:34 AM:
 
Firstly thank you winbert and jake especially you have been extremely helpful. secondly I find it extremely irksome that the other commenters in this post are so quick to don the title of art critic sans any comprehensive overview of the piece whatsoever.

before I go on I would just like to say that the opinion that hitler instigated ww2 as a "creative art experiment" is just bizarre and ridiculous.

the piece is a reaction to the current paradigm of image consumption. digital images are endlessly replaceable so their consumption is never exhaustive. in my piece when an audience member is standing in such a position as to observe the projection they will be tripping an infrared beam which will trigger a robot arm or switch which will begin the denaturing process thus making their consumption very literal.

If you can't see the inherent value in a piece like that then that is your idiosyncrasy and i will not begrudge however your highly emotive and personnel responses seem childish and the reaction of hysterical fetishists. I really can't get over the hitler thing , was it a joke?.

any way thank you jake ill begin experimenting with those means right away I think the sandpaper methods sounds appropriate and when I read the part concerning the magnet and it's denaturing of the sound I grew very exited.

cheers
 

---

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 16, 2013, 10:17 AM:
 
Not taking sides here Sam, but it's like you've come on a classic car forum with questions about demolition derby! It's kind of the exact opposite of what we do and how we think.

If the point of art is to produce an emotional response, you've hit pay dirt!

Maybe the image you should work with is a digital one: the destruction would be more controllable and could be done in creative ways.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 16, 2013, 10:18 AM:
 
I'll bet there's a queue forming at the door already.
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 16, 2013, 10:20 AM:
 
So do you think the looper from David will work to you?
 

---

Posted by Mike Peckham (Member # 16) on January 16, 2013, 10:33 AM:
 
I don’t post on here very often, so am wary of dropping a post into a controversial thread, but I can see both sides of this argument and there are striking parallels with posts that I see on the vintage VW forums I frequent. When anyone goes on there announcing that they have just bought a strikingly original 50 year old VW and they’re going to put a big engine in it and lower it all hell breaks loose!

However, I think it is a bit different here. Sam has a very clear plan of what he intends to do, it isn’t a piece of art that I would be rushing to see but on the other hand I think it sounds interesting and, as we have already seen, thought provoking! I would even go as far as to say that the premise of creating an interactive piece that brings the viewer’s attention to today’s disposable approach to the capture of the moving image is inspired.

It seems that there will be a very small amount of film involved in this project, no great loss to the massive stock that is out there, and I’m hoping that the projector used will be some nasty little Boots jobby that would destroy any film that is run through it for any length of time anyway.

And who knows, it might even raise some interest in the existence of reel film?

Just my thoughts.

Mike
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 16, 2013, 10:38 AM:
 
I can recommend a film to try his experiment on "The Rose"
could only be improved by a bit of "experimentation".
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 16, 2013, 10:52 AM:
 

quote:

---

I don’t post on here very often,

---

Mike, people will get confused if reading that statement, while you have made a score with 1399 posts....
 

---

Posted by Jake Mayes (Member # 3292) on January 16, 2013, 10:53 AM:
 
Glad it helped with your quest sam, hope your project works out!

Hugh i understand about buildings, i feel the same way about buildings, but it is the discretion of the owner, forced destruction is another matter than i think breaches free will in a serious way, good on the guy who refused to let his house be destroyed for heathrow? runway until they paid him a nice $10 million sum.

Film is a great creative art medium, and sam's use of it is using it in an unorthadox but creative way to achieve his goal. People on this forum are great to discuss film with, and there are many good topics in discussion. From what it seems he is not into film as we are, but still wished to use it for a creative purpose. I do not think we can agree on this point.

I think highly of the people who lovingly maintain their collections and projectors, i do just the same, i clean my projectors after every showing to reduce the chances of scratching, as lines I am not a fan of on film. We are having another full family showing of my granddads movies, over 12 hours worth and the effort put into ensuring they are well looked after and preventing damage to the film is high. If someone wishes to use film in an unorthadox way, which results in the destruction of the medium at the end of it, that is up to them, personally i think that can be quite interesting and have done just that in the past for an audience. Just as the beatles and many other artists cut up recording tape and spliced it back together in random orders. Destroys the tape for any other purpose and once mastered tapes like that were usually discarded. Freaking out over the damage to sam's film was going a bit far, it is serving an artistic purpose, even if it wasn't and was just an experiment, which i think this is a combination of both, so what? No one is getting hurt. Me and hugh will not agree on this point, nor do i expect him to, he is entitled to his own opinion, i agree with his point on building destruction, especially forced destruction. If the owner wishes to destroy and have his building rebuilded it is up to him. The thought of seeing properties empty for decades then destroyed when there are homeless people i think is much worse of a problem than a destroyed roll of film, more than i can express in a post.

I like mike's post, couldn't put it better myself. i also suggested to use a cheap and nasty type projector that damages film over time. Mind you the prinz models are cheap and IF looked after i saw no damage after looping film for 5 minutes (a 10 second piece). I have one as a secondary projector and it does the job well! And who knows might draw people into reel film as mike said And i was thinking about the 1399 post count as well!
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 16, 2013, 11:31 AM:
 
Well the way I see it Winbert, is that film to me is "sacred cow"
I don't like the idea of neither film or equipment being abused.
All this talk of "art" is fine, then why come on a film forum for
advice on how to destroy something we all cherish.Simple
experimentation would have sufficed, I think there was more to
it than that,but in plain speaking,how can you weep and wail at the demise of filmstocks and then condone the destruction of
same for "art".If they are so interested in art,then create something, they're as artistic as the average arsenist.
As for buildings for the homeless, in the UK, there are thousands of homes empty,streets of them because polititians
thoughtfully removed places of work for people abroad,thus
creating "ghost towns",but hammer on about the homeless
who are in fact people who shouldn't be here to start with.
No the buildings I referred to are the old cinemas, libraries etc
that have style and workmanship in them,bulldozed for a bloody
supermarket.
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 16, 2013, 11:59 AM:
 
There is nothing "arty farty",or whatever you like to call it, about running a loop of film through a projector and slowly stuffing everything up.

Graham.
 

---

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on January 16, 2013, 12:18 PM:
 
No Sam, it wasn't a "joke"... but you and Hugh seem to be the only ones who got near to the real meaning of the statement. It was an attempt to use an extremely banal comment to illustrate the fact that anything and everything that seems to be puerile, bizarre or extremely stupid is considered in this pathetic modern society of ours to be permissible..... because it's "ART (?)".
It was banal because it was intended to be banal; I lived through the Second World War and certainly wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination consider what happened to be "artistic".
But throughout my life I have always thought of Art as being Creative. Apparently now, it can also be Destructive? Heaven help us if "destructiveness" becomes the artistic norm, which is why I made my (sarcastic)comment. As I observed before, nothing can be "Creatively Destructive"... it's an Oxymoron (the last five letters of the word say it all).
Jake I don't consider that being 18 debars you from logical thought and opinions (I know, I've been there four times already and have all the T shirts), but to paraphrase Mark Twain (apologies to those who don't know who he was!)... "When I was 18 I thought my parents were the most ignorant, boorish, stupid and unfeeling persons on this planet. When I turned 21, I was AMAZED by what they had learnt in just THREE years!"

Goodnight.
Martin
 

---

Posted by Mike Peckham (Member # 16) on January 16, 2013, 01:39 PM:
 

quote:

---

Mike, people will get confused if reading that statement, while you have made a score with 1399 posts....

---

Winbert, you're right perhaps I should have clarified that I was once a very prolific poster on this forum, but don't post so much anymore.

I still get a lot of pleasure from following the discussions though...

Mike
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 16, 2013, 01:47 PM:
 
Mike, now at least you have passed through 1400 posts, the numbers in our super 8mm world known as "mini feature" (4 x 400')

I am waiting for you at full feature numbers which is starting at 1800 posts

My self has been in double full feature posts...
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on January 16, 2013, 03:31 PM:
 
Hey, all Sam needs to do is find a Gioco projector to loop the film through and the film disintegration will happen by itself!!!
 

---

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 17, 2013, 05:42 PM:
 
Actually...on a lighter note...find an old GAF projector and run a loop through that for 6 hours and it will be so scratched up it could very well disintegrate. And I'm not kidding.

Bill
 

---

Posted by Sam Hallett (Member # 3480) on January 23, 2013, 07:49 PM:
 
ok martin I see your reasoning but the second world war does not fit your definition of inane destructive behaviour masquerading as art. It was politically motivated and never sought justification via artistic means.

secondly your definition of creation of destruction are very narrow and in my opinion incorrect. what is creative in poetry or the novel for instance is experiential , the physical presence of the ink or pages is of no consequence. this point also pertains to spoken word unless you claim that those sound waves are the created piece. my piece is experiential and that is the content I'm generating for the audience , my tools are perishable as they are in most art forms. consider a painting: that paint is forever appropriated to conveying the experience of that image to the viewer , it can obviously never be reused so it's exhausted just as the 8mm film will be in my piece. the crux is the matter is the experience i'm generating pertains to exhaustive consumption so it is entirely necessary for me to destroy my medium to CREATE that experience.

anyway any advice on what projector would be easiest to build a loop system for would be much appreciated I've looked at some sources which state that 2 meters of 8mm film should be loop friendly without adding a spool to the projector as long as I cement the two ends of the reel together?
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 24, 2013, 07:37 AM:
 
Ssm, don't worry, I see art is an art.

Nude people for some is considered as pornography....

Anyway see this thread:

Last Part (3) of my restoration on Elmo gs1200 Xenon.

Desmond gives a link to his restoration project video. At the end he makes his own loop system. You can see that he spliced the two ends.

In your case since you want 2m (=6 feet) you have to find the way for the film to travel. Perhaps using extended arms?

Good luck!
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 24, 2013, 08:10 AM:
 
Excuse me Winbert, but I for one am not a prude in any way, shape or form.Nudes or hardcore porn is fine by me, but someone
needlessly destroying cine gear in this quest for to be seen as an
"artist" is purile, and for someone like yourself to be openly
encouraging such action is sad.It isn't artistic and it isn't clever,
perhaps you want to be seen as chic,well there comes a time when the diplomacy takes a back seat and you decide whose side
you're on, people trying to maintain our hobby or vandals out to
destroy equipment.You can't hunt with the hounds and run with the hare!
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 24, 2013, 08:45 AM:
 
Calm down Hugh....

We also bin those GAF, Hanimex, etc projectors if we see they are not performing well.

We don't live in an ideal world.

When people seeing the Monster Cars destroy those small cars, the Monster cars' fan are cheering up, and the small cars' fan are sad.

ps: in 1980s the small cars destroyed were VW or Holden/Chevy.

As human, art is also changing. You cannot define "the art" using your time frame. What is considered not an "art" in 1960 may be seen differently now and vice versa.

Long time ago, there was a place where people had long ear (by hanging heavy stuff on their ears since they were baby) was said to be beautiful because that was considered an art, but no longer now.

Today's people heat Vinyls (records) to make Vase or bowls, and that is a new art. As I am also a records collector, do I need get mad of it because they destroy vinyls? NO.... !



photo taken from:
Art Fire

Cheers,
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 24, 2013, 09:32 AM:
 
Winbert, people have been using vinyls to make stuff from since the 1950s, it isn't new,it's an old idea.The vinyl was plentiful, it
was the only way to hear popular music of the time.Today our
hobby and equipment is shrinking,there are no more machines
made,filmstock is drying up.On a different thread,we were
debating the future of cinema and 35mm film where the analogy was drawn between cineastes and railway enthusiasts, would
it be in the same context to encourage a train wreck, as it is
destructive, and could be construed as art, although perhaps
the railway enthusiasts might take the same view as myself
and some others.I could'nt give a monkey's f'#/# what these
jokers do in their own time,they can kid themselves they're Andy Warhol, who cares, but destroying something that is a
part of our hobby and coming on this forum to stir up trouble
is not on, and to find encouragement from a fellow member
is a bit hard to swallow.
 

---

Posted by Rob Koeling (Member # 35) on January 24, 2013, 10:04 AM:
 
Sam, that sounds like a very interesting project. Some tips below.

Hugh,

You don't read the posts very well. You clearly haven't read what Sam's installation is going to be like and what it stands for. I think the project sounds great! I really like the idea of a commenting on a society that is obsessed by consumption.

There was no mentioning of destroying equipment, his question was how to prepare a projector in such a way that a small piece of film can go through it in a loop, while the film that is going through it is artificially degraded (triggered by actions in the public). Whether you think this is clever or not, is incredibly uninteresting. What I find rather disappointing and even disturbing, is that you (and Martin) just refuse to read the content of Sam's posts. You made up your mind after reading half a sentence and now keep repeating yourself like a broken record. Only a very small amount of film will be destroyed in the process. I don't know about you, but I certainly have thrown film away in the past, because it was just completely and utterly unusable. If you have never thrown a couple of meters away, because it was unusable, then please let us know. That would be very interesting (and very hard to believe).

You could have made a much more constructive contribution by advising him in a way that would minimize any waste. How about offering the advise to use a roll of film that has caught the dreaded Vinegar Syndrome (although I realise that that is more an issue with 16mm film then S8)? There is tons of film out there for which nobody has any use anymore. Think of B&W silent extracts from color sound films. For most of them it is the case that you can't give away, no matter how hard you try.

I think everybody now knows what your opinion is on this matter. It would be nice if you could stop commenting now, unless you have something new to add. But then again, that is just my opinion...

To go back to Sam's question (which is a lot more interesting then people's opinion what is art and what is not). I used to do a lot of film loops. Some of them were quite funny and I projected them on walls at parties as decoration (and yes Hugh, I cut up several orphaned reels of junk film for that). I never used a special device for it. I just made sure that the loop wasn't too long. Obviously, if you can put the projector on a high pedestal and make sure the film isn't obstructed below, you can make them fairly long (i've had loops up to 3 meters). I wouldn't use a junk projector. Especially if the loop has to run without stopping for up to 6 hours you need a fairly reliable projector. My two favourite machines for loops were the Bolex 18-3 (also works very well in reverse) and the Elmo K100SM (can also use R8mm film). I have used each of these two machines in situations were they ran for up to 12 hours non-stop.

For splicing the loop together, I mostly used tape splices. A carefully made tape splice (I always used the Fujica splicer) will last for years. The added bonus is that you can take the loop out of the projector without removing a frame (we don't want to damage the film, do we now...), by just removing the tape. I used my loops over and over again.

I suppose you have to be careful in how to damage the film. You don't want to put strain on the projector and also minimize the amount of rubbish ending up in your projector. If you've ever seen what happens to a film when it gets stuck in the gate, you know that heat is a perfect means to manipulate the film. The main risk there is that at some point the film will be so warped that it might get stuck. You will have to experiment with the intensity of heat in order to find out how long it takes and what the exact effects are on a loop. The nice thing about the two projectors mentioned above is also that you can vary the speed easily and to great extend. That way, you make a loop last longer.

If you clean the projector carefully afterwards you can use it for many more years to come. I started using the projectors mentioned above more then 20 years ago and they still go strong. I have used a sound projector for loops as well. The one I used most was a Eumig 910. But because of the sound head, I wouldn't do any damage to the film going through that machine. However, I can imagine a similar project where you distort the sound on the magnetic stripe. Then afterwards you can restore the film by re-recording the sound (to keep Hugh and Martin happy).

I've made loops with 16mm film as well. The larger picture area is attractive. Also, lots of junk 16mm film floating around!

Best of luck with your project and I would appreciate if you could report back. I would like to see a video recording at some point of the actual installation (although, maybe not on this forum...)

- Rob
 

---

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 24, 2013, 10:11 AM:
 
Winbert. Hope that fruit dish 78 is not Geraldo!
Well done Rob helping the lad.
Sam. I set fire to a pile of Nitrate 35mm inflammable film once for a flick I was making to demonstrate how flammable it could be.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 24, 2013, 10:21 AM:
 
Hey Rob,just be careful, I HAVE MADE PRETTY PATTERNS OUT OF
SOME FOLKS NOSES FOR LESS.i can read as well as you old son
and do not need patronising.Perhaps you and your ertwhile buddy
might do your publicity seeking prank on a different forum.We are
film preservationists NOT vandals
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 24, 2013, 10:27 AM:
 
Hugh,

Please answer my question, did you see those modified vinyls as art or not?
 

---

Posted by Rob Koeling (Member # 35) on January 24, 2013, 10:32 AM:
 

quote:

---

Well done Rob helping the lad. [Cool]

---

quote:

---

MY answer to that is ... No, I see them as intelligent USE of redundant existing materials to CREATE something both useful and visually attractive. Nothing has been destroyed here.... it's called RECYCLING.

---

Thanks Martin, I am waiting for the answer from Hugh that come up with my thesis.
 

---

Posted by Mike Peckham (Member # 16) on January 24, 2013, 12:15 PM:
 
Rob, great to see you posting on here. I'll message you seperately about meeting up for a long over due drink!

Sam, Rob gave some great advice there, I would also think about using some old home movie footage for your project. There is always a selection of it on offer on Ebay and it would suit your project for a couple of reasons.

1/It has little or no value to anyone except those people who shot it or appeared in it and for it to be up for sale, they clearly have no further use for it.

2/ It is often shot on Kodachrome which will have strikingly bright and vivid colours so good for visual effect.

3/ If the purpose of the installation is to in some way depict the disposable nature of contemporary capture of the moving image, it would perhaps makes sense to to use home movie footage which is the equivalent of todays mini movies being shot on Smart Phones etc?

Just my thoughts. As Rob said, it would be great to hear back from you about what form the installation takes and the publics reaction to it.

Good luck!

Mike
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 24, 2013, 02:20 PM:
 
Hello Winbert, the use of such materials has been done for years,
there's nothing new in it, that's why they have such things in schools & colleges Arts & Crafts. Much the same thing was done in the '60s with wine bottle lamps etc, by some.Then it was trendy,
now I can't think anyone would give these objects house room,
they didn't fall into the "art" catagory,but "crafts" covered it. I can
go out in my garden,and especially at summertime and through
the setting sun in the trees, watch a bovine lift it's tail and
relieve itself of two gallons of liquid, which through the sunlight
looks beautiful, but It's still a cow taking a piss., likewise an oil
spill is beautiful on the water, the myriad colours refracting and
reflecting the sunlight, but it's still pollution and nobody wants
it.When someone reveals skills in creating something from
nothing,even modern art,some of it is very good, but I don't
think throwing paint thinners over a Rubens or a Canaletto and
watching the colour run would be termed as art,would you?
Slowly destroying something,with audience participation, it is
obviously transcient and not a lasting thing, much like a car or
house on fire,after it's all over,what's left.If they like pretty colours etc,just don't retune your TV, and all the pretty little
blocks are there,moving and shifting, artfully, if you like that
sort of thing.
 

---

Posted by Rob Koeling (Member # 35) on January 24, 2013, 03:31 PM:
 

quote:

---

Hey Rob,just be careful, I HAVE MADE PRETTY PATTERNS OUT OF SOME FOLKS NOSES FOR LESS

---

quote:

---

MY answer to that is ... No, I see them as intelligent USE of redundant existing materials to CREATE something both useful and visually attractive. Nothing has been destroyed here.... it's called RECYCLING.

---

There are two components:

1. Unused materials (= redundant existing materials)
2. Without destroying it (= nothing has been destroyed)

For no. 1, who will decide that the materials are unused? That vinyls are usefull for me because I am a vinyl collector. For them (and also for you, Martin) they are just redundant materials, so fell free to make something visually attractive from those vinyls and call it RECYCLING.

Same thing here, films are useful for us but for people who are not having interest with it, they are just redundant materials too. In fact many of us also think some films are not too good to be collected so we may also think they are redundtant materials, right?

For no 2, without destroying it....do you think those vinyls are still playable after getting heatedc like that? Do not see that the vinyl has become a new function, so claiming they are not destroyed. You can say that perhaps you are not a vinyl collector. From vinyl collectors' stand of view, it has been destroyed.

@Hugh, read my thesis above.

Now do you think Martial Art is an art? In Asia that was not an art, that was a self defense mechanism or tool before going to war. It is now an art when Kung fu, Taekwondo, Jiu Jitsu were brought to western countries.

Let us see this:



The above pictures are taken from (real) dead body exhibition.

Do you see them as an art or not?. In western side it is now seen as new art, in Asia we still feel unethical to do this.

Now read again my thesis above, then you can understand that it is not one or two persons who define a thing as an art or not, but the society do that.

We can continue to discuss if you can make an anti-thesis to my thesis above, otherwise let the society to value whether Sam's project is an art or not.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 24, 2013, 03:55 PM:
 
Winbert,instead of all this discussion,when are they actually going to do this thing,soon I HOPE. As for martial arts, I was doing that
before you were born. Regarding art from differing viewpoints is
fine, onemans meat etc.This farago smacks of taking the piss out
of our hobby, that you go along with it is your affair, but as the
saying goes "Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining".
My taste in art and skills does not require a lecture from you on
the subject, and yes Rob I am a nice guy, I am still on speaking terms with lots of old adversaries.
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 24, 2013, 04:12 PM:
 
Seems to me that you are happy to use a wording "I am old enough than you so I know better", c'mon old man!

And one last thing, does the above writting is an anti-thesis. I don't think so.

Give me an anti-thesis if you want to continue this discussion rather than using those sarcasm wordings.
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 24, 2013, 04:27 PM:
 
Folks

This topic is getting a bit much, dont you think, now lets move on eh!

Graham
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 24, 2013, 05:51 PM:
 
I agree Graham,I've made my point more than enough,and as for
the "old man" Winbert, you wouldn't want this old man in arms
length of you.My little diplomat.
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 24, 2013, 06:35 PM:
 

quote:

---

Winbert, you wouldn't want this old man in arms
length of you

---

Just give me an anti-thesis, and that it. No need unusefull long words!
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 24, 2013, 06:56 PM:
 
Winbert,i think we have bored the members too long on this by
now tedious topic, all avenues have been explored,writing a thesis
or any other article,serves no purpose here.Art like music or
humour is a personal view, the twanging of an instrument with
two strings and the clashing of cymbals is music in some countries
but to other people it's a din, lets leave it at that.
 

---

Posted by Sam Hallett (Member # 3480) on January 25, 2013, 01:45 PM:
 
thanks for the reply and interest in my project rob I''ll definitely let you know how it turns out . i'll be showcasing some time in early may so expect a video or something then though i will try to get it to you privately lest hugh make pretty patterns out of my face which I am now clear is NOT art.

my main constrain is budget and know how. Ive got a spending range of about 40 pounds and have been looking at a KODAK-Brownie-EIGHT-58-8mm- projector on ebay

my concern is that I don't know if this would be loop ready as I can't see any spools. sorry if this is displaying ignorance on my part I am a digital student and work with sensors.

i was thinking of two ways to degrade :a robot controlled arm fitted with sand paper which would definitely not damage the projector or two arms the first applying acetone (on wool) and the second dry wool to wipe off any acetone before it reaches the projector.

this raises my question on the browning on whether in it's configuration there is even an exposure of traveling film to build these systems around.

I have looked for the ones you suggested but there mostly out of my price range , that being said I have another meeting with my tutor on monday to discuss the possibility of them buying one for me.

if all goes well on monday I may be able to stretch to a bolex 18-5 which I think would suit my purpose?

I'll look into that splicer you mentioned. Someone else mentioned the use of magnets in distorting sound and it seems brilliant but i might not have time.

also i think that these heated discussions over art are quite interesting but have run their course. At the risk of incurring the wrath of hugh I may include some of his comments in my exhibition , would you be ok with that hugh. i just think it would be interesting to exhibit something but also provide a very negative commentary , would be quite funny.

thanks to everyone who's remained calm and been supportive
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 25, 2013, 02:16 PM:
 
It's hard to believe that the destruction of 3 minutes of 8mm film has caused such a debate. Talk about taking a "hobby" too seriously.
Hugh, there's plenty of film knocking about, man. The loss of 30 or 40 feet isn't going to be felt by anyone.

Pretty hilarious.


Good luck with the project, Sam.
 

---

Posted by Mike Peckham (Member # 16) on August 30, 2013, 04:39 AM:
 
Just came across Sam's write up on his project, it looks to have been quite a success and clearly the "information and advice" received on this forum helped him to put it all together. You can read all about it here:

http://samhallettdotcom.wordpress.com/

Mike

Edit: once you've clicked on the link you need to scroll a way down the page to see where the form is mentioned.

[ August 30, 2013, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Mike Peckham ]
 

---

Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on August 30, 2013, 06:51 AM:
 
Only just noticed this discussion, don't want to get involved or prolong it, but I think Winbert was incorrect about Martial Art, it doesn't have the same meaning as a Michaelangelo. I believe it means the same as Science. Body building is a science; you can spend months building up your triceps, but you will never get a hundredweight above your head unless you build up your deltoids. The old teachers knew the body as well as any doctor. Unless you know how each muscle connects and how they perform you will get knowhere.
 

---

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC


UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2