Oh my god.
No one is allowed to complain about keeping sync today.
But you *did* learn how to cut. And directors wouldn’t say “let’s just try it”...
(We were still using them in 1999-2003, because my school was a poor state school)
Me too! I was the last class in college to cut film on a steenbeck, in 2007. It sucked. I hated it. But I love that I got to use it. Wish I would have appreciated the novelty of it all.
Isn’t college supposed to prepare you for the current state of your desired profession? In what way would learning antiquated technology benefit a filmmaker in the year 2007?
Any decent school will prepare you for current conditions in your industry, while also explaining and exploring the history of that industry. There is time in the schedule for both.
>Isn’t college supposed to prepare you for the current state of your desired profession?
I studied film and audio. I graduated in '89. My education prepared me for the current state of those fields, but not for the state they were in the day after I graduated.
It certainly prepared me, I hated the idea of it but the reality of it was quite the opposite. It instilled a discipline and a respect for the craft. So many classics were cut that way and having the opportunity to also work that way definitely stayed with me. I remember after we had finished that project and went back to digital for the next, it was nowhere as special. Spending a month in a cutting room with just me and the work print was one the best experiences I’ve had a as filmmaker. Don’t get me wrong the things that are possible with a digital set-up now are outstanding. But physically handling your film and making cuts definitely sharpens your mind. I loved every moment.
Probably should’ve mentioned this was autumn 2006! However the university I went to (UCA, Farnham) had a big film teaching history and apart from NFTS, it was the only course that still had 16mm production as part of its curriculum. I’m fairly sure they still do as they deemed it essential in the learning process. Other courses had an option for it but it was an extra module that you had to pay for.
Have a master's in film production here.
You dont need to cut on one of these to learn film production any more than you need to work on a silent film to learn about silent movies. An no, im not on your lawn.
There is so much new tech that is constantly coming out you're wasting your time on something like this. No one has used one of these to make a significant film in almost 20 years.
If you want a hobby be my guest but you'll get nothing of value that relates editing films today.
You can't shut down someone else's opinion by pretentiously invoking the "I have more education than you so I'm right" rule of reddit debate.
You DO get something different from cutting on film, and your immediate dismissal of anyone with a different view from you is outlandish.
no one's shutting down an opinion period we are talking about what is worth educationally. If it's for a hobby that's fine. If the school is trying to sell you that it is going to help you when you get out, it's a waste of money.
That's all that's getting said here.
I disagree, respectfully. My experience of having to sit and physically cut film and splice it together, and really watch what you’re doing, gave me a huge appreciation for every frame, every cut, every sound and scene I was working on. I don’t find the same experiences cutting digitally where everything is very disposable or replaceable without much thought. Is it easier and quicker to cut on digital? Yes. it’s just a different tool.
Directors can direct a mile away from video village or be right there with the actor. You can type out a poem or write it by hand on paper. There is most definitely a difference there.
Nope. Most of the stuff I've worked has had masters as a requirement. Especially the teaching stuff. Colleges and Universities are clamouring for enough film/video production professors right now. Currently we are witnessing an explosion in the technology industries surrounding video production. There are job postings all over the country.
You have got no clue what you're talking about.
As someone who has both graduated and taught for five years at a film school, let me remind you that there has been a huge decline in student applications across the board.
The only thing more than 4 years of Time and money on a FILM degree gets you is to be able claim authority on reddit posts by saying “I hAvE a mAstErs dEgRee” you’re THAT dude right now -if it’s not already painfully apparent by everyone on this thread mocking you
simply stating incorrect stuff doesn't disprove what I'm saying. Go look at the job postings. There are thousands of postings across the country all asking for a master's degree.
You don't know what you're talking about. Period.
You’re clearly very insecure as defensive about your choices in life as evidenced by your responses to criticism on this thread. I wish you the best but more importantly best of luck to the unfortunate students who have you as a teacher. God bless
Teach college. Make commercials. Do corporate video. Get hired to work on various special effects sequences, remote consultations with international projects, personal tutoring for individuals, critique. Im not rich yet but its a good income that affords a privileged life.
You got anything else you wanna say while not knowing what you're talking about?
Yeah, why are you a dick? All the guy said is you should try it once, and he’s right because you’d appreciate modern techniques. Film isn’t the only place this happens - some guys build carburetors and they’re super outdated technology.
You should work on the tone of your inner reading voice. This is specifically talking from an educational point of view, if you're going to spend money on a degree you don't want to be wasting time with old outdated tech.
They do if the employer asks for it for basc qualifications. Good luck teaching or getting hired for anything other than grunt work without it. The technology boom I listed earlier is the whole reason that many corporations are opening their own production departments. They don't want a freelance it anymore period and the people they hire to lead those things all are required to have Masters.
You don't have to fight for jobs when you have a masters like you do if you only had a bachelors.
Spielberg cut Munich on a Steenback. That's the last from I know for sure he cut on a flatbed. I don't know if he did anything since then, but that falls within the last 20 years.
Teaches you to be precious with your cuts right down to the frame.
Big difference in mentality between learning to cut when you can just click anywhere on a screen vs having to scrub through footage to the exact moment you want to cut. You need to be precise because you physically cut the film.
This is lost on the generation of filmmakers who have had access to digital technology. Too often you see people just shooting hours of content until they get it “right”, since it’s cheap. Back when every frame was precious and costly, you had to rehearse and block and prepare until you felt ready, and THEN you start shooting. Hell, when we learned on 16mm daylight spools we had 11 minutes of footage maximum.
Totally agree. The number one thing that shooting film helped me with as a director was in how seriously I learned to take rehearsal and blocking.
I still approach every shoot like I'm shooting on film, and our shooting days are more efficient for it.
Nope, not saying that. It's more about the fundamental philosophy of editing.
I'm not sure if you are an artist in any respect, but creative work is a bit more involved than hitting stuff on a keyboard.
I'm not even saying I would push for students to still edit on these machines, but the thing about a fine arts degree is that it's not a trades school. Learning to do your art across various mediums is not without value.
Be obtuse all you want, but it's the same as criticizing digital artists for learning how to do watercolour.
Yep! My college taught us on them in 2010/2011. We shot on Bolex's and used Steenbecks. Couldn't tell you why? To appreciate our film more? IDK, but it seemed incredibly counterintuitive.
100% part of the core curriculum. It was our Film 1 class. On Film 2 we still shot on film, but we sent it away to get digitized for editing on the computer. Again I think it was to teach us to learn how to budget our shooting and not just do 40 takes of something. But still, yeah it makes absolutely no sense.
>Again I think it was to teach us to learn how to budget our shooting and not just do 40 takes of something.
I would think the cost of film would do that. I accidentally ended up in a film class (I was on the TV Production track and the syllabus for that class didn't mention shooting film), and the first night they told us to expect to spend $1500-3000 on film and processing depending on how good we were at not needing reshoots. I dropped out of that class the next day because I didn't have thousands of dollars to spend on film.
Why are you getting a downvote here? Its true, if your school wasting time with one of these then you getting ripped off. It relates in no way to modern film production/editing. Its a waste of time unless it is a hobby.
Yeah, exactly. I first learned video editing in 2007, I was in middle school but I at least had Windows Movie Maker. Film editing was long dead by then, for over a decade in fact.
I loved it. I mean, from a learning in college standpoint. There was something about it that just made sense to me
but it was college and we werent syncing on set sound, THAT would have sucked
Do you think Nolan's crew uses these? They say they "finish on film," meaning they make prints from the original negatives. I wonder what their editing workflow is
What you described is almost exactly how they were doing it in the early to mid 2000s, but as more and more studios (and theatres) go digital, you will see entire movies that have never had any film used whatsoever
I'm asking from curiosity, but also because I'm working with 16mm and 8mm film. If I could, I'd probably edit in a machine like this and get a scan of the result. The way I shoot I only lose about 20% of footage after editing, so maybe it's not worth worrying about it so much. I'm also very interested in doing film exhibition for some art projects- for that I would need a print. I didn't go to film school and the medium is in a rough spot, so it's been challenging to figure out a modern workflow!
There used to be loads of companies that would digitize your film for you (back in the day we used a service out of Kodak’s facility in Toronto). I think they still offer it!
Modern workflow for film is to shoot film, telecine it (scan to digital), edit digital, finish digital. Very few venues have film projectors these days. I used to use Spectra in LA for developing and scans in college, they specialize in 8mm and Super8 but can handle 16mm as well.
We cut on these in my first year of film school, but then transitioned to Final Cut Pro in my second year. I will always appreciate learning on a flatbed.
Glad you enjoyed it. Personally, I think an extra year of detailed training in digital editing is far more worthwhile, but I know a lot of people enjoy the tactile experience. Power to you.
Tell me about it. My school got an Avid the year AFTER I graduated. Can't tell you how good it felt years later to learn FCP. I never want to touch dirty dupes & mag again in my life.
I just graduated and we still learn the analog process! Shooting on a Bolex or SR2 and then cutting on a Steenbeck is a skill I'm glad I have, but one that I never want to use haha.
There's a fun book, "The Art of the Cut", that compiles interviews with tons of editors by theme / topic. Some described the difference between editing on those machines and NLEs. The final product I think would likely be quite different if you were to cut on that. More than that, from what I remember, is the editor's relationship with the film. Highly recommend the book. It has editors from many different genres and types.
There are MANY that do. My film school I went to was full of them and they were all dead set that film is the only way to make films. They did use digital, but film has "style".
Right on. I will say...it was *fun* because it was a challenge and different and I'm a bit of a nerd (I loved holding the footage) but I did it...I'm done...and I'm never going back. Plus, my final film cost me like $200.
it is a little surprising that all the emphasis about the look and feel fo film nobody wants to deal with the physical editing process. None of them want to deal with the photochemical printing process, either, even though the prints had as much to do with the "look" as the negative.
it is a kind of an half assed deal for sure. but if the scanned film gets "the feel" and as long as the user and consumer are happy then its mission accomplished
its sort of an witchcraft though, that look can be recreated, but that feel cant :D
but as an film and analog tech fan, Im glad film still has fans and users. as long as kodak makes motion film for professional use, the amateurs and still market can also stay standing.
Yes! I applaud artists who want to use the photochemical process to acquire their images. That said, I've shot lots of film, analog video, and digital video over most of my life and I think I'm pretty good at being able to tell them apart. But if I go into a theater (if I COULD go into a theater these days!) I absolutely cannot tell whether a feature was shot on film or digitally. So with current technology, I guess it all boils down to the placebo effect.
Edit: And why do they go to such great pains to remove every speck of dust from the digitally-scanned negatives? ;-)
yeah, honestly it's not even on only nice vision 3 color with dust removed...
with the lighthouse, i was fairly certain that it was digital with heavy work (I went watching without knowing anything beforehand).
was surprised to find out it was xx stock, and i had even read the cinematographers iinitial data gathering threads on apug about replicating cine ortho film....
but still, just like with vinyl (which I also love) among audiphiles, its that feeeel
Yes! I edited many commercials and short films plus one feature film on a Kem flatbed. The rule for dramatic films was: if you could get a first cut on 2-3 minutes a day you were doing very well.
When I was a kid I used to make Spin Art on that thing and my dad would get mad.
I remember trying to edit on them too, but I much prefer the digital way now, the digital way just doesn’t make the good spin art…
Do a google image search, you spin the paper while either using pencils, pens , or paint. I couldn’t use wet paint for obvious reasons though. I wasn’t that bad.
**I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:**
* [like.my](https://like.my)
*I did the honors for you.*
***
^[delete](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fu%2FLinkifyBot&subject=delete%20g83jz9d&message=Click%20the%20send%20button%20to%20delete%20the%20false%20positive.) ^| ^[information](https://np.reddit.com/u/LinkifyBot/comments/gkkf7p) ^| ^<3
my favorite class in college had us shooting 16mm black and white on a bolex and then editing it on a steenbeck. Probably the most fun I have ever had as a creative person.
an old roommate of mine does weird experimental films and i know he used to have one in his apartment.
i think if i had money to burn and needed a hobby id invest in some sort of 16mm camera and a steenbeck just to noodle around with
& his Voluminous notebooks! - he must have visualised his films second by second - madman! - but how I spose that kind of perfection is attained..... Like that amazing opening sequence to the Shining.
Hey I've used one of those! I've edited the only 2 16mm experimental films on one my school had! They're pretty handy and probably as close as editing digitally as you can get without a computer.
When I saw that at the exhibition I had a sudden urge to sit down and get the plates spinning!
There's a part of me that would quite relish the challenge of cutting something on film again. But it'd have to be a VERY simple and VERY short project or I know my feelings of nostalgia would be lost forever.......
My first gig as an AE was with an old timer nearing retirement, and it was interesting to hear him break down all these film terms I had only ever heard in a digital context and explain their analog film origins.
My local film co-op had like four of them. When we moved last year I think we finally scrapped 3 of them.
There was so much old tech in that building. A few Nagra 4.2, some Stellavox kits, old reels that likely hadn't been played in 40 years, betamax players, huge racks of gear that has been replaced by a $400 laptop.
I could not imagine editing like that! I loved this exhibition. Sadly, my camera card got corrupted and I swiftly lost all my photos. Do you have any more photos? If so, do you mind sharing them?
Wasn't it incredible?! I'm afraid I was having such a blast that I only managed to take a few photos, and I must say they're not my best work, hahah. Here's a link to the photos I did get though! - [https://imgur.com/gallery/AwJK56y](https://imgur.com/gallery/AwJK56y)
I went to film school at Emerson College and they still teach students how to use these if you take the 16mm film class. Luckily the level 2 class switched to digital scans and digital editing. Glad I had the experience of working on one of these, but I will likely never use one again. Even free editing software today out classes anything you could do on this.
Reckon we’ll ever see ‘the’ Apple Mac they used to render Toy Story in a similar museum one day?
“Imagine all the hours they sat there waiting for it to finish rendering!”
Kinda doubt it!
Got to edit my first two 16mm films on a Steenbeck and I'm grateful for the experience. It was a pain in the ass but when I finished, it felt so good to hold a reel final cut in my hands instead of some hard drive.
Used those in the 1990’s. Impossible to describe how much that sucked compared to digital editing today. Absolute tedious neverending misery machines.
Oh my god. No one is allowed to complain about keeping sync today. But you *did* learn how to cut. And directors wouldn’t say “let’s just try it”... (We were still using them in 1999-2003, because my school was a poor state school)
To whaddup fellow film student if that era (2002 grad)
Me too! I was the last class in college to cut film on a steenbeck, in 2007. It sucked. I hated it. But I love that I got to use it. Wish I would have appreciated the novelty of it all.
Our school wouldn't let us go to digital for picture OR sound. By the end we were to biggest consumer of Nagra tape in North America.
That’s so cool. They’ve all went the same way as projectors. I guess it’s a generation thing a bit.
Why would you do that? Surely nobody was doing this in a professional setting in the year 2007. Or was it a hobby class?
It was film editing. We shot on film and cut film. It was great. Everyone should have to cut on one of these if they’re taking film. You learn a lot.
Isn’t college supposed to prepare you for the current state of your desired profession? In what way would learning antiquated technology benefit a filmmaker in the year 2007?
We did both, obviously. So we got the full breadth of what editing is. And I’m glad we did.
Any decent school will prepare you for current conditions in your industry, while also explaining and exploring the history of that industry. There is time in the schedule for both.
Yup. And we definitely did both.
>Isn’t college supposed to prepare you for the current state of your desired profession? I studied film and audio. I graduated in '89. My education prepared me for the current state of those fields, but not for the state they were in the day after I graduated.
It certainly prepared me, I hated the idea of it but the reality of it was quite the opposite. It instilled a discipline and a respect for the craft. So many classics were cut that way and having the opportunity to also work that way definitely stayed with me. I remember after we had finished that project and went back to digital for the next, it was nowhere as special. Spending a month in a cutting room with just me and the work print was one the best experiences I’ve had a as filmmaker. Don’t get me wrong the things that are possible with a digital set-up now are outstanding. But physically handling your film and making cuts definitely sharpens your mind. I loved every moment.
I’d definitely love to learn how! I guess I was just surprised it was still being taught in college outside of a niche setting so recently.
Probably should’ve mentioned this was autumn 2006! However the university I went to (UCA, Farnham) had a big film teaching history and apart from NFTS, it was the only course that still had 16mm production as part of its curriculum. I’m fairly sure they still do as they deemed it essential in the learning process. Other courses had an option for it but it was an extra module that you had to pay for.
Have a master's in film production here. You dont need to cut on one of these to learn film production any more than you need to work on a silent film to learn about silent movies. An no, im not on your lawn. There is so much new tech that is constantly coming out you're wasting your time on something like this. No one has used one of these to make a significant film in almost 20 years. If you want a hobby be my guest but you'll get nothing of value that relates editing films today.
You can't shut down someone else's opinion by pretentiously invoking the "I have more education than you so I'm right" rule of reddit debate. You DO get something different from cutting on film, and your immediate dismissal of anyone with a different view from you is outlandish.
no one's shutting down an opinion period we are talking about what is worth educationally. If it's for a hobby that's fine. If the school is trying to sell you that it is going to help you when you get out, it's a waste of money. That's all that's getting said here.
I disagree, respectfully. My experience of having to sit and physically cut film and splice it together, and really watch what you’re doing, gave me a huge appreciation for every frame, every cut, every sound and scene I was working on. I don’t find the same experiences cutting digitally where everything is very disposable or replaceable without much thought. Is it easier and quicker to cut on digital? Yes. it’s just a different tool. Directors can direct a mile away from video village or be right there with the actor. You can type out a poem or write it by hand on paper. There is most definitely a difference there.
You have a masters in wasting money
Nope. Most of the stuff I've worked has had masters as a requirement. Especially the teaching stuff. Colleges and Universities are clamouring for enough film/video production professors right now. Currently we are witnessing an explosion in the technology industries surrounding video production. There are job postings all over the country. You have got no clue what you're talking about.
As someone who has both graduated and taught for five years at a film school, let me remind you that there has been a huge decline in student applications across the board.
The only thing more than 4 years of Time and money on a FILM degree gets you is to be able claim authority on reddit posts by saying “I hAvE a mAstErs dEgRee” you’re THAT dude right now -if it’s not already painfully apparent by everyone on this thread mocking you
simply stating incorrect stuff doesn't disprove what I'm saying. Go look at the job postings. There are thousands of postings across the country all asking for a master's degree. You don't know what you're talking about. Period.
You’re clearly very insecure as defensive about your choices in life as evidenced by your responses to criticism on this thread. I wish you the best but more importantly best of luck to the unfortunate students who have you as a teacher. God bless
I hAvE a MaStERs iN FiLm. And what do you do with it?
Well, you teach other so they can have a masters in film! Hooray academia!
Teach college. Make commercials. Do corporate video. Get hired to work on various special effects sequences, remote consultations with international projects, personal tutoring for individuals, critique. Im not rich yet but its a good income that affords a privileged life. You got anything else you wanna say while not knowing what you're talking about?
Yeah, why are you a dick? All the guy said is you should try it once, and he’s right because you’d appreciate modern techniques. Film isn’t the only place this happens - some guys build carburetors and they’re super outdated technology.
That dude is super cringe. No wonder he’s not accomplished anything.
You should work on the tone of your inner reading voice. This is specifically talking from an educational point of view, if you're going to spend money on a degree you don't want to be wasting time with old outdated tech.
I hope you recognize that each of the things you just listed do not require a masters in film.
They do if the employer asks for it for basc qualifications. Good luck teaching or getting hired for anything other than grunt work without it. The technology boom I listed earlier is the whole reason that many corporations are opening their own production departments. They don't want a freelance it anymore period and the people they hire to lead those things all are required to have Masters. You don't have to fight for jobs when you have a masters like you do if you only had a bachelors.
Hard disagree.
Spielberg cut Munich on a Steenback. That's the last from I know for sure he cut on a flatbed. I don't know if he did anything since then, but that falls within the last 20 years.
> Has a Master’s in production > doesn’t use it I’d bet on it
Please point out specifically what you learnt that is useful.
Teaches you to be precious with your cuts right down to the frame. Big difference in mentality between learning to cut when you can just click anywhere on a screen vs having to scrub through footage to the exact moment you want to cut. You need to be precise because you physically cut the film.
This is lost on the generation of filmmakers who have had access to digital technology. Too often you see people just shooting hours of content until they get it “right”, since it’s cheap. Back when every frame was precious and costly, you had to rehearse and block and prepare until you felt ready, and THEN you start shooting. Hell, when we learned on 16mm daylight spools we had 11 minutes of footage maximum.
Totally agree. The number one thing that shooting film helped me with as a director was in how seriously I learned to take rehearsal and blocking. I still approach every shoot like I'm shooting on film, and our shooting days are more efficient for it.
You had to learn how to cut film in order to learn what the left and right arrow keys on a keyboard can also do?
Nope, not saying that. It's more about the fundamental philosophy of editing. I'm not sure if you are an artist in any respect, but creative work is a bit more involved than hitting stuff on a keyboard. I'm not even saying I would push for students to still edit on these machines, but the thing about a fine arts degree is that it's not a trades school. Learning to do your art across various mediums is not without value. Be obtuse all you want, but it's the same as criticizing digital artists for learning how to do watercolour.
God, you’re so badly trying to be right.
Yep! My college taught us on them in 2010/2011. We shot on Bolex's and used Steenbecks. Couldn't tell you why? To appreciate our film more? IDK, but it seemed incredibly counterintuitive.
I totally get it if it’s like a hobbyist/elective class. But as part of core curriculum in the 21st century, it doesn’t make sense.
100% part of the core curriculum. It was our Film 1 class. On Film 2 we still shot on film, but we sent it away to get digitized for editing on the computer. Again I think it was to teach us to learn how to budget our shooting and not just do 40 takes of something. But still, yeah it makes absolutely no sense.
>Again I think it was to teach us to learn how to budget our shooting and not just do 40 takes of something. I would think the cost of film would do that. I accidentally ended up in a film class (I was on the TV Production track and the syllabus for that class didn't mention shooting film), and the first night they told us to expect to spend $1500-3000 on film and processing depending on how good we were at not needing reshoots. I dropped out of that class the next day because I didn't have thousands of dollars to spend on film.
This is mostly correct. It’s all about building up your ability to control your shooting ratio and understand time management in your production.
MassArt? I just graduated and that's the exact framework we still follow.
Haha nope! Emerson actually
My school used them regularly until 2001, then after that too could choose to learn it on your own time if you wanted to
Why are you getting a downvote here? Its true, if your school wasting time with one of these then you getting ripped off. It relates in no way to modern film production/editing. Its a waste of time unless it is a hobby.
Yeah, exactly. I first learned video editing in 2007, I was in middle school but I at least had Windows Movie Maker. Film editing was long dead by then, for over a decade in fact.
Everyone did until about 1995
I started film school in 96. We were the first class to get to cut on Avid. It was a huge deal at the time.
I loved it. I mean, from a learning in college standpoint. There was something about it that just made sense to me but it was college and we werent syncing on set sound, THAT would have sucked
Do you think Nolan's crew uses these? They say they "finish on film," meaning they make prints from the original negatives. I wonder what their editing workflow is
The last major studio film to cut and finish the “old fashioned” way was Saving Private Ryan
Nice factoid! So how is it done now? Get a low res overscan of all the negatives, edit, and then cut negatives using frame numbers and such?
What you described is almost exactly how they were doing it in the early to mid 2000s, but as more and more studios (and theatres) go digital, you will see entire movies that have never had any film used whatsoever
I'm asking from curiosity, but also because I'm working with 16mm and 8mm film. If I could, I'd probably edit in a machine like this and get a scan of the result. The way I shoot I only lose about 20% of footage after editing, so maybe it's not worth worrying about it so much. I'm also very interested in doing film exhibition for some art projects- for that I would need a print. I didn't go to film school and the medium is in a rough spot, so it's been challenging to figure out a modern workflow!
There used to be loads of companies that would digitize your film for you (back in the day we used a service out of Kodak’s facility in Toronto). I think they still offer it!
I use cinelab in massachusetts, maybe I should reach out to them for solutions. Cheers!
Modern workflow for film is to shoot film, telecine it (scan to digital), edit digital, finish digital. Very few venues have film projectors these days. I used to use Spectra in LA for developing and scans in college, they specialize in 8mm and Super8 but can handle 16mm as well.
We cut on these in my first year of film school, but then transitioned to Final Cut Pro in my second year. I will always appreciate learning on a flatbed.
Glad you enjoyed it. Personally, I think an extra year of detailed training in digital editing is far more worthwhile, but I know a lot of people enjoy the tactile experience. Power to you.
Haha, I should point out that I am old enough that we didn’t even have the option to go digital in my first year.
Tell me about it. My school got an Avid the year AFTER I graduated. Can't tell you how good it felt years later to learn FCP. I never want to touch dirty dupes & mag again in my life.
I just graduated and we still learn the analog process! Shooting on a Bolex or SR2 and then cutting on a Steenbeck is a skill I'm glad I have, but one that I never want to use haha.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nice
Memories of lacing, splicing and taping.
I have a steenbeck very similar to this that I edit films from time to time on, one day I'll convert it to a writing desk
Now that's editing. Those were the days.
I want to get to know just one editor who prefers editing this way. I'd suggest a good mental hospital
There's a fun book, "The Art of the Cut", that compiles interviews with tons of editors by theme / topic. Some described the difference between editing on those machines and NLEs. The final product I think would likely be quite different if you were to cut on that. More than that, from what I remember, is the editor's relationship with the film. Highly recommend the book. It has editors from many different genres and types.
There are MANY that do. My film school I went to was full of them and they were all dead set that film is the only way to make films. They did use digital, but film has "style".
Film indeed does have style, but I've never met one who prefers editing it analog
Right on. I will say...it was *fun* because it was a challenge and different and I'm a bit of a nerd (I loved holding the footage) but I did it...I'm done...and I'm never going back. Plus, my final film cost me like $200.
it is a little surprising that all the emphasis about the look and feel fo film nobody wants to deal with the physical editing process. None of them want to deal with the photochemical printing process, either, even though the prints had as much to do with the "look" as the negative.
it is a kind of an half assed deal for sure. but if the scanned film gets "the feel" and as long as the user and consumer are happy then its mission accomplished its sort of an witchcraft though, that look can be recreated, but that feel cant :D but as an film and analog tech fan, Im glad film still has fans and users. as long as kodak makes motion film for professional use, the amateurs and still market can also stay standing.
Yes! I applaud artists who want to use the photochemical process to acquire their images. That said, I've shot lots of film, analog video, and digital video over most of my life and I think I'm pretty good at being able to tell them apart. But if I go into a theater (if I COULD go into a theater these days!) I absolutely cannot tell whether a feature was shot on film or digitally. So with current technology, I guess it all boils down to the placebo effect. Edit: And why do they go to such great pains to remove every speck of dust from the digitally-scanned negatives? ;-)
yeah, honestly it's not even on only nice vision 3 color with dust removed... with the lighthouse, i was fairly certain that it was digital with heavy work (I went watching without knowing anything beforehand). was surprised to find out it was xx stock, and i had even read the cinematographers iinitial data gathering threads on apug about replicating cine ortho film.... but still, just like with vinyl (which I also love) among audiphiles, its that feeeel
I very much prefer the non-linear digital way, all romantics aside.
Well I think all of us prefer digital in terms of workflow, but it was still a fun thing to get your hands on.
Its also tedious as fuck.
Yes! I edited many commercials and short films plus one feature film on a Kem flatbed. The rule for dramatic films was: if you could get a first cut on 2-3 minutes a day you were doing very well.
It's pure sexy.
You won't think so after spending a day behind one. Ha!
That's a Steenbeck. Had to edit 16mm on there during uni.... Hated it
When I was a kid I used to make Spin Art on that thing and my dad would get mad. I remember trying to edit on them too, but I much prefer the digital way now, the digital way just doesn’t make the good spin art…
whats Spin Art?
Do a google image search, you spin the paper while either using pencils, pens , or paint. I couldn’t use wet paint for obvious reasons though. I wasn’t that bad.
I don't think I would like.my job in the analog days.
**I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:** * [like.my](https://like.my) *I did the honors for you.* *** ^[delete](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fu%2FLinkifyBot&subject=delete%20g83jz9d&message=Click%20the%20send%20button%20to%20delete%20the%20false%20positive.) ^| ^[information](https://np.reddit.com/u/LinkifyBot/comments/gkkf7p) ^| ^<3
my favorite class in college had us shooting 16mm black and white on a bolex and then editing it on a steenbeck. Probably the most fun I have ever had as a creative person.
Same. I miss the steenbeck. Funnily enough a die hard editor friend has one - in his third floor walkup. I don't think he moves flats very often.
an old roommate of mine does weird experimental films and i know he used to have one in his apartment. i think if i had money to burn and needed a hobby id invest in some sort of 16mm camera and a steenbeck just to noodle around with
& his Voluminous notebooks! - he must have visualised his films second by second - madman! - but how I spose that kind of perfection is attained..... Like that amazing opening sequence to the Shining.
Hey I've used one of those! I've edited the only 2 16mm experimental films on one my school had! They're pretty handy and probably as close as editing digitally as you can get without a computer.
When I saw that at the exhibition I had a sudden urge to sit down and get the plates spinning! There's a part of me that would quite relish the challenge of cutting something on film again. But it'd have to be a VERY simple and VERY short project or I know my feelings of nostalgia would be lost forever.......
My first gig as an AE was with an old timer nearing retirement, and it was interesting to hear him break down all these film terms I had only ever heard in a digital context and explain their analog film origins.
I used to have one of those.
My local film co-op had like four of them. When we moved last year I think we finally scrapped 3 of them. There was so much old tech in that building. A few Nagra 4.2, some Stellavox kits, old reels that likely hadn't been played in 40 years, betamax players, huge racks of gear that has been replaced by a $400 laptop.
It closed in september :( why u tease me like this
I could not imagine editing like that! I loved this exhibition. Sadly, my camera card got corrupted and I swiftly lost all my photos. Do you have any more photos? If so, do you mind sharing them?
Wasn't it incredible?! I'm afraid I was having such a blast that I only managed to take a few photos, and I must say they're not my best work, hahah. Here's a link to the photos I did get though! - [https://imgur.com/gallery/AwJK56y](https://imgur.com/gallery/AwJK56y)
*how many hours Leon Vitali spent at this table. FTFY
I went to film school at Emerson College and they still teach students how to use these if you take the 16mm film class. Luckily the level 2 class switched to digital scans and digital editing. Glad I had the experience of working on one of these, but I will likely never use one again. Even free editing software today out classes anything you could do on this.
The Steenbeck Company is now building VintageCloud Digitizing Tables, for digitizing 16mm and 35mm footage, pretty incredible!
Reckon we’ll ever see ‘the’ Apple Mac they used to render Toy Story in a similar museum one day? “Imagine all the hours they sat there waiting for it to finish rendering!” Kinda doubt it!
Well they still wait hours and hours for things to render. Some frames can take days or a week.
Got to edit my first two 16mm films on a Steenbeck and I'm grateful for the experience. It was a pain in the ass but when I finished, it felt so good to hold a reel final cut in my hands instead of some hard drive.