criterionforum.org

Welcome to the forum Mr. Wells.

movielocke wrote:are you really comparing graininess of a bluray of a film shot on 65mm with a bluray of a film shot on 16mm and complaining that the 16 doesn't look like 65?

I think he'll be in bigger shock with the films shot on 8mm from the 2nd volume then!

Edit: Just to add bit more, since I just remembered it, the impression I got about the restorations done with the films Brakhage shot (rather than the painted series) is that they're not restored to pristine shape. No clean up or image processing was done, mostly color correction. In fact it seems they leave part of the flaws that have developed with the stock, since quoting Mark Toscano's piece (its an essay in the booklet so just read it up to better understand the preservation work done with his films) "Brakhage's films are not about surface perfection or cleanliness of image". So I sort of understand where you're getting at, as I recall another film shot in 16mm Scenes from a Marriage being a lot cleaner than Dog Star Man (lighting also has to do with this). The dirtiness of the film is I think more intentional. Though it is outrageous to compare Dog Star Man with 2001 for obvious reasons already stated.

movielocke wrote:are you really comparing graininess of a bluray of a film shot on 65mm with a bluray of a film shot on 16mm and complaining that the 16 doesn't look like 65?

No, I'm not. I have an undergraduate degree in film studies, and I have made 8mm and 16mm films. These days I work a lot with digital images and animation, both as an artist and a teacher. I am referring specifically to jpeg compression, which as I said looks very different from the graininess of 16 mm stock. This is not true for all the films--actually, the 8mm ones look better, as do generally the ones on the second disc (I haven't watched the third one yet)--but digital compression is quite clearly visible in the transfer of Dog Star Man.

If you want to see my bona fides, please take a look at my blog: http://www.blotcomics.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A lot of my own work, especially in sequential abstract art, is highly inspired by Brakhage.

Edited to add: Many of my recent abstract animation pieces are here: http://inadvertentproject.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Just scroll down slightly and click "older posts").

He's talking about compression artifacts, which appear "blocky" and "pixelated" and going back and checking; I had to get close to the screen to notice it in this case but it is there and I had missed it before. M had the same issue as well and I noticed it in spots in Everlasting Moments (speaking specifically of Criterion Blu-rays.)

Can't this also occur with players that can't adequately process the throughput of data? They get kinda "stuck" on the image sometimes?

Great CV, but if you teach this stuff, you might want to take note that Jpegs compression is for still image files, whereas the Blu-Ray is MPEG-4 AVC.

Sorry about my lax terminology. I don't teach moving images except for gifs, and even in those I'm basically self-taught, so I never have a chance to deal with mpegs--but as I've always understood it, mpeg compression for a single image is similar to jpeg compression. It has what chris calls compression artifacts, what I've heard called simply jpeg artifacts. It's like when you scan an image, save it as a jpeg, but save it at, say, quality of 20 as opposed to 99 (to give extremes). Mpegs, further, don't change completely from frame to frame, but only change that which is different from the previous image. But the means of compression within each frame, and for the added material that marks the difference from frame to frame, is similar to jpeg compression. Now, I may be wrong about this, but certainly looking at the image--both still and in movement--I can see the jpeg artifacts. The fact that they change themselves from frame to frame makes it even more bothersome, giving what I have called "compression graininess"--I don't have any idea if this is the accurate terminology. Another place I've noticed this is in digitized cartoons--you can see it clearly there because there are large areas of flat color. A jpeg with large areas of flat color, when saved at a low quality, will end up looking like a mosaic of rectangles of various shades of the same color. You can see the same thing in many cartoons--I've been noticing it in many of my 5-year old's DVD's. The effects of the compression sure look the same.

I hope this makes it clearer.

can any offer an opinion of volume 1 or 2 is stronger by itself? i want to pick one up for my friend during the sale for a birthday present later this year. he's into avant garde work but isn't familiar with brakhage, so either one will be new for him.

the local b&n has vol.2, so i'm leaning towards that at the moment, but vol.1 seems to have more well-known works.

i apologize if this has been discussed earlier; i read the forum months ago but haven't had time to review it lately (and i don't remember seeing any prevailing opinion towards one or the other)

Start with Volume 1, for sure.

I'd agree. Volume One was designed as a big intro and works beautifully as such, with a greater range of work and more self-contained stuff. Volume Two goes deeper into certain types of work and cherrypicks from series to a greater extent.

Also, the format of the disc, with Brakhage's own comments available for most films, is ideal for an intro, whereas the extras on Volume Two are less extensive and less related to specific films.

cdnchris wrote:M had the same issue as well

You have got to be kidding me. Brakhage and M were the next two I was going to get.

This should hardly be a dealbreaker unless your choice was between the Blu-ray edition and the original film reels. When it comes to home video, you can't avoid some compression, but the Blu-ray should require much less than the DVD. For what it's worth, I watched Black Ice from the Blu-ray last night, with my eyes right up against the screen, and I didn't see any blockiness at all.

Definitely don't let it stop you. I didn't even notice it in Brakhage at first and had to have it pointed out to me. Some of the images are so quick and so fast you won't register it. M had a few moments that I thought looked weird, where the grain didn't look "right" and looked a little blocky, but it's certainly not a deal breaker.

Anyone re-examine what are good musical choices to accompany the films with no soundtrack? I haven't tried anything as of yet but I imagine some sort of white noise ala Cage, Stockhausen? perhaps a group like Can? I thought about Throbbing Gristle but I don't have D.O.A. or 2nd Annual Report just 20 Great Jazz Funk Whatever it is. I imagine a group like the Japanese band Ghost would work as well.
I think Metal Machine Music could work too but then I'd have to buy Metal Machine Music which doesn't make much sense to me.

I know there have been some posthumous semi-official experiments with musical accompaniment, but Brakhage was really definitive about the silence of his films, and with the fundamental difference between silent and sound film (which includes those with an 'external' soundtrack / accompaniment) as media.

If you've ever seen truly silent work (Brakhage, Dorsky) with an audience, you'll know what he means - it's a completely different aesthetic experience from sound film or 'silent cinema' (as it's commonly and misleadingly known).

On the other hand, if you must fill the gap that Brakhage strategically left, I'd suggest trying something as pulseless as possible, as one of his concerns was with musical rhythm interfering with visual rhythm. Getting the two to work in concert was something he thought very few filmmakers could pull off effectively (e.g. Fischinger, Lye, Anger). Maybe sparser Cage, spacier Eno. (Not Can! I can't imagine there are many rhythmic battles that Jaki Liebezeit could lose, even if he wanted to.)

Thanks, Zedz. I'll heed your advice. I've only had a chance to take in Meditations 2 Mesa Verde on the second anthology so far(I've seen the first anthology). I watched it with the silence and I get what you say about Brakhage wanting silence.

Dog Star Man projected on a white sheet hanging in the living room and some Boards of Canada on the stereo worked great last year whilst tripping on mushrooms with some friends. Even in my altered state I was perfectly aware of the sacrilegious aspect of the proceedings, though. And of course the films are still great in a sober state of mind without any musical accompaniment.

Only time I tried mushrooms I took too many with like 2 big cups of orange juice and fell into a catatonic stupor. good times.

The painted films at the end of the second collection (e.g. the Ellipsis one and the gorgeous Persians) are really good examples: they're overwhelming and demand so much of your attention a soundtrack would just be an irritation. It's almost as if they fill up the rest of your senses with their visual overload.

EDIT: And, just to tie in the preceding comments, with films like these, who needs mushrooms?

zedz wrote:On the other hand, if you must fill the gap that Brakhage strategically left, I'd suggest trying something as pulseless as possible, as one of his concerns was with musical rhythm interfering with visual rhythm.

Sounds like a great excuse to pop in some Stars of the Lid.

For some reason whenever I see a Brakhage film I think Krautrock would go great with it hence Can. I know Faust or Amon Duul II would work better but I don't have any of that stuff.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conet_Project

I wanna enjoy my viewing experience not get freaked out.

oldsheperd wrote:For some reason whenever I see a Brakhage film I think Krautrock would go great with it hence Can. I know Faust or Amon Duul II would work better but I don't have any of that stuff.

I think the more sedate Kraut stuff would be more apt: Cluster, Neu! and the like. On the other hand, Faust's "Ravvivando" might do the trick for The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes.