Library of Congress - Invisible Fluid
Dziadsj
of a couple dozen films.
They were very helpful. I was Informed of the existence of 8. But 7 were in
other archives.
They had in the Library only one: a short film called Invisible Fluid. It is
255 feet long on a paper print.
I haven't gotten back to them to make me a copy....(and I do have to decide
whether it is worth it to me.)
Anyway, what I am asking of the group are some "Do's" and "Don't".
For instance, what type of copying process should I request? What rights would
I have to do what I wanted with the copy?
What can I do along the way to insure that if the LOC is going to make me a
copy that they somehow go and extra step and make it accessible to more people
than myself.
..and last but not least before I do this.....is there any concievable place
that I can get a cheaper copy?
Any advice along these lines or any other would be appreciated.
Even if I don't go this route I am interested by way of general conversation.
Thanks.
SJ
Bruce Calvert
could legally make 200 copies and send them to every member of this
newsgroup. (Hint, hint!)
I checked Magliozzi's TREASURES FROM THE FILM ARCHIVES, and this film is not
listed in it. The LOC is probably the only archival source. There's always
the chance that some company like Blackhawk originally released it on film
20 years ago, or that a company like LS Video has put it out in a short film
collection.
--
Bruce Calvert
Visit the Internet Silent Film Still Archive
http://www2.crosswinds.net/dallas/~bcalvert/home.htm
Dziadsj <dzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990821220026...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
ChaneyFan
>>>For instance, what type of copying process should I request?
I'm unclear if you mean film or video. Assuming they have 35mm material, you
probably have three choices, 35mm positive (or maybe negative if they have a
fine grain), 16mm negative, or 3/4" video. (There are infinite other
choices...you could have it blown up to 70mm of course...but these three are
the most likely). In any case, you're going to pay a very stiff price. You
should, in general, tell them what kind of print you want. I've gotten 16mm
negs from them and they haven't said, "Well on this title we can do a 16mm neg,
but on this other one we can only give you video." If you can get at the
material, you can basically make whatever kind of copy you are willing to pay
for.
>>>What rights would I have to do what I wanted with the copy?
LOC wouldn't give it to you if there was the faintest hint of someone else
having the rights. So if you get it from them, you can pretty much do what you
want. And as Bruce pointed out, for a 1908 film it's clearly p.d.
>>>What can I do along the way to insure that if the LOC is going to make me a
copy that they somehow go and extra step and make it accessible to more people
than myself.
I'm not sure what you mean here either. If someone else asks for the print
they can probably also get a copy, but LOC isn't going to necessarily suddenly
make it available because you requested the print. Actually, if you get a
print, then *you* should make it available!
>>>..and last but not least before I do this.....is there any concievable place
that I can get a cheaper copy?
(Chuckle, chuckle). Not very likely, but you can also negotiate to have it
sent to the lab of your choice. Good luck!
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Christopher Jacobs
Dziadsj wrote in message <19990821220026...@ng-bk1.aol.com>...
>Recently, I wrote away to the Library of Congress requesting the
availability
>of a couple dozen films.
>
>They were very helpful. I was Informed of the existence of 8. But 7 were
in
>other archives.
>
>They had in the Library only one: a short film called Invisible Fluid. It
is
>255 feet long on a paper print.
>
>I haven't gotten back to them to make me a copy....(and I do have to decide
>whether it is worth it to me.)
>
A paper print would be a 35mm positive print that is made on photographic
paper 35mm wide (with sprocket holes!) instead of onto clear film (which
would have been nitrate at that time and might very possibly have
disintegrated or burned).
For many decades, paper prints were copied onto 16mm using a machine
designed by Kemp Niver which did the job but resulted in rather soft-looking
copies. If they already have preserved it, it would most likely be in that
form. However, in the past few years the Library of Congress has made
incredible advances in copying 35mm paper prints to 35mm film and are
re-doing many titles--their restoration of THE ITALIAN (1915) from a paper
print looks as good as if it were copied from nitrate. It is also a very
time-consuming, and thus hugely expensive undertaking. A movie only 225 feet
long (a quarter-reel) still would be a fraction of the cost to preserve a
5-reel feature like THE ITALIAN. I have no idea of the costs they are
charging, but if you get a new 35mm negative and either a 35mm print or 16mm
reduction print, it could easily cost several dollars per foot. If they
already have a negative, it should be under 50 cents a foot.
--Christopher Jacobs
http://www.fargoweb.com/hpr/film.html
sh...@my-deja.com
> Recently, I wrote away to the Library of Congress requesting the
> availability of a couple dozen films.
>
> They had in the Library only one: a short film called Invisible Fluid.
> It is 255 feet long on a paper print.
>
> Anyway, what I am asking of the group are some "Do's" and "Don't".
>
> Any advice along these lines or any other would be appreciated.
Jon and Bruce have given you the scoop on getting copies from the
LOC, but I can add a little bit to it. Once in a while, it turns out the
LOC has, besides a 35mm and/or 16mm print, a VHS video copy.
They probably sent you a photocopy of the card catalog entry for the
film you're interested in, and up in one corner it should tell you which
format(s) the film is in. If it mentions a video copy, you're in luck...
the cost of a video-to-video transfer will only be outrageous instead of
utterly staggering.
It would be great if the LOC had a list of the films they've
transferred to video, but... they don't.
--Shush--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dziadsj
print, then *you* should make it available! <<
Agreed.
..........................................................................
..................................................
Hey Jon,
I know I am not necessarily asking the right questions because I don't know
enough yet to ask. But your answers and the others are helping.
It's sometimes hard to converse via e-mail also since it's not an interactive
conversation.
I wrote to L.O.C. (as you pointed out to me the most accomdating archive). They
have told me that they have this film- Invisible Fluid. It sounds fairly
interesting.
I would have several goals in spending my $ on this:
1) a video copy for myself
2) anything I can do to preserve even one more film...if it's on paper print
and if I get a copy on video here are some questions...will the paper print
last forever?....should I make a 16mm and get a video copy for myself? Am I
helping film preservation by taking this approach? (instead of just making the
video copy)
3) if I got a 16mm copy, would I have my first piece of currency for the
wheeling and dealing that you mentioned happens with other archives. Would it
be of any use? For instance, LOC says that G Eastman House has Edison's A Trip
to Mars.
Would I be able to propose a trade? .......
4) making it available to anyone interested (I am not looking to make any
profit but anything I could make to help recoup some costs wouldn't hurt...I'd
send you and f the other fellows kind enough to help me a copy as thanks)
As you can see, I am flip-flopping between selfish motives and altruistic ones.
Thanks for being my mentor on this.
Steve Joyce
Christopher Jacobs
Dziadsj wrote in message <19990822101104...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>>> Actually, if you get a
>print, then *you* should make it available! <<
>
>Agreed.
>
>1) a video copy for myself
>2) anything I can do to preserve even one more film...if it's on paper
>and if I get a copy on video here are some questions...will the paper print
>last forever?....should I make a 16mm and get a video copy for myself? Am
I
>helping film preservation by taking this approach? (instead of just making
the
>video copy)
>3) if I got a 16mm copy, would I have my first piece of currency for the
>wheeling and dealing that you mentioned happens with other archives. Would
it
>be of any use? For instance, LOC says that G Eastman House has Edison's A
Trip
>to Mars.
>Would I be able to propose a trade? .......
>4) making it available to anyone interested (I am not looking to make any
>profit but anything I could make to help recoup some costs wouldn't
hurt...I'd
>send you and f the other fellows kind enough to help me a copy as thanks)
>
If all LoC has on the title is a paper print, you will have to have a film
copy made before it can be transferred to video. I can't speak for archives,
but I would expect it would be much easier to swing a trade if you had a
35mm negative and could supply them with a 35mm print in return for whatever
they had that you wanted. A video master could be made directly from the
35mm negative without your needing to buy a positive print unless you wanted
it for trading purposes. Most serious film collectors would be more inclined
to get a 16mm print, and an optical reduction (very sharp but very expensive
compared with a contact print) could be done from a 35mm negative, or if
enough collectors were interested you might also invest in a 16mm reduction
negative.
If I really liked a particular film, and if I had the money (which I
certainly don't at the moment) I would have a 35mm negative made and scanned
to video. (You might even be able to loan the negative to an archive to copy
in return for video copies of things you want.) If I had even more money I
would replace my flood-destroyed 35mm projector and get a 35mm print as
well.
--Christopher Jacobs
http://www.fargoweb.com/hpr/film.html
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs
Rob Farr & Kathy Lipp-Farr
through the WWW. Have they, or will they list their film holdings
on-line? I know they are switching to a different search engine before
the end of the year, so maybe this will be the spur. The University of
California's film holdings are searchable via MELVYL. One gem that
turned up was Harold Lloyd's screen test for an aborted 1943 Columbia
feature. Of course you have to go to California to see it, but just
knowing it exists is kinda fun. Are their other film archives that have
on-line searchable holdings?
Rob Farr
--
http://www.netcom.com/~lippfarr/mugshots.htm
Home Page of Forgotten Silent Comics
ChaneyFan
topic and others may want to hear the answers...
>>>I wrote to L.O.C. (as you pointed out to me the most accomdating archive).
They have told me that they have this film- Invisible Fluid. It sounds fairly
interesting.
I wouldn't call LOC the most accomodating archive (I would have to rank Eastman
and UCLA above LOC), but that's another discussion.
>>>I would have several goals in spending my $ on this:
>>>1) a video copy for myself
What will you do when the oxide falls off the tape in 20 years? (Unless you
take it to some electronic video format)
>>>2) anything I can do to preserve even one more film...if it's on paper print
and if I get a copy on video here are some questions...will the paper print
last forever?
Well 16mm is less permanent that paper, but *way* more permanent than magnetic
video. Still, it's hard to call this a "preservation." If it's on paper it's
already "preserved" but of course isn't projectable.
>>>....should I make a 16mm and get a video copy for myself? Am I
helping film preservation by taking this approach? (instead of just making the
video copy)
If you make a 16mm print you can probably easily get someone to transfer this
to video so you at least have a video copy that you can then copy for others if
you wish. You might also be able to sell a few 16mm prints and recoup a little
of your expenses, but on a title like this, don't count on it.
>>>3) if I got a 16mm copy, would I have my first piece of currency for the
wheeling and dealing that you mentioned happens with other archives. Would it
be of any use? For instance, LOC says that G Eastman House has Edison's A Trip
to Mars.
Would I be able to propose a trade? .......
This depends entirely on how much an archive wants the print. I have
successfully made trades with archives by offering things like Lon Chaney's THE
ROAD TO MANDALAY and Leni Riefenstahl's THE SACRED MOUNTAIN (both of which I
did negatives on), but these are probably somewhat more prominent titles than
INVISIBLE FLUID. Still, it never hurts to ask. In both of my cases, there was
no archival copy *anywhere* so archives were happy to get these. If Eastman
knows LOC has a nice paper print of INVISIBLE FLUID they are going to be much
less interested in a trade. On the other hand, if you *give* them a print
(maybe setting you back $50), they might give you access to their material on A
TRIP TO MARS if you pay all the lab costs. So they basically get something for
nothing.
>>>4) making it available to anyone interested (I am not looking to make any
profit but anything I could make to help recoup some costs wouldn't hurt...I'd
send you and f the other fellows kind enough to help me a copy as thanks)
I've made some deals with Kino, Sinister Cinema, and other places to release
films on video. I get a pittance for doing this, but something is better than
nothing, and it does get films out there, so I feel it's worthwhile.
The truth is that unless you are talking about finding a print of A BLIND
BARGAIN, THE DIVINE WOMAN, THE CASE OF LENA SMITH, FOUR DEVILS, LONDON AFTER
MIDNIGHT or THE WAY OF ALL FLESH, you almost certainly aren't going to recoup
anywhere near your costs. Which of course is why most commercial companies
don't touch this stuff with a 10-foot poll. It has to be a labor of love and
nothing else. I encourage you to do it, but go in with your eyes wide open as
to exactly what you are going to spend!
greta de groat
database, which is available in many university libraries. Limit your
search to visual materials (command: sel fil vim). Don't try to limit the
search to the Library of Congress, since some records have the library code
DCLC (the usual code for Library of Congress) and others have the code DCLF,
and if you limit it, you'll miss lots of the records. I believe the ones
with library DCLC are listed in their regular online catalog, but the DCLF
records, which are cataloged to different rules and standards, are not. I
have no word yet on whether they will be loaded into the new catalog which
should be up in a few months, but since they weren't in the old catalog i
imagine that they are on the bottom of the priority list. Not everything
seems to be available online anyway, i just checked for Invisible Fluid in
RLIN and didn't see it listed.
greta
steve leggett
would advise using "Advanced Search" located under "Word Search" and limit your
search to "Visual materials." The new Library online catalog is slated for an
8/31/99 debut per that page. In the current version, I believe film holdings
CATALOGED since the mid-80s or so are listed--but don't quote me on that.
Earlyfilm
paper print. Chris Jacobs, Jon M
and Bruce C have given some very good answers which I wont repeat.
There was one “oops” in the above answers.
That is that most of the paper prints are on UNPERFORATED paper and therefore
have to be registered by the image one frame at a time. Only a few of the
paper prints are on perforated stock. Many that are on perforated stock have
perforations were too damaged during manufacture to be used usable today.
There are two Library technicians assigned to the paper print project and one
of the two is operating the machine whenever the Laboratory is open. A ten
minute unperforated roll or roll with perforations damaged, but otherwise in
good condition takes about a week to copy! The rare rolls with good
perforations intact and firm can be copied in less that two hours per ten
minute roll.
Who knows how funding for this project will hold, but at the present speed
there are probably 20 years of work to be done.
>They had in the Library only one: a short >film called Invisible Fluid. It is
255 feet >long on a paper print.
There is a book in most public libraries called “Early Motion Pictures”, by
Kemp Niver published by LoC. There also was an older edition published by
UCLA with a similar title.
This book shows INVISIBLE FLUID access copy is on shelf FLA5494 and the related
film that was mis-identified by AM&B
as this, now called MAN IN THE BOX on shelf FLA5554.
>What can I do along the way to insure >that if the LOC is going to make me a
>copy that they somehow go and extra >step and make it accessible to more
>people than myself.
These have been available for viewing for over 30 years, but only on the
premises of the Library in DC. To see them, you must write to the MBRS
division, Research Desk (which is where I presume your other information came
from) and first tell them your reason for wanting to see the film and then
schedule a time to come into the Library and view the print. The print
will probably have been made in the 1960s or earlier and will be in 16mm.
If this print is worn and scratched -- very likely-- you would not wish to pay
for a video copy struck from this scratched print.
When you write you also should ask if this title is one of the few that has
been redone in 35mm after the book was published either by UCLA’s Bill Alt or
by the Library’s Motion Picture Conservation Center.
One of the reasons for going through the research desk is many titles on which
the Library has preserved, but has not had funding to make access copies are
not listed in the catalogue viewable by the public.
Funding cuts now prevent the Library from making video and film copies for
customers in house.. These are sent to commercial labs and the Library passes
on the cost with a handling charge. The Library is prevented by law from
making a profit on these orders, but do not expect it to be cheep!
Earl.
ChaneyFan
otherwise in good condition takes about a week to copy!
About 15 years ago I got to watch Bill Alt at UCLA making an optical 35mm film
copy of a paper print of Wm S Hart's ON THE NIGHT STAGE. He would roll the
frame into place, line it up, blow off any dust, check the centering. CLICK!
Roll the next frame in, line it up, blow off any dust, check the centering.
CLICK! Roll the next frame in.....
He was probably going more slowly so I could see what he was doing, but he must
be God-like to have the patience to do a 5-reel picture like this. Some years
later I saw the finished 35mm print and the quality was lovely.