Posts
-------------------
>You can't believe everything you read on the internet.
>I spoke directly to the editor.
As to the former, I don't. Thank you for that sage advice. And as to
the latter, unlike you, I didn't. Thanks for taking the initiative.
>Nearly ALL of the footage
>was transferred by post-production companies that
>have exclusive agreements (because they are VERY
>CAREFUL AND SKILLED) to transfer footage from these rare
>resources.
"Nearly ALL" is merely a subset of all the materials they accessed,
and in this interview, Lumiere admits to destroying material that
falls outside of that subset:
<<http://www.shakefire.com/interviews/movie/frederic-lumiere-wwii-in-hd>http://www.shakefire.com/interviews/movie/frederic-lumiere-wwii-in-hd>
This link was posted by Jeff Kreines on the AMIA list, which got a
raging debate ball rolling. Apparently, Lumiere must stand by it, as
he is promoting the interview with a link on his blog at
<http://www.lumierehd.com/>. Curiously, I don't see a link to an
interview conducted by you; perhaps you can get him to post it soon.
>If you have ever tried to use footage from the National
>Archives you would know this.
I have, thanks. Nice folks, great to deal with, superb, efficient
service, and with fantastic quality. Makes me glad to pay taxes,
truth be told. Knowing the care and regard archivists show towards
materials such as these, one can only imagine the indignation folks
would suffer thinking that someone would act such a way as the
Lumiere has promoted himself as having acted to even a tiny portion
of the materials accessed for their program.
>That is why I did the interview with
>Lumiere in the first place.
Again, as referenced above, please share it with us, or a link. I've
not seen your interview referenced on the AMIA list, but the
shakefire.com interview has drawn lots of attention. I, for one,
would be thrilled to hear from Lumiere or the History Channel that
the materials and interviews they used to promote their work were
false.
Going back to your first point, while you can't expect to believe
everything you read on the internet, when a director admits to
destroying original footage in the process of projecting it, I'll
give weight to his direct quotes until he retracts them in that same
forum. Especially when said director promotes that interview on his
own website.
>I knew that the story had to be essentially bogus and it is.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear at this point: I don't doubt
you, Steve. I believe that you spoke with Lumiere and he recanted to
you.
I certainly hope so. But one question bugs me: Why would Lumiere,
whom one would presume values these source materials in much the same
way as other archivists, having worked with many of these talented
individuals to create his program, share this story with us if it was
bogus? If the Shakefire.com interview is bogus or grossly
misrepresents events that transpired in the production of "WWII in
HD", why promote the interview on his website without adding
"clarification"?
>Lumiere confirmed that one reel of 8mm family film from the 1940s was
>damaged in projection but not horribly.
Well, in the Shakefire interview, Lumiere referred to things like
this happening "at times." Plural. So it can be corrected - it would
be nice the record were set straight. Maybe post it on the internet,
where it can be compared with other, presumably direct quotes that
have appeared on the internet, where people can't believe them
because they read them on the internet.
Again, referring to the article that started one of the raging
debates, Lumiere is quoted as stating, "Most of the time, we were
able to preserve it as the film basically self destructed by the end
of the reel. Sometimes, the film was not recoverable." Them's
fighting words in Archiveland, and have not been retracted at that
forum. Again, he referenced events in the plural sense, and did not
make it sound a like it was a one-time-only, minor event.
>So griping about "killing 60 year old source materials" is about the
>same as worrying that men are being seduced into hotel rooms where
>their kidneys are being cut out and they wake up in a bathtub full of
>ice with a note "Call a hospital immediately" taped to their chest. Some
>things aren't true. Hopefully, your schools system has the same ban
>against using Wikipedia as ours does.
Bad analogy. I went to Snopes.com, and they tell me the kidney story
is bogus. They don't have anything on this Lumiere fellow, except
what he puts out there himself at <http://www.lumierehd.com/>.
Again, let me be perfectly clear: I don't doubt you, Steve. I hope
you're right. But if you are, then I am terribly disappointed with
the Lumiere guy for so cavalierly allowing a raging debate to rage as
high as it has. He should know better than to admit to killing
60-year old source material to make a cable TV show after working
with archivists who provided "nearly ALL" of the other footage.
By the way...your message rebutting me: it came to me via the internet...
With best regards,
Eric Gleske
Someone in Oregon
--
--------------------
"Whenever I got involved in anything related to a university,
I was reminded of how seriously everyone took everything,
particularly themselves, and I had to keep a firm grip
on my impulse to make fun."
~Robert B. Parker, "Hush Money" (1999)
------------------------------------
To learn more about the FinalCutPro-L group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FinalCutPro-LYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FinalCutPro-L/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FinalCutPro-L/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
FinalCutPro-L-digest@yahoogroups.com
FinalCutPro-L-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FinalCutPro-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment