Digital video to Film transfers
- Thread starter TC 3000
- Start date
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I have no special knowledge on this topic, but I bet it was because most theaters only had film projectors. So, if you wanted your digital video screened in a theater, it needed to be on film.
In early 2,000's most major productions, a few George Lucas/Michael Mann efforts aside, were shot on film ... but a film scan of a digital does change the image. In fact, many thought it was the way to attain a quasi-film look way past 2,010. Subsequently, various independent software packages - i.e., Film Covert - were created to get the "film look' (of a particular stock, no less) without the bother of a scan. Film was going out of fashion and the global content distribution was beginning to be controlled by streaming services such as YouTube anyway.
ARRI Alexa and Sony F-65 sort of put the end to the digital vs. film debate somewhere around 2011.
ARRI Alexa and Sony F-65 sort of put the end to the digital vs. film debate somewhere around 2011.
Imamacuser
Veteran
Transferring to film to take off the digital edge was the thought process behind Dune (2021), but as others have pointed out, transferring to film was the only option for theatrical projection in the early 2000s.
I think recent film stocks have less grain or at least much finer grain, or maybe it's due to degrain in the color grading process, but all that to say, stuff shot on film these days looks much cleaner than stuff shot in the 90s.
I think recent film stocks have less grain or at least much finer grain, or maybe it's due to degrain in the color grading process, but all that to say, stuff shot on film these days looks much cleaner than stuff shot in the 90s.
Yes I've notice since Film convert came out its been a thing, but isn't that software more of a filter? Or does it literally do what a film printer would do through manual analog transferring? Considering film has certain chemicals and what have you to make it film. Like for example if you look at films like 28 Days Later, Bamboozled, or Center of the world... those all were shot on mini dv and transferred to film. Some of those have bluray releases, I'd image if it weren't for the film scanned prints, getting these to look good on bluray would had been difficult I would think right?
I agree, and at the end of the day digital is digital that still looks great , but for twenty years digital has been trying to achieve the "Film look" so I think its obvious whats superior format in that regard to want to chase a look of something else, and with cameras thats out now, they've come pretty close to make people forget about film in a way, due to generations and generations ahead..
However thats interesting about Dune, So they were gonna shoot it on digital transfer it to film and then digitize it again for editing is what you mean?
Technically speaking, everything in film/digital is quantifiable. In other words. you can adjust colors, saturation, contrast, brightness, transitions/knee and everything else. Meaning hat if you have enough information in the file, you can tweak it to your heart's delight. A few years ago, there was a fella here selling ARRI Alexa luts for GH-5. And, while it may not have looked exactly like Alexa - an $80,000 camera - it looked close enough. There are also a bunch of YouTube videos of dialing in an Alexa look off Blackmagic Design Raw. It may not be an exact replica but they're close enough. And close enough to film too.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I shot a feature and two shorts in the 2000's that were filmed-out--the shorts for festival screening, the feature for distribution. At the shorts screening, the film projection was notably better than the digitally projected shorts, even if acquired with the same camera. Digital projectors were an evolving technology then and few theatres had installed the really good ones. Does anyone remember those crappy video projectors the chains played around with for showing commercials before the previews? I remember they briefly flirted with using those to show the actual presentation. I should have asked for my money back when I had to sit through that debacle.
Imamacuser
Veteran
I think they shot digital, edited digital, printed to film, and scanned to digital for distribution. That method eliminates the step of stabilizing out gate weave (which might not even be an issue on optical printers), makes keying easier, and ensures that there's actual film grain in the VXF shots.
There are a numbers of news stories on this if you want to dig into it further.
Film has been superior in terms of latitude and color, but digital is superior in terms of low light performance, record time, and physical camera size. Digital had and still has growing pains, and film did too, as modern film stocks are vastly superiors to those from the late 1800s. Film was the standard for the industry, and it's what people were used to seeing, so it's only logical that digital would would spend the last 20 years trying to emulate film, yet digital is also willing deviate from the film aesthetic, and embrace the inherent advantage of clean detailed shadows.
I love the look of film, but digital has the potential to be superior in workflow and final image, e.g. multiple native ISOs could eliminate the need for ND filters, multiple sensor gain circuits could improve the latitude well beyond that of film.
If you haven't seen them already, watch the Zacuto camera shootouts.
P.S. I'd be curious to know whether Charles has tried Dehancer, and if it's generated grain and resulting image comes close to looking like a film print of a digitally shot movie.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I've played around with FilmConvert for my own projects but I have yet to shoot anything commercially that used plugins for film emulation, at least where I was part of the post process.
Are you referring to the shootout from 2011? if so that had really good info thanks for the recommendation
Those projectors lacked not only resolution - 720p was the norm - they also lacked in brightness, contrast, color fidelity, etc. I recall reading a comment from a well-known cinematographer (may have been Haskell Wexler, this was from the early 2010's) who stated that digital in general lacked the resolution of film. Which, technically speaking again, was correct vs. anything s35 and up.
But I also recall the Gilmore Girls - I was a fan - switching to digital for the 2005-06 season and, in retrospect, thinking that digital was great for TV production. The workflow was better and it looked just fine on a 55" RPTV.
PS. Hell baby!
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Interesting. I worked on GG season 6 which I think would have been the season you referred to, or the next one, and it was shot on Super 16. Pretty sure the whole series was shot that way. It wasn't until 2007 or so that series began shooting or transitioning to digital with the Genesis.
Hell Baby?! oh boy. that had such a limited theatrical run, I don't think it was filmed out, not that I knew of anyway.
My memory isn't perfect ... but, we got an "HD ready" Mitsubishi 55" RPTV for $1,800 around February 2003. I watched it in SD - it didn't have an HD tuner included - over the regular analog cable. It looked like crap. A year later, I bought an external HD tuner and a powered antenna just in time for the February, 2004 Superbowl between the New England Patriots and the Carolina Panthers. An OTA HD and it was great.
The GG was in SD then and again for the full 2004-05 season. The show switched to HD Digital for its last two.
And, obviously, its old 16mm footage was remastered for the modern broadcast/streaming.
Quick Side topic~ Speaking of which when did 24p digital productions start?, It seemed like alot of productions like lifetime movie networks and other indie films we're using Panasonic SDX900 cameras and Sony PDW cameras at that time.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Ahhh sorry, was misunderstanding, I thought you meant that the acquisition switched to digital on Gilmore Girls. You were saying that about the presentation of the show. Got it.
In thinking back to the 2000's, all the shows I worked on that were film-based were doing different variations of composing and protecting 4:3 and 16:9 because HD was on the way, but I don't know when they started mastering in HD, because I was only operating back then so I didn't have much contact with post.
As far as the when 24p digital shooting began, the Panavised F900 started it off with the Star Wars prequels in '99. I was supposed to shoot a short in 2000 on that system (with Faye Dunaway directing!) but left the project--well that's another story. I think the first 24p show I worked on was "Session 9", around that same time. As I mentioned above I shot a feature on the F900 around 2005, but my "day jobs" were all still 35mm. Once the Panavision Genesis arrived, it became apparent that digital acquisition was here to stay.
I guess if we are going to stray that direction, how can we not mention the origin of this very site?! I wonder at this point what percentage of participants here ever shot with a DVX100 which was, unless I'm wrong, the first true 24p prosumer camera.
In thinking back to the 2000's, all the shows I worked on that were film-based were doing different variations of composing and protecting 4:3 and 16:9 because HD was on the way, but I don't know when they started mastering in HD, because I was only operating back then so I didn't have much contact with post.
As far as the when 24p digital shooting began, the Panavised F900 started it off with the Star Wars prequels in '99. I was supposed to shoot a short in 2000 on that system (with Faye Dunaway directing!) but left the project--well that's another story. I think the first 24p show I worked on was "Session 9", around that same time. As I mentioned above I shot a feature on the F900 around 2005, but my "day jobs" were all still 35mm. Once the Panavision Genesis arrived, it became apparent that digital acquisition was here to stay.
I guess if we are going to stray that direction, how can we not mention the origin of this very site?! I wonder at this point what percentage of participants here ever shot with a DVX100 which was, unless I'm wrong, the first true 24p prosumer camera.