Has any one ever filmed(celluloid) digital then scanned it back to digital?

J

james d

Member
Hi guys,

Been wondering on this for a long time in search of for different/wild looks. It's quite a hard search term to pull up as it mostly leads know where.

Has anyone ever shot on digital and then filmed the finish cut with a 35mm film camera, after that then having the negative scanned back to digital.

Just to see what kind of effect it would have on the end footage? Curious!

Thanks
 
There was a comedy program made for the ABC in Australia some years ago called "Frontline". It was shot on Hi-8 video, telerecorded on to 16mm film, then transferred via telecine to 1" tape for editing. The idea was to give it a more "gritty" feel.

Similarly, back in the 70s there were a few movies shot in the UK using Phillips plumbicon cameras recorded on to 2" tape, then telerecorded on to 35mm neg where they were edited conventionally as film for theatrical distribution on 35mm prints. In this case, the idea was to save the cost of shooting on film.

So it's all kinda been done before!
 
Thank you for this knowledge, so the theory of it has been tested but not quite to the limit. I might have to look further into this. Cheers
 
Yes. Lots of people. It was pretty commonplace back in the day...

We used to use a stills camera with a 200ft magazine loaded with black and white film. You had to do three passes using coloured filters and combine them to get RGB video. All the Spacesuit camera POVs were done this way in Alien.
 
I've shot on 8mm film, projected it on a wall and shot that with a 8mm video camera, transferred it to a VHS tape and captured that for an edit....it was an....interesting look. Just do it and see what you get!
 
Ten years ago this would definitely be a more common thing. These days the computer speed and software has made doing this same effect completely in the computer much easier than it used to be. Sure, there is that true analog effect that you get when you mix real film into the chain, but before you spend all that money you might want to try some of the film looks and grading options. Much more control that way, but I guess the mystery of the experiment is a big part of what you're looking for. It would just be a real shame to spend all the money on film and telecine only to not get a result you like.
 
You may actually save time by going the analog route rather than investing in a lot of post grading software and time. Or maybe post work would be cheaper and faster. Hard to say.
 
james d said:
Hi guys,

Been wondering on this for a long time in search of for different/wild looks. It's quite a hard search term to pull up as it mostly leads know where.

Has anyone ever shot on digital and then filmed the finish cut with a 35mm film camera, after that then having the negative scanned back to digital.

Just to see what kind of effect it would have on the end footage? Curious!

Thanks
Click to expand...
In modern age (past 10 years or so), there where plenty of films shot digital and then printed to 35mm Film using ArriLaser machine(rather to being just shot using a 35mm camera), then the final print film or negative film the Arrilaser made would be scanned digitally to make a blu-ray or sometimes even a 2K DCP (I think more for blue ray/DVD release, as DCP started to be common only in the past two-three years).

I think it's actually really cool, as the Arrilaser turns your digital images into film, giving them film grain and that organic film look, then when you scan it, it could sometimes look more like film and you could of course also make direct film print for projection after you did all post production on digital which save you on degrading your image if you went totally analog route, as you will need to make an inter positive then strike a print of off that if you shot originally on film and wanted a 35mm print.

hope my explanation is clear enough :-)

http://www.arri.com/archive_technologies/arrilaser/
 
16mman said:
You may actually save time by going the analog route rather than investing in a lot of post grading software and time. Or maybe post work would be cheaper and faster. Hard to say.
Click to expand...
That landscape sure has changed a lot lately, huh?
I suggested the digital post route since there's a lot more chance for experimentation vs leaving it up to chance with analog. If you've never done this before, you can't be sure of the result…or maybe that's what you want…chance. I can respect that, but I think that there's a lot of opportunity to tweak things digitally and stumble upon something you really like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top