Movies Shot Digitally Projected On Film

W

wildstriker

Active member
I'd like to ask those who've seen a movie (that's shot digitally) projected on film:

Does the image look less "video-ish" and more like 35mm (basically, look like as if the movie was shot on film) or does it look like video with a LUT on top of it?
 
I saw Collateral projected on film, and then digitally, and noted it looked significantly less digital on film. Not sure why you're asking this though. Digital can look indistinguishable from film with not much effort these days, if you know what you're doing.
 
I was lucky enough to see the digital to film transfer of the movie Australia when it was being finished. It was done on two ARRILASER film recorders by Deluxe in Sydney. An interesting process to see being carried out by these amazing laser printers. After the final digital grade and render the master files files were loaded into the ARRILASER where they had a choice of film stocks to choose from for the final print to film. From this the 'duplicate negatives' were made. Then these were sent across the facility to the high speed film contact printers. These then cranked out the distribution reels as fast as possible which were then loaded into cans while vans were cuing up to distribute the films to theaters and airports for global distribution. The final tweaks to the look all done during the final grade and during that final grade consideration was given as to what film stock the digital transfer was going to be printed on. The very last tweaks can be done at the final stage with image manipulation software on the ARRILASER. It's a much more involved and artistic process than just applying a LUT to a digital file to achieve a 'look.' Although I understand where you are coming from when you say "...or does it look like video with a LUT on top of it?"

I have since watched 'Australia' at both at the theater and as a digital file and have to say there is something about the film release version that does look more, hate the word, 'filmic.' For me it's the grain structure distribution difference on film between each frame that very much what makes film what it is and here again I hate the word but how else do you describe it, look more 'organic.' It's that dynamic constantly changing grain structure that is happening at some kind of subliminal level in the mind that makes people like the look of film. Grain and texture at almost invisible levels can and does evoke certain responses. Good directors know this and often certain subtle film characteristics including grain along with cutting pace can be used as such to induce a physiological response in viewers such as in a scary movie where your heart can be induced to beat faster.

A side note. It was the ARRI ImageBooster software that was developed for the ARRIFLEX D-21 to give the D-21 that characteristic film feel directly from the camera that evolved and went into the ARRILASER. We all know what the D-21 developed into don't we. The ARRI ALEXA. Say no more.

Chris Young

ARRILASER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=DiKoXic06ko
 
cyvideo said:
It's that dynamic constantly changing grain structure that is happening at some kind of subliminal level in the mind that makes people like the look of film. Grain and texture at almost invisible levels can and does evoke certain responses.
Click to expand...

If I had to surmise why, as an armchair scientist, I'd say it probably has something to do with the way the brain processes images and movement. The brain tends to ignore and deprioritize areas of an image that are static and unchanging and a visual with a constantly changing grain structure possibly keeps the mind hyper focused. It creates movement that the mind needs to process even when there is little going on in the frame. This holds our attention more.
 
Batutta said:
... and a visual with a constantly changing grain structure possibly keeps the mind hyper focused. It creates movement that the mind needs to process even when there is little going on in the frame. This holds our attention more.
Click to expand...

Well put sir!

Chris Young
 
Digital-to-film transfer is one of the ways to get - I am not going to say it - a certain look. Besides, the concept was necessary when film was still the dominant mode of distribution.

And prior to the digital age, video-to-film was quite common in the US TV industry.

And, of course, even prior to that, 70mm films were transferred to a 35mm print in order to distribute to theaters without the 70mm projector.
 
I'll also add that, when digital cinematography started to challenge film, cinematographers were obsessed with getting the film look, terrified the audience wouldn't accept anything with even a tinge of digital stink on it. So they added grain, and gave it a film like gamma curve and did all sorts of things to try and fool people. Now though, the audience is so accustomed to the look of digital cinematography that it's not really a problem if your image has a digital sheen about it. So long as it's 24 frames a second and high enough resolution, they'll accept it as a movie.
 
The movie “like crazy” was shot on Canon 7D, and had 35mm projection in some theaters. There were a few times you could see the flat profile hiding underneath. The clipped highlights in cinestyle on some of the daylight exteriors are where it showed up the most. Some weird smearing and color issues, but overall it totally looked better than digital projection for that time.

Here is the trailer. Solidly dslr, but still wonderfully shot and made:

Going to film print does a bit more than a lut, because the film is a physical thing, it moves, and it is a real exposure, so the grain patterns are slightly effected by the image it is shooting, it isn’t flat on top. The only issue is that digital is still the original capture. So, occasionally, especially on something like a 7D, you’ll see it underneath.
 
Last edited:
Back in the prehistoric ages, the HDW-F900 movies definitely didn't look like film to me (Vidocq, Attack of the Clones, Once upon a time in Mexico), but after that, the HDC-F950 and Thomson Viper came, and I didn't notice or didn't care. I remember two sequences from Miami Vice that stood out, at the beginning when Sonny goes to the roof of the bar and the shootout at the end.
 
This is a bit of a side point - but I think it was prior to Sony coming out with F35, which was RGB 2K - I recall reading an opinion of a cinematographer who said, "BFD, this camera may be digital but film has more resolution and no need the Bayer filter".

And, naturally, he was right. For, at least, a few more years. Once Alexa and F65 were out, the game was over for film.*

*Not that the image quality was the deciding factor. Hollywood saves about a billion a year, not having to do film prints anymore.
 
wildstriker said:
I'd like to ask those who've seen a movie (that's shot digitally) projected on film:

Does the image look less "video-ish" and more like 35mm (basically, look like as if the movie was shot on film) or does it look like video with a LUT on top of it?
Click to expand...

Just do it!

I started working with film while in school 4 years about...its art...and I love it...and a real career
 
We used to do this a lot years ago. It has a look of its own. It looks less 'videoish' as the cadence is usually changed, plus it has a different gamma curve and additional grain, but it doesn't look like it was shot on film.

Two classic feature films digitally shot and transferred to film; 28 Days Later and The Blair Witch Project.
 
For those interested in achieving a film print look for your digital video footage, check out FilmConvert - www.filmconvert.com. The plugin has dedicated camera packs customized to one of 19 film stocks, and 6K grain scans that are applied dynamically depending on the underlying color values of your footage, to give a more authentic grain look. It's probably the closest thing you can get to a film output short of actually printing to film, and doing screen tests in a cinema recently wrote to us to say: "I have been using your program for years. I finally was able to get my project viewed in a theatre on a digital projector. Of all the samples those with Film Convert looked the best. My footage was shot on a regular Nikon D5200 and it truly looked like film."


(disclaimer: I work for FilmConvert :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top