Strange Red to Film Question

[Andrew Rieger]

So here is a strange question:

A friend of mine had the idea of shooting on red, doing a film-out in DPX in 4k to a print film stock and then rescanning in 4K to get a digital image that has film grain added. I know this would be very very expensive and not really worth it but what kind of results would you get?

Is is possible to scan film in a scanner like Spirit that is on release print film (which is different than the original stock that would come out of a film camera)?

A stupid idea I know but we like throwing around crazy ideas. Could this produce red footage that is truly indistinguishable from film?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Yeah, if film grain is what He is after, there are many Post offers to do this, and or just use a netting system on the lenses when filming.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

We were just wondering what kind os results we would get out of such a method. When you talk about netting, do you mean diffusion such as black stockings over the front of the lens? Does that add grain? I though that just softened the image.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

That's nothing new, people were transferring their DV movies to film and telecine transferring them back to video again, basically a really expensive film look processing.

Sure it will soften the image and add some grain, however, most of that grain will not be visible because the grain of intermediate stock is finer than SD broadcast can resolve, and barely what HD broadcast can resolve -- laser recorders use intermediate stock that is the equivalent of 5 ASA (a rough figure.)

If you want more grain that is like camera negative film, you'd have to use camera negative stock in the recorder.

But what's the point of an expensive 4K film-out and then a 4K scan just to add some grain when there are software tools available?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

David answered for me, but also to add that different thickness of the netting offers for different effects.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

That's nothing new, people were transferring their DV movies to film and telecine transferring them back to video again, basically a really expensive film look processing.

Sure it will soften the image and add some grain, however, most of that grain will not be visible because the grain of intermediate stock is finer than SD broadcast can resolve, and barely what HD broadcast can resolve -- laser recorders use intermediate stock that is the equivalent of 5 ASA (a rough figure.)

If you want more grain that is like camera negative film, you'd have to use camera negative stock in the recorder.

But what's the point of an expensive 4K film-out and then a 4K scan just to add some grain when there are software tools available?

Thanks David, ya, it would be very expensive and you could do the same thing with post. Not practical at all. I did not know the difference between camera film and intermediate stock and now I know. We were just throwing around ideas about how to make red footage look as filmic as possible. We are probably going to go with diffusion filters and post film grain as you suggested.

Final question, can an Arrilaser film out a DPX file to camera negative film or must it use the much slower and finer grain intermediate stock? Or, can a Spirit 4K Scanner scan intermediate stock (like Kodak Vision 2383) since they are designed to scan camera negative film?

 

[Jeff Coatney]

We did a 4K film out from DPX's generated from R3D's and found it added plenty of grain. We did a side by side of a 4K film out vs. a 2K digital projection and in comparison, the 4K film had too much grain.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think some Arrilasers have been updated with the capacity to handle camera negative film, though most people would just opt for a cheaper Celco-type CRT transfer at that point (since there are no IMAX laser recorders, all film-outs to 15-perf 65mm involves CRT recorders, so the quality isn't bad.)

If you are transferring to film anyway, even intermediate stock, for making release prints from that, then the grain added is usually enough -- especially if there are a lot of prints and an IP/IN will be made off of the original film internegative.

So the question is what this grain effect is for -- 2K digital cinema projection, blu-ray HD release, etc. Because the visibility of grain depends on the size of the displayed image, the resolution of the display device, etc.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Mostly looking at effects for 2k digital projection and blu-ray. Basically, we wanted to give red footage the most filmic look possible and figured that transferring red footage to film with an Arrilaser or other printer and the scanning that print and color correcting the scanned footage would produce footage that would be hard to tell apart from actual film.

We know it is not cost effective but we had two main questions: 1. Can you print DPX to camera negative film (vs intermediate stock), which David answered. 2. Can film scanners like the Spirit system scan intermediate stock (which as david stated was much much slower and finer grain than original stock), considering the fact that such scanning systems are designed to scan original stock straight out of the camera? (after it has been developed of course).

 

[jake blackstone]

Mostly looking at effects for 2k digital projection and blu-ray. Basically, we wanted to give red footage the most filmic look possible and figured that transferring red footage to film with an Arrilaser or other printer and the scanning that print and color correcting the scanned footage would produce footage that would be hard to tell apart from actual film.

We know it is not cost effective but we had two main questions: 1. Can you print DPX to camera negative film (vs intermediate stock), which David answered. 2. Can film scanners like the Spirit system scan intermediate stock (which as david stated was much much slower and finer grain than original stock), considering the fact that such scanning systems are designed to scan original stock straight out of the camera? (after it has been developed of course).

The advantage of adding grain electronically in post, is an ability to see exactly how it will look projected on the screen. Also, there are additional controls for the luminance levels of grain distribution, sharpness, size and color level of grain among other possible adjustments. Or you can just sample your favorite film stock and just introduce that grain signature into the image. But as David had mentioned, it all depends on the screen size...

 

[M Most]

Mostly looking at effects for 2k digital projection and blu-ray. Basically, we wanted to give red footage the most filmic look possible and figured that transferring red footage to film with an Arrilaser or other printer and the scanning that print and color correcting the scanned footage would produce footage that would be hard to tell apart from actual film.

We know it is not cost effective but we had two main questions: 1. Can you print DPX to camera negative film (vs intermediate stock), which David answered. 2. Can film scanners like the Spirit system scan intermediate stock (which as david stated was much much slower and finer grain than original stock), considering the fact that such scanning systems are designed to scan original stock straight out of the camera? (after it has been developed of course).

First, define "filmic." It seems you're concentrating almost exclusively on grain, but there's a lot more to why film looks like film than grain, and two of the primary contributors are the frame rate (24fps, normally) and the nature of film as a chemical medium that captures light in a particular way and has a very specific color pallette. Grain can be simulated electronically to match various current and past film stocks, so that is achievable already. You're probably shooting 24fps, so that's taken care of. But the last - the color pallette - is not so easily achievable because you're not capturing a photochemical image. You're capturing using an electronic system in linear light, a very different process. There is also the nature of film as a mechanical process - i.e., physical film moving through a physical gate with a pin registration system - that imparts a certain small amount of random motion to both its capture and its display. The bottom line is that film and electronic capture systems will always look different, for all of the above reasons and more, and trying to force the electronic image to look like something it's not is inevitably going to compromise the images you've worked hard to capture. You're much better off getting the "best" images you can, images that you're happy with, and using the best path to get those images to whatever display mediums are required for your deliverables. Getting so hung up on making it look indistinguishable from film is inevitably going to lead you to the conclusion that if you really wanted or needed it to look like film, you should have shot it on film. But if that's not the case, you might want to re-evaluate what you like in a projected image and just try to achieve that rather than compromise it by chasing some subjective goal.

As far as scanning intermediate stocks, telecines have been used to transfer from IP's for years. That's how almost all feature mastering was done from the early 80's right up until the time a few years ago when DI's became the norm for feature finishing, and it's still the preferred element for mastering of library titles, if the IP is actually available.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

I am not just focusing on the grain and realize that there are a lot of elements that contribute to the film look. We are going for a gritty look, not technically perfect or sterile. We plan to use older cine lenses such as Zeiss Superspeeds. In quality terms, somewhere between super16 and clean Red 4K footage. If anyone has seen the film Ballast, we are trying to capture a similar look from Red. All I wanted to know was if it was possible, realizing that it is not practical. At present, I don't have the knowledge or tools for adding quality film grain in post and figured that I would let the film do it for me.

When you say IP, I assume you are referring to an intermediate print? Basically, the print produced using an Arrilaser and printed to a slow speed low grain film?

What would be the drawbacks of scanning a film shot on red and digitally printed on a stock such as Kodak Vision Premier 2393 or 2383? On the Kodak site, they do not recommend it. Ultimately, the 2k projected footage and blu-ray footage would be sourced from the film scan, rather than the original red footage.

 

[M Most]

I am not just focusing on the grain and realize that there are a lot of elements that contribute to the film look. We are going for a gritty look, not technically perfect or sterile. We plan to use older cine lenses such as Zeiss Superspeeds. In quality terms, somewhere between super16 and clean Red 4K footage. If anyone has seen the film Ballast, we are trying to capture a similar look from Red. All I wanted to know was if it was possible, realizing that it is not practical. At present, I don't have the knowledge or tools for adding quality film grain in post and figured that I would let the film do it for me.

That's a very expensive way of creating something you may or may not be happy with, especially if there's no actual film deliverable.

When you say IP, I assume you are referring to an intermediate print? Basically, the print produced using an Arrilaser and printed to a slow speed low grain film?

IP stands for interpositive, which is what I think you're referring to. It's not normally called an "intermediate print" because it's usually created for one of two purposes: to use as an archival element, or to use for making a new printing negative (called an internegative). And while a laser recorder can make an IP directly, it's not usually done that way. The laser recorder is normally used to make a negative, and if many prints are required, an IP is made from that negative, and new printing negatives made from the IP. In some cases - mostly studio pictures that can afford it - the laser recorder is used to output multiple negatives, eliminating the IP/IN stage and making every release print, in effect, a "first generation" print from the "digital" negative.

What would be the drawbacks of scanning a film shot on red and digitally printed on a stock such as Kodak Vision Premier 2393 or 2383? On the Kodak site, they do not recommend it. Ultimately, the 2k projected footage and blu-ray footage would be sourced from the film scan, rather than the original red footage.

Printing stocks made for projection are very dense and not useful for scanning. For a number of years Kodak manufactured a low-con print stock (2380, as I recall, but I could be wrong, it's been awhile) specifically for telecine transfer.

Unless you've got a lot of money to throw at this, I would really suggest coming up with an electronic method to get what you're after. There are an awful lot of expensive traps to fall into - I haven't even asked how you're going to grade this in a way that your end product's look is even remotely predictable. I would repeat, in a slightly different way, something I said earlier: things like this should really be considered prior to production, because shooting something with the sole intention of making it look like something else is a sure ticket to trouble. If you want the look of 16mm, the easiest and perhaps most cost efficient way to achieve that is to shoot 16mm. Just because you have "a camera" doesn't mean it's the appropriate camera for every project. That's why we have different cameras and different mediums. It really sounds like you might be in a little over your head on the film side of things here, so if you really want to attain that kind of look, you might want to consider surrounding yourself with some people who have more film experience.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Most of the time, you laser record a negative image onto a stock, usually intermediate dupe stock, so that you can make a positive projection print from it (or an IP), as many as you want.

You can record a positive image to the intermediate stock, thereby creating an IP instead of an IN (it's the same stock, just called an IP or IN depending on whether it's a positive or negative image.) But if you end up with an IP, you'd have to strike an IN off of it in order to then strike prints off of that (it's always a negative-to-positive-to-negative-to-positive... cycle unless you toss in reversal stocks into the mix.)

There are ways of recording directly to projection-contrast print stock, such as the Cinevator does, but the gamma of a projection print is considered too high (too harsh) to be good as an element from transfer back to video.

IP's have been the traditional element from transferring movies finished the old-fashioned way (cut negative, photochemical post, etc.) because once the negative is spliced, especially if it was A-B rolled, it's easier to use a single-strand IP copy for a video transfer -- plus it's been color-timed already, making the video color-correction session faster than if working from camera negative images. Plus you aren't risking your original negative in a telecine machine that is running the film back & forth.

Now that most movies go through a D.I., the digital master at the end is used as the basis for home video copies.

Now keep in mind that intermediate stock is very fine-grained on its own, but in a traditional film post, the IP is a copy of the camera negative, which is grainier. So you are mostly seeing the original camera negative grain in an IP copy.

 

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

My contribution to the subject...

A) Film to Film DI process.

Scanning film in 4K to preserve grain structure, then process digitally, film record with a laser that scans lines and expose pixels in a clinically clean and perfect internegative with no grain and no character, is the best method to transfer back to film the original film essence, look and feel.

B) Digitally acquired images to film process

A 50ASA camera negative film stock will have a certain level of flare, plus film character, plus fine grain, a CRT analog film recorder is the best method to antialias naturally with the help of phosphor molecules the digitally perfect but pixelized nature of a 4K digitally acquired images. That will result to more appealing image than the original digital, with more natural color transitions especially in the deep blacks and with the feeling of camera negative character and fine grain when projected or telecined for HD distribution.

So perfect medium and digitally transfer methods for film to film.

And less perfect but with character, grain and non digitally exposure film recording for digital to film. You will be amazed how the noise is being vanished and the wide gamut of film is handling the low light gradients...

Thats my two euro cents...

 

[Andrew Rieger]

It was just an idea, nothing serious. Thanks everyone for the input, I had a feeling that it was too complicated and not really practical.