DI is Digital film shooting, Digital Cinematography, Digital movies

Many debate that digital movie shooting has still not reached that point where it approaches or betters film. Digital movie cameras have been around for a few years now. But the acceptance of digital as means of shooting movies in a big way is still waiting to happen. 

This debate will go on, just like the debate happened with still photography some years ago. Eventually that debate receded and is now as good put to rest. Film for stills is almost past tense. 

A new argument in favour of movie shooting with digital cameras, just occurred to me. 

People shoot movies on film because it is 'filmic' - film captures reality with unmatched latitude, has predictable characteristics, truer colours, is easy to use, and is a known process. All valid considerations. 

But, while most films are still shot on film, not too many are finished on film. They go the Digital Intermediate (DI) way. Even in India, finishing digital for features is prevalent. Few films have their negatives cut. 

In DI, what happens is the the film is first scanned. Meaning, a light is shone through it and a CCD creates an image of the film. This CCD is just like the kind used in digital cameras - Phantom, Arri D-21, Viper, Genesis. So, in effect, the film is 'shot with a CCD'. And less people debate whether this CCD is filmic, has the latitude to capture the range of film, has accurate colours. 

So, if the CCDs in film scanners can be trusted to represent film in all its glory, and the film itself is a good representation of reality. Then, if such CCDs are fitted with a lens, then won't we have a movie camera that's digital, and as good as film? Examples of such CCDs are those used in still cameras. 

These same digital still cameras are accepted in place of film cameras for stills. So, I thought, can't one accept movies shot with digital still cameras to be as good as, and eventually better than those shot with film-based movie cameras? That's my argument. 

If you want to make a movie that looks as good as if shot on film, and want to shoot 'natural' with a minimum of (even none) lights, then consider DSLRs. Those that shoot HD video. I've listed and briefly described some models earlier. 

After shooting, editing will be as usual - digital. Don't worry, movie editing has been digital for over a decade, thank you. Mail me for a viable post solution. Links to earlier posts on DSLRs doing HD video.

Canon EOS 5D MkII

More still cameras shoot HD video

Golden Eye - the scanner

In a small corner of the South Hall at NAB there was this Swedish company that has years experience doing analysis of film for auto crash testing and defence. Those films where you see cars with dummy humans crashed into walls. And slomo films of missiles leaving their silos.

These films need to be analyzed and data used to re-design things for safety or destruction. Whatever. And this company does just that.

Now they've used that expertise in designing a scanner and film analysis system that scans using capstan transport but providing the steadiness of pin-registered scanning. At least that's how I understood it. Its called Golden Eye.

The scanner is quite small, almost like a Cintel diTTo. Table-top. And there's a Win PC to analyze the film and save it as .DPX or a variety of formats. Scans can be 4k or 2k and there's even a swap option. Its a line scanner so many in-between resolutions are also supported.

The light source is a halogen lamp, what we call a 'cup halogen' lamp in India. Its a halogen bulb with a reflector and its an ordinary light source used in showrooms. My German friend even remarked that its a 5 dollar lamp. Light is conveyed to the film via a 'light pipe' so film doesn't get the heat. And a complex system of current control and filters ensures that the colours and intensity stays constant across the life of the lamp. Very ingenious and simple.

The stated purpose of this scanner is for archiving. And should be too. This transport is best suited for old film that has sprocket damage. In fact I think you probably don't even need sprockets.

Other nifty features. There are two 'cameras'. One scans the frame and the other, the entire film. So keycodes are read and need no complex alignment. And these two cameras help the software stabilize the film and ensure a steady frame. The other surprising feature is that the scanner is natively 35mm or 16mm ready with no complex replacement of wheels or lamp house.

Speed is 12fps at 2k and 3fps at 4k. And maybe they could get faster at HD or SD. So its a good healthy speed without the need for very high speed storage that 2k real time needs. 2k at 12 fps should need 180 MB/sec capable meaning HD-Ready storage should do. That's for 2k full aperture. If you're doing 3-perf, 1:1.85 or 'scope, you'll have smaller files so even lower data rates. Even 4k at 3fps amounts to about that much data rate.

The software can ingest EDLs and even ALEs as a source for scan lists. And they told me they could even work out a software feature that pre-reads the film so sorted negs can be read against cut lists and scanned by keycode. That would be a killer feature.

I think this scanner needs a look-at if one is into film restoration, even VFX. And since they can output Quicktime, I'd even try it out for dailies.

There's even a smaller version that's a bit larger than a Digi Beta deck! But its slower and does 1000 ft loads only.