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

DI colour calibration - does it work?

Here's a standard film DI workflow...

The edit is handed over to the DI facility as data - EDLs, cut lists, whatever. And a reference movie for comparison, on tape or as Quicktime. With these, (the EDLs) the film is scanned. Scanning is a semi-dumb process. No colour correction, simply film to disk 'transfer'. No art.

After scanning, the scanned frames are and 'conformed' to the EDL. Meaning a sequence is made and compared to the original edit. This sequence is graded. meaning colour corrected. A look given, effects, graphics added. All the Art happens here. While grading one looks at the picture projected on a large screen through a projector connected to a Truelight Colour management system. Or some other software or hardware.

After grading, the graded sequence is rendered out. As a large collection of frames.

The render files are recorded back to film on an Arrilaser recorder. or some other.

While recording, the film recorder also prints out test charts which are measured for density and accordingly, printer lights set to make prints at. Normally one uses one constant printer light settings for an entire reel.

Now, if, for some reason, one takes this DI output negative, and works it in a traditional optical analyzer system, grading it all over again, as it were, then the results are unpredictable. It could be great it could be awful. No bets. Should never be done.

After DI it is crucial to see the print carefully and suggest changes if any. And, involve all those, who will be assessing the film qualitatively, at this stage. Any grading decisions that aren't satisfactory, should be regraded, re-recorded and inserted into the negative.

After the negative is struck, there is only so much that can be done in making a print. If you then feel you wish the film to look different, you almost cannot, by just printing it different.

So, it is possible to calibrate any grading system and projector show pictures that translate accurately to film as a DI negative and subsequent print. And, its generally no advisable to grade a DI negative on an analyzer. Some facilities do it, but, at the very least, it goes against the very spirit or reason for DI.