Working with motion picture film in a digital enviroment

[Tyler Purcell]

12 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

That’s a misconception. The printing heads are farther apart. The correct picture-sound displacement is achieved by a corresponding lace-up of image and sound negatives.

Oh interesting. I thought the punch was synched frame to frame to the picture not accounting for the offset due to the different printable formats. So you're saying they make the punch mark with the added frame buffer between image and sound head? 

[Robert Houllahan]

21 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

 

Answer print is a generic term for creating a print off a set of originals. 

Panel printers are really cool. They have multiple incoming rolls of film, which are contact printed to original stock. They aren't necessarily setup for color grading, they're just for one light printing. The stock runs through two different print heads on some of them, where the picture head is the same distance from the sound head as the projectors are. 

 

The latest generations of the B&H Panel printers with Michelson valves can make 1/10 stop RGB light value changes scene to scene and they are very much capable of being used to fully grade a film.

[Robert Houllahan]

On 12/6/2024 at 12:34 PM, Florian Noever said:

@Robert Houllahan 

What I still don't get is how for example the Scan Station has an Area Scan Sensor but is able to do continuous scanning, is the light source generating powerful enough flashes for very short exposure times to scan continuously? Do the Scanity and Arriscan use flashes as well, or continues light?

The Arriscan / Director / Scan Station / Xena all use pulsed RGB LEDs to expose the film to the area scan sensor. With true RGB scanners like the Arriscan the sensor is monochrome and the LED lamp pulses R/G/B up to 12 times for 6K HDR and the Director does that up to 18 times for 13.5K HDR and then these monochrome sensor scanners add one IR pulse for the dirt map.

Scan Station uses a sensor capable of 30FPS and can run in 1-flash at 30FPS where the RGB lamp balance is set to the base and pulsed for each frame, in HDR it has a high exposure pulse and a low exposure pulse which captures the same film frame at slight different positions in the gate in continuous motion and the software combines them perfectly using LaserGrpahics seamless machine vision perf stabilization.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Robert Houllahan

[Florian Noever]

Thank you all for your valuable insights! I have completed my bachelor’s thesis and the resolution test. If anyone is interested, you can soon check out and download the test images created as part of the resolution test at the following link:

www.florian-noever.com/filmresolutiontest.

Thank you!
Florian

 

[Florian Noever]

It took me longer than expected, but I finally managed to set up the page to view the resolution test and download all the test images. Please let me know if anything doesn’t work, what you think of the test, and feel free to share your thoughts or start a discussion on the topic.

www.florian-noever.com/filmresolutiontest

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Florian Noever said:

It took me longer than expected, but I finally managed to set up the page to view the resolution test and download all the test images. Please let me know if anything doesn’t work, what you think of the test, and feel free to share your thoughts or start a discussion on the topic.

www.florian-noever.com/filmresolutiontest

Nice job Florian, I really enjoyed this. 

[Giray Izcan]

Really great work. It really shows how super 16 looks the best on 7213 as opposed to 19. 

[Florian Noever]

@Tyler Purcell Thank you Tyler!

[Florian Noever]

@Giray Izcan Thank you. Yes, indeed, 200T is the sharpest of all color negative stocks.

[Giray Izcan]

If I were to shoot a thetarical release film on s16, I would shoot it on 7213 and only use the 19 stock in situations where I had to.  In my opinion, though a beautiful stock, 19 is too grainy for narrative work on s16. 16mm is a grainy format as it is, so one doesn't have to shoot it "dirty" to make it stand out as it already does due its inherent qualities. Of course, this only goes for while shooting on 16.. not 35.

[Florian Noever]

@Giray Izcan interesting take! I will definitely shoot my next S16 project on 200T.

[Giray Izcan]

Floian, I bet you won't regret your decision.

[Jon O'Brien]

On 5/7/2025 at 6:30 AM, Giray Izcan said:

If I were to shoot a thetarical release film on s16, I would shoot it on 7213 and only use the 19 stock in situations where I had to.  In my opinion, though a beautiful stock, 19 is too grainy for narrative work on s16. 16mm is a grainy format as it is, so one doesn't have to shoot it "dirty" to make it stand out as it already does due its inherent qualities. Of course, this only goes for while shooting on 16.. not 35.

I agree Giray. For a theatrical release shot on film and projected digitally, shoot on 16mm where you want to make it obvious that it's film. For such a movie shot on 16mm I feel that the one thing needed to be avoided is a too soft look -- as I've seen at the cinema a few times with movies shot on 16mm. I'd shoot S16, with the sharpest spherical lenses I can find (film lots of tests) -- and film on 7213. For wide vista shots E.g. for an 'outback' or outdoors-themed type movie or so on maybe shoot these wide landscape shots on 35mm, E.g. 2-perf. Obviously if going a completely photochemical workflow all the way to projection then I'd shoot traditional 35mm 4-perf or 65mm.

[Jon O'Brien]

Only thing with S16 for features is it's more difficult at times to get a shallower DOF.

[Tyler Purcell]

On 5/8/2025 at 3:13 PM, Jon O'Brien said:

For a theatrical release shot on film and projected digitally, shoot on 16mm where you want to make it obvious that it's film. For such a movie shot on 16mm I feel that the one thing needed to be avoided is a too soft look -- as I've seen at the cinema a few times with movies shot on 16mm.

It's challenging, many features shot on 16mm, have moments where the image literally falls apart and it can be distracting in those moments. I feel with digital cinema projection, a lot of the film grain and such gets washed away, even with a 16mm screening. I have presented many films from DCP and have always been disappointed with the grain structure compared to my grading monitor. Where it's pleasant at the office, in the theater it's either non-existent/too soft to notice, or the image just falls apart. Where I do think 50D or 200T can work well if you're doing a western or something outdoors where you have more control over your light, if you're trying to make the el'natural look where you need higher ISO range, I feel it's a lost cause with 16mm. I almost prefer shooting everything on 35mm and use a more grainy stock like 250D or 500T for the entire movie, IF you want the grain in the film. 

I've been experimenting with realtime AI grain generation for digital footage and it's very impressive. Watch The Holdovers and you'll see what I'm talking about. We can manipulate digital footage so well today, the point of shooting film for theatrical, almost doesn't exist anymore. Even recording to 35mm and scanning that as your finished product, doesn't hold a candle to the digital manipulation from scratch. Things like halation and a bit of wobble/dirt along with the consistent grain, it all really adds up to create a great image. 

Where I love film and will continue shooting it myself until it no longer exists, but we're at a precipice where digital cinema cameras are very good, have excellent dynamic range and with the right lenses and post processes, can give a very pleasing image, which is tailored to the theatrical experience. If I were to shoot a feature right now, 16mm probably wouldn't even be on the table. I would probably do 3 perf 35mm or digital. 

[Giray Izcan]

The Holdovers did the film out I am pretty sure. I remember listening to a podcast with the dp. You can shoot natural looking pictures with 200t and lights.. you just have to know how to work in high light levels and maintain a natural and consistent or logical contrast ratio. I just don't get the hype with using 7219 as it is too grainy and soft..

[Tyler Purcell]

5 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

The Holdovers did the film out I am pretty sure. I remember listening to a podcast with the dp.

Nope, it was Steve Yedlin's process of camera color science prep in camera and then post. They didn't have the money to do a film out. Where it's absolutely very complex and burdensome, I feel it worked well. Most people would never know and if there was a 35mm film out for theatrical projection, it would be even better. 

https://filmmakermagazine.com/124994-film-look-35mm-holdovers-emulation/

[Jon O'Brien]

6 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

It's challenging, many features shot on 16mm, have moments where the image literally falls apart and it can be distracting in those moments. I feel with digital cinema projection, a lot of the film grain and such gets washed away, even with a 16mm screening. I have presented many films from DCP and have always been disappointed with the grain structure compared to my grading monitor. Where it's pleasant at the office, in the theater it's either non-existent/too soft to notice, or the image just falls apart. Where I do think 50D or 200T can work well if you're doing a western or something outdoors where you have more control over your light, if you're trying to make the el'natural look where you need higher ISO range, I feel it's a lost cause with 16mm. I almost prefer shooting everything on 35mm and use a more grainy stock like 250D or 500T for the entire movie, IF you want the grain in the film. 

I've been experimenting with realtime AI grain generation for digital footage and it's very impressive. Watch The Holdovers and you'll see what I'm talking about. We can manipulate digital footage so well today, the point of shooting film for theatrical, almost doesn't exist anymore. Even recording to 35mm and scanning that as your finished product, doesn't hold a candle to the digital manipulation from scratch. Things like halation and a bit of wobble/dirt along with the consistent grain, it all really adds up to create a great image. 

Where I love film and will continue shooting it myself until it no longer exists, but we're at a precipice where digital cinema cameras are very good, have excellent dynamic range and with the right lenses and post processes, can give a very pleasing image, which is tailored to the theatrical experience. If I were to shoot a feature right now, 16mm probably wouldn't even be on the table. I would probably do 3 perf 35mm or digital. 

Sure, I know you feel this way Tyler, and that this is what you want to do.

For myself I remain unconvinced about digital for narrative, for what I want to do. I can always tell if I'm watching a digitally shot show when at the cinema and when watching something on TV. I can always tell when it's real film. Perhaps many others can see the difference too. But really I don't care. I love working with an actual photographic negative and that's just me. At the moment I'm working on filming a series of short films, and I'm still at the prep stage and writing the first script ... I haven't filmed a feature yet. But if I did film a feature it would be on film too. Again, that's just me. I'm a determined person and I'm absolutely determined to shoot film only.

Because, for me (even if it was nobody else), film looks better on the big screen and it has a better onscreen vibe or feel that is impossible to replicate on digital no matter what high powered people in the industry may say to the contrary. I don't name drop and conversely i don't care who they are. To me, film is 100% better than digital for the sort of narrative stories I want to tell. Sure, 35mm is great. 16mm too. I go my own way.

🙂

Edited May 11 by Jon O'Brien

[Giray Izcan]

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Nope, it was Steve Yedlin's process of camera color science prep in camera and then post. They didn't have the money to do a film out. Where it's absolutely very complex and burdensome, I feel it worked well. Most people would never know and if there was a 35mm film out for theatrical projection, it would be even better. 

https://filmmakermagazine.com/124994-film-look-35mm-holdovers-emulation/

I watched the Holdovers at the New Bev. 

[Giray Izcan]

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Nope, it was Steve Yedlin's process of camera color science prep in camera and then post. They didn't have the money to do a film out. Where it's absolutely very complex and burdensome, I feel it worked well. Most people would never know and if there was a 35mm film out for theatrical projection, it would be even better. 

https://filmmakermagazine.com/124994-film-look-35mm-holdovers-emulation/

Great read.. thanks for sharing 

[Tyler Purcell]

4 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

I watched the Holdovers at the New Bev. 

Yep, they made one print from my understanding, but it wasn't released on 35mm in any capacity. I bet they made it for festival screenings, it's quite common and why so many digital films have 35mm prints today. Seems like many do honestly, especially the smaller ones. 

[Tyler Purcell]

5 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Because, for me (even if it was nobody else), film looks better on the big screen and it has a better onscreen vibe or feel that is impossible to replicate on digital no matter what high powered people in the industry may say to the contrary. I don't name drop and conversely i don't care who they are. To me, film is 100% better than digital for the sort of narrative stories I want to tell. Sure, 35mm is great. 16mm too. I go my own way.

Yes most main stream productions have no reason to shoot digital outside of convenience and confirmation they got the shot. They have the budget, they have the crew, most are close to a lab, etc. They shoot digital because it's simply convenient and being able to re-play to make sure they have the shot and actually gives some guarantee they'll have it when they get to the editing room is something you absolutely do not get with film in this day in age. 

Here are a few anecdotal things that I've had happen and seen on other peoples films in the last few years. 

This train film series we're doing, what a mess man. Our first shoot came out good, but nearly every shoot after that we had major issues. It started with a bad lens that was sent back to me from the lens service shop not working properly. Hard to tell in the ground glass because there is no way to actually magnifying and see what's going on, even though our test shoot came out great. Got the entire 12 x 400ft roll shoot back, half of it was out of focus on the edges at any focus length, but it was horrible and useless wide open. Go back in October, this time with a nicely collimated lens, serviced body, this is going to be perfect right? Na, now Kodak has a problem with the remjet and it leaves a rain effect on all 9 rolls. I had to digitally fix every single shot we used in the final piece and it destroyed the look of the film, it looks wrong. Ok so we go back the following year, this time with some new toys, film is good, but damn man we had some strange issue with a new lens that I'm working with. This lens has an odd back focus issue, but because it's a zoom and because it has manual back focus, somehow in shipping to the shoot, it was out of focus. Can't tell on a film camera on the wide shots if it's actually in focus or not, so we just went with it, whole thing is soft. This winter, shoot 9, was one of only 3 shoots for this film series that came out perfect. Same equipment and same film. That's a horrible ratio, had I shot with my iPhone, it would have all come out, every single frame. 

Ok Ok, so documenting one off things may not be the best, how about narrative? In the last few years I've shot 4 narrative and 1 documentary project on 35mm with my own equipment. Two of the narratives I shot, two different labs destroyed part of the footage, both were top labs in the US. So both films were heavily altered to compensate because I could not afford a complete reshoot of those missing scenes. This meant, all the hard work and money we put in, went out the door. Had it been digital, zero problems, I'd be proud of those films and maybe even submit them to festivals. Instead, they were both nearly entirely wastes of money. Had I shot digital, not only would I have more coverage, but no issues with the finished product, it would just be perfect. 

Now, I also scan film for a living as well. So I get to see what other people shoot. Man oh man, it's RARE I get anything that's actually perfect. Yes, it happens, we did a feature few months ago that was MOSTLY perfect outside of a camera issue on one roll. We're doing a feature right now that's pretty good, but we're seeing some odd jitter issues every once in a while, mid roll and such, very weird. So for sure not perfect, I guess if that's what you're after, then ok? But if I were spending 2 million dollars on a feature film, I would want 100% perfection. I would also be pretty pissed if I had an entire roll that was screwed up. I don't think I could shoot and re-shoot every single scene on another roll of film, just to make sure I got it in the can. The risk is just too great, especially for narrative where you may not get another opportunity. I can always go back and shoot more documentary stuff, nobody knows what I got. But on a narrative, even if you schedule reshoots in advance, you may be boned. I have worked on many films that could only afford two days of re-shoots, but we needed 4 or 5 to fix all the technical problems, along with the story ones. Better to focus on story and at least if I shoot digitally, I know at the end of the shoot day, that I got it and won't need to worry about it. 

So yea, I love the look of film and I'm going to keep shooting it when I'm hired and on personal projects where I can cope/deal with issues. I have really enjoyed the last decade shooting film, but it's been a hit or miss situation for me, which is unacceptable this day and age. Also, I have spent years working on a YouTube channel about shooting on film, with basically no success because nobody seems to care anymore. There was a day not long ago, where people actually were curious, but now there are so many higher end YouTubers using film as a way to drive subscribers, it's hard to get in edge wise. I could make 2 videos a week about nothing subjects like they do and probably not grow without resorting to digital cinema. So I did ONE digital cinema video, my channel explodes overnight, over one video and people want me to do more on the subject. IDK man, having spent so much time shooting film and promoting film and getting absolutely nowhere outside of my business which is a guarantee anyway due to people NEEDING their film cameras fixed, I just don't see it as that much of a benefit anymore. Decade ago? Sure! Absolutely it was a door opener. Today tho, it feels old hat. Everyone shoots film today, I'm flooded with cameras in for service, people going out to shoot their first roll ever sorta deal. I love meeting them and helping them get their cameras running, it's a lot of fun.

In the end, the only person who cares if it's shot on film or not, is the filmmaker. I don't think people won't watch your film because it's shot digitally, nor do I think they'll care about what it "could" have looked like if it was shot on film. I know getting that feather in your cap about shooting a feature on film is cool, so go for it! Just don't expect magic to fly out of the scanner. LOL 😛

[Giray Izcan]

If you work with professional assistants, the unfortunate problems Tyler faced could be avoided - though there is still always a chance something wrong could go down.. film jams and such. Proper prep and testing is a must when shooting on film. I agree with Tyler that digital is safer for sure though. With digital, you can playback with the look baked in if you like and have a peace of mind and move on, or reshoot right there and then.  

I love and prefer film, but came to really love digital as well. I shoot on f55 with r5 raw recorder and rate it 1 stop slower to get some digital grain, which I've come to enjoy. The reason I rate it one stop slower is for some added grain, 1 more stop of information in the highlights and 1 less in the shadows, which aligns with film negative. I always put the internal n9 and bring the 2500 to 320 ASA, which allows me to do the exact same lighting as I would with the 19 stock. As for post, I like to put a print lut on after converting the footage to cineon log to mimic the color reproduction and contrast of a film print. I don't do any power windows and stuff, and only use the offset wheels to balance the colors to the gray card much like when shooting on film and striking a one light print. This workflow gives me a very film/analog like quality. 

I just think it is a horrible idea to shoot on film unless you have a proper budget. Getting all the coverages while shooting dialog and complex scenes will require more film unless you want to let go of the story and cut corners just to shoot on film and end up with an incomplete product.

I am itching to test out getting digital to be transferred on 16mm film negative(7213) - low con print - 4k scan from low con print at Cinelab to find a happy medium. 

Shooting on 35 for instance will easily cost you 1200- 2k per page depending on the page - purchasing brand new stock, developing, 4k scan. Especially when shooting dialog, you will easily be in the 20:1 ratio. 10:1 ratio sounds a lot for narrative, but it is really a bare minimum. 20:1 is more ideal if you want all the coverage needed and get the best performances from your talent without having to cut corners or without having to be a slave to the camera. 

[Jon O'Brien]

I only shoot on film for my own short film projects. Tried for years to create some curiosity about what I offer but crickets so far. I'm thinking of advertising in a local magazine. Part of my situation is that I don't particularly want to do weddings and in my area that's the sort of go-to bread and butter work for videographers. I've done one wedding and enjoyed it but there was a near disaster with the camera (actually with the cartridge) but all went well nevertheless. Happy I suppose to do the odd wedding here and there if it's filmed outdoors on a sunny day, as the wedding I filmed was. But really I was hoping to film other people's narrative short films but the lack of interest is astonishing in my area. No one wants to risk losing a bit of money if film doesn't turn out for them. Sheesh. I actually find it lazy. It wasn't meant to be that way. You're supposed to take risks in the creative arts. And I notice the people with cameras have spent a lot of money on them. It's not as if they can't afford to film one short film on film. I even offered to do filming for free. Perhaps it's difficult to get noticed in videography since everyone with a tiny Sony on the end of a motorized stick is a videographer now. Hence why I'm thinking of the ad in the magazine.

For absolutely everything else I shoot digital. Concert filming, musician's gigs, music videos B roll, and now training videos for a local organisation and filming of events like Multicultural days etc. I'm starting to get paid for my videos. Yay. I like digital for what it is. Very clean, very straightforward and quick. Easy sync sound. But for short films of the sort I want to make, many with a kind of 'morality tale' or message of hope worked into the story, and done within a 'period era' genre, I want to shoot on film. Can be Super 8, 16mm, or 2-perf. I literally have to do every single thing myself. I will get there if I keep at it but it's a slow process 🙂

You've really got to love what you do.

Edited May 12 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

17 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

... Our first shoot came out good, but nearly every shoot after that we had major issues. It started with a bad lens that was sent back to me from the lens service shop not working properly. Hard to tell in the ground glass because there is no way to actually magnifying and see what's going on, even though our test shoot came out great. Got the entire 12 x 400ft roll shoot back, half of it was out of focus on the edges at any focus length, but it was horrible and useless wide open. Go back in October, this time with a nicely collimated lens, serviced body, this is going to be perfect right? Na, now Kodak has a problem with the remjet and it leaves a rain effect on all 9 rolls. I had to digitally fix every single shot we used in the final piece and it destroyed the look of the film, it looks wrong. Ok so we go back the following year, this time with some new toys, film is good, but damn man we had some strange issue with a new lens that I'm working with. This lens has an odd back focus issue, but because it's a zoom and because it has manual back focus, somehow in shipping to the shoot, it was out of focus. Can't tell on a film camera on the wide shots if it's actually in focus or not, so we just went with it, whole thing is soft. This winter, shoot 9, was one of only 3 shoots for this film series that came out perfect. Same equipment and same film...

In the end,... the only person who cares if it's shot on film or not, is the filmmaker. I don't think people won't watch your film because it's shot digitally, nor do I think they'll care about what it "could" have looked like if it was shot on film. I know getting that feather in your cap about shooting a feature on film is cool, so go for it! Just don't expect magic to fly out of the scanner. LOL 😛

That's a tough experience!! I feel for you. That would be horrid to get back so many rolls like that.

It's easy to be wise in hindsight but, for the sort of films I want to make, I will try to film not too many 400' rolls going off to the developer at any one time before shooting the next roll. Yes it's so easy to miss problems when looking at a ground glass. If I'm getting actors to travel to a rural location (like I want to film for my first film set in the 1930s) which could be an hour or more from home, just how many weekends can I expect them to make the trip out there so I can get enough footage? Not an easy situation, for sure. At least, it cuts down filming time each day. So, no long days. If there's a will there's a way.

You reminded me of something from years ago, about the rain effect you got back. When 'Return of the Jedi' was first released in Brisbane, in 1983, the 35mm film print at the Hoyts cinema had a weird 'rain effect' look on the print in one shot on the first reel. It was very noticeable (to me, anyway). When Darth Vader strides down the boarding ramp of the Imperial Shuttle, at the start of the picture, it looked like it was raining inside the docking bay. Someone must have set the sprinkler system off. One of the Stormtroopers sneaking a quick smoke behind one of the storage boxes, maybe.

So, even the biggest Hollywood productions sometimes couldn't guarantee the look in every single shot of some of their prints, at least. That's film, folks. But, at the cinema, film is more exciting. Digital is predictable but there's always a trade off for that. We know what that is. It starts with the letter B.

Edited May 12 by Jon O'Brien