Digital Intermediate; Does anyone not use it?

[Sam Wells]

now that future isn't going to be possible because people are so lazy that they won't take time to light because they can just use DI instead of having guys with light banks or reflectors.

Also there are lots of kinds of filmmaking where "having guys with light banks or reflectors" is impossible or not desirable.

 

Why give that all away to DV ?

 

I know how to light and I know how to work without artificial lighting as well, (I've been doing this lately because parts of the world aren't there to stop for you to light them);

for me if DI's can be part of the process, as the lab already is, then why not ?

 

-Sam

[Max Jacoby]

John, I have seen a film or two with DI used for titles and selected scenes.  Apparantly Passion was one such film.

The WHOLE of 'Passion' was DI.

 

I don't mean to offend you, but I do find it a bit funny that you are against DIs, yet you didn't recognize it in 'Passion' which was a really bad and obvious DI.

 

I personally don't like DIs either, but at least I recognize one when I see one. :D

 

And no, Filipe, the difference not in my mind. It is on the screen. :D

 

Honestly, if you had to pick between grain/sharpness and lack of grain/softness, which one would you chose? The choice seems quite obvious to me.

[Filip Plesha]

Audiris. The lack of qualitty IS on the screen, but if you are a anti-digital person it will always seem worse than the same image viewed by a person that expects digital to be something good.

 

It is like this case:

A man comes to a car-painter and tells him what color he wants.

the painter repaints the car. The customer comes and looks at the car and

is all disapointed and tells the painter to repaint the car, or he won't pay him.

 

The painter puts the car back into the working garage and leaves it there.

The customer comes after a few days. The painter says that he repainted the car

just as the customer wanted. He pulls the car out of the garage, and the customer

hits him on the back all happy and says: "yea that's what i wanted"

 

This is a true story,and it happens all the time.

 

I am not saying that the artefacts are not there. I am saying that they will always bother you more and be more visible if you belive that the DI process

ruins the image. Allso, if you are an anti-digital person, the print qualitty will

seem better to you if you are not informed that you are watching a DI print.

 

Beliefs and suggestions change perception to a certain level.

But more than that, they manipulate your reactions on the percieved material.

 

It is nothing new, or strange, it is a known phenomenon.

 

 

And by the way. Why is that choice so obvious? Some people don't like grain so much that they would sacrifice sharpness.

Personally i would choose grain and sharpness, but someone might not.

You can't generalize like that.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

now that future isn't going to be possible because people are so lazy that they won't take time to light because they can just use DI instead of having guys with light banks or reflectors.

What the hell are you talking about? Whoever said a DI would let good DPs forgo good lighting?

You need to think more about what you're saying, especailly since all the DPs currently promoting DIs are Oscar winners and nominees. You sound like the filmmakers who said HD is great because you don't have to light it. Any DP that's on a production that can actually afford a DI WON'T be lazy.

 

And before you critcize Kodak too much more realize that the very reason you don't like DIs is because of their 100 years of research and improvement, making film what it is today.

[David Mullen ASC]

You can't generalize and say that a grainy but sharp image is always better than a fine-grained but soft image. For example, I could see shooting a romantic comedy all on slow-speed film stocks with ProMist filters on the lens for a fine-grained but soft look. Not all movies have to have super-crisp photography, nor saturated colors, nor high contrast, nor even deep blacks -- all sorts of looks are possible.

 

After I wrap this 35mm anamorphic shoot, I might be doing something in 24P/480 IMX video, transferring it to 35mm color reversal, and cross-processing it. And I don't particularly plan on doing much about achieving a "film look" (other than shooting 24P) -- I might even shoot everything with the gain boosted for a noisy electronic "patina" or texture, sort of the video equivalent of a Super-8 look.

 

Is Super-16 always better than 24P HD, for example? Is any format always better than another? Does one always have to shoot on modern prime lenses? On the slowest-speed stocks? If not, if it depends on the artistic design of the movie, then why is a D.I. always a bad idea??? Just because it's digital?

 

Every format and process creates artifacts. Anamorphic lenses have artifacts. Zoom lenses have artifacts. Fog Filters create artifacts. Push-processing creates artifacts. Optical printing creates artifacts. Changing the shutter angle creates artifacts. I don't get the mentality that this entire wealth of tools and tricks should be at our disposal -- as long as they don't involve digital technology, god forbid! Because optical, mechanical, photo-chemical artifacts are OK, but digital ones are never acceptable. Why? Just because we've had 100 years to get used to the other artifacts?

[Max Jacoby]

Audiris. The lack of qualitty IS on the screen, but if you are a anti-digital person it will always seem worse than the same image viewed by a person that expects digital to be something good.

I am not 'anti-digital', I am pro-quality. But from a psychological point of view you are right of course: as long as I see something which is of lower quality, I will not like it and complain. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? If people didn't push for things to get better, we'd never get anywhere.

[Filip Plesha]

Well if you are pro-qualitty, then how come you don't complain about the general qualitty of theater prints (optical or digital)?

to be honest they are all bad compared to the qualitty of image recorded on the original IP or the camera negative.

[John Pytlak RIP]

The first thing to do if you want better print quality is to deliver the final cut early enough to allow the lab time for "Film Done Right". Getting final answer print approval only a week or two before 4000 prints need to be in theatres leads to "shortcuts" like having to print short-pitch to short-pitch on a continuous contact printer for the intermediates, which sometimes causes unsteadiness and loss of sharpness. And when you see or hear a theatre-related problem, complain immediately to the manager, and report it in writing "up the chain" if a theatre has chronic problems.

[Matt Wells]

Just on the problems experienced in theatres. Over the past few months I have watched about 4 films in the AMC cinema in Birmingham UK. This is a very new cinema and I think there is only one other AMC cinema in the UK.

 

The first three films (I forget exactly what they were, but included Kill Bill and the most recent Matrix film) were suffering from terrible scratching across at least a third of the screen. But these scratches were not vertical but sort of at 45 degrees to the edge of the picture and continued all the way through the film.

 

Kill Bill, in addition, also seemed to be suffering very poor registration in the projector, especially noticable with titles on the screen jumping around - looked just like super8 with poor camera registration. On top of this it was also very dirty - like someone had been kicking it around the projection room.

 

After the third poor presentation I was anxious about seing anything else there, but watched Return of the King, which was OK, but it was only about the second day it had been released.

 

Matt

[Max Jacoby]

Well if you are pro-qualitty, then how come you don't complain about the general qualitty of theater prints (optical or digital)?

Because this is a discussion about digital intermediates.

 

Before I take this discussion any further I would actually like to ask you if you recognize the differences between a DI and an optically timed film when you see it in a theatre. Because if you don't, then I don't see how we can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of DIs.

[Filip Plesha]

Yes audiris i can see the difference, but i usually don't remember my theater experiences that well to say that i noticed this on this film that day etc..

But i can see the difference in scenes that went through digital manipulation. The worse case of this to my memory being star wars episode 1

[Max Jacoby]

But i can see the difference in scenes that went through digital manipulation.

Well then it is really just a question whether you find the quality loss acceptable or not.

[Rob Belics]

That "acceptable" question is what gets me every time. Too many times I hear people say you don't notice a particular problem unless you are looking for it. Also, the general movie go'er won't notice this or that problem.

 

My point has always been that if there is a problem then it's a problem. You are presenting an inferior image but saying "good enough". And, yes, the average movie go'er DOES notice the problem. By that I mean they get used to the problems.

 

I go to three theatres where I live. One seems to always have bad prints and be too dark. Another is 50/50 on whether it will look good. The third consistently has a clear bright colorful image unlike any others. I always check that theatre first to see if they are showing the film I want to see. But if you asked anyone who saw the same film in the other theatres if they noticed the bad print would they say yes? No, they wouldn't. I posed this question on a local forum and no one said there was a problem yet there were glaring differences (I saw the same film at both).

[John Pytlak RIP]

...suffering from terrible scratching across at least a third of the screen

 

These horizontal or slight diagonal scratches are called "platter scratches". They are caused when a misaligned guide roller allows the surface of the print to rub against the rotating platter surface, where a burr or rough spot on the platter can rub across the film. Or if the film rides up on the flange of a misaligned roller, it can be scratched diagonally.

 

Definitely "operator error" at a theatre.

 

One seems to always have bad prints and be too dark. Another is 50/50 on whether it will look good. The third consistently has a clear bright colorful image unlike any others.

 

I'm always fighting the "forces of darkness" :( :

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newslett.../spring98.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newslett...lak/dec99.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newslett.../june2001.shtml

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the issue is less about some universally accepted technical quality level that must be used by everyone - the real issue is ARTISTIC INTENT. Does the final product reflect your intentions? Otherwise, you'd have to believe that all movies must be super sharp, super fine-grained, always in focus, deep blacks, rich colors, etc. Zooms must never be used, alterations to developing must not be done, one must always be printing at higher numbers, no diffusion filters are allowed, no lens flares, etc.

 

I think that's a limited view. I don't apply one standard for all movies; I try and sense if the photography is working successfully to tell that story and if the "flaws" that are visible are due to a visual design, or the result of a technical compromise that allows one to achieve a certain visual goal, or simply due to carelessness, lack of skill, bad presentation, etc.

 

If one were going to reject D.I.'s as a choice because they compromise technical quality despite any artistic gains possible, then one would also have to reject the Super-16 format since clearly from a technical level, it is inferior to 35mm.

 

This is bit of a crazy discussion anyway -- most D.I.'s simply do not look as bad as some people here are saying, so all I can think is that either they are prejudiced against the approach or they have decided to be hyper-critical about this one aspect of moviemaking. Especially if they can simply dismiss the quality problems from optical printing using dupes as "it's not so bad... graininess is OK..." etc. yet find fault with every D.I. ever made! To me, that sounds like a bias. Which is fine if you acknowledge that you have a bias.

 

I'll admit my bias: I HATE DUPES. I've spent my entire professional career at war with all the bad opticals and dupes in my movies, and have generally been sad to see release prints of my films that were made from IN's. I've been pushing for a while now to at least get some of the dupes done digitally (like for title sequences). God, you think a well-done digital shot doesn't cut it, how can you think an optically-printed image two generations removed is ever going to match? And I would love if I can create as many IN's for release prints that are the same generational quality as an original negative -- and the ONLY way to do that is digitally. Not that I won't be at war with bad digital work as well over time, but at least digital intermediates have the potential to be first-generation quality, while optical printer dupes can NEVER achieve that.

[Max Jacoby]

To me cinematography is about faces. I expect faces to look right. At this moment in time, if you use a DI, faces will simply not look as good as they do if you time the film optically.

 

I would like to point out that I am certainly not the only person who feels that DIs are not yet ready. I spoke to a lab recently where they do DI work as well. But they said to me that they don't think it is as good as an optical blow-up. Also I would like to refer you Mitch's posts regarding the Kodak Vision2 demo and the difference between DI and Optical Print.

 

I have yet to shoot Super16 for my own projects, but if I would, I would only use an optical blow-up. I don't mind the grain or a lack of sharpness compared to 35mm as long as it FEELS right. That is why I'd rather use dupes than DI for optical effects. Even if they are more grainy, once again they still FEEL better.

 

This is simply a discussion of what is acceptable for each one. If you feel that DI is good enough for you, go ahead and use it. I certainly feel it isn't there yet, although I hope that one day it will, because it has the potential to be a fantastic tool.

[Filip Plesha]

Yes,i if it is not good for your project then don't use it, if it is good, then use it.

 

But then there is no problem audiris. There is no need for complaining about the qualitty of DI. These are not your films, those people are probably ok with that look, and you have a choice to go to cinema or not to go to cinema.

(in that case this whole thread is pointless)

[Max Jacoby]

I think art works both ways. Just as a filmmaker has the right to make creative choices for his/her film, the audience also has the right to give their opinions on these choices.

 

In the case of DIs, if people who use it state that they think it is good enough, it is also my right to argue why I don't think so. My opinion is just as valid as theirs.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just can't agree with your judgement that faces ALWAYS look bad when a D.I. is used. I certainly didn't mind spending two hours looking at Audrey Tatou's face in "Amelie"!

 

The problem with D.I.'s and skintones tend to be occasional, not constant, some D.I.'s having more problems than others. "Seabiscuit", for example, had more problems with that issue than, let's say, "The Ladykillers."

 

As for blowing-up Super-16, wait until you shoot a Super-16 project with optical effects and have to composite and blow them up separately in the 35mm domain then cut them into your final 35mm IN for the remainder of the movie with slugs in your S-16 original, etc. It's a mess. My Super-16 feature had some optical freeze-frames and some effects work that made the blow-up process particularly tricky. Not all movies are simply made up of straight cuts and A-B roll lab effects.

 

I don't think all opinions are equally valid when they start becoming absolute judgements with no ability to see both sides of the issue (unless it is a moral issue). It's one thing to point out the occasional or reoccuring flaws in D.I. work but it's another to constantly find nothing good about the D.I. results yet not have to same hyper-critical view of other techniques like optical printing. Either apply that same level of concern over image quality to both approaches or else risk having your opinion be less valuable to others because everyone who reads it will think "oh, yeah, that's the guy who always hates D.I.'s" and judge what you have to say from that perspective. If people who have spent their life creating images -- like Allen Daviau, Steven Poster, Roger Deakins, etc. -- can form a good opinion about D.I.'s, then at least it should give you pause to reconsider your own opinion. To simply dismiss them as "they must be blind" or "they must not care about image quality or how faces look" strikes me as arrogance (I'm sorry to say that).

 

I'm not saying that you are wrong by any means -- I know the skintone problems you are referring to -- but you are always so sweeping in your generalizations that it always makes me think that your negative attitude is clouding your ability to analyze the image quality accurately. It's just like the people who say that HD always looks bad, etc.

 

I guess I just have a problem with extreme opinions in any direction, whether towards film or towards digital.

[David Mullen ASC]

Oh, and I completely agree with you that we must push for things to get better. But that shouldn't stop us from using these tools -- it's partly in their use that ways are learned to make them better. Imagine if no one used Kodak color negative when it came out in 1950 (because 3-strip Technicolor still looked better) and waited until the 1970's when it finally started to be fast enough, etc.? It never would have been improved. Same with HD.

[Rob Belics]

So how 'bout a discussion going the other way. Shooting with effects and opticals in mind with 70mm compared to the cost and quality of a DI.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not sure I understand the question. If you are comparing shooting in 65mm and finishing with an all-film post route and projecting a movie in 70mm compared to shooting in 35mm with a D.I. for 35mm release prints, the 65mm movie with 70mm projection will have a lot more resolution.

 

I'd love to shoot in 65mm someday. The real hindrence is not so much the costs of 65mm but the fact that there is such limited interest in exhibitors in showing 70mm prints. They want 35mm prints that they can throw up onto their platter system and avoid hiring some union projectionist, etc. "Titanic" was one of the last movies to get a 70mm release and Cameron said that the studio had zero interest in the idea of 70mm prints so Cameron practically payed for the blow-up himself.

 

Another idea is to bring back 8-perf 35mm as a sort of Super-Super-35. Build some modern, quiet, sync-sound 8-perf cameras. Unfortunately, we're reaching a point where wanting to shoot in 35mm anamorphic is like asking to shoot in 65mm -- it's becoming the new high-water mark.

 

You'd think as D.I.'s get more common, and 4K throughout the process is getting more affordable, we could start outputting 65mm IN's for 70mm theatrical release prints.

[John Pytlak RIP]

IMAX is positioning itself as the new high end venue for theatrical features. Their proprietary DMR Digital Intermediate process can do a good job of filling their huge screens, even with a 35mm original (used for "Apollo 13", "Matrix 2", "Matrix 3", and upcoming "Harry Potter 3" and "Catwoman"). I'm sure 65mm 5-perf would lend itself well to the process.

 

Although the ultimate in quality, the 65mm 15-perf cameras have limitations (size, noise, availability) when doing narrative feature production.

 

Generally, IMAX theatre projectionists receive better training and motivation than some theatres are willing to devote to their 35mm projection staff.

 

Some IMAX theatres use 35mm projectors for features. But 70mm 5-perf prints have proven themselves to be a much better choice for filling a huge screen, mostly because the much larger image area allows getting enough light on the screen without excessive print heating. And 70mm 15-perf prints are even better (but at least 3 times more expensive than 5-perf).

[Rob Belics]

No. I meant shooting 70mm and doing opticals for a 35mm print compared to doing a DI. I know it's been done and still being done but isn't it cheaper than a DI? Is it better?

 

I don't mean shooting the whole film 70mm. Just those scenes where a DI might be considered.

[Max Jacoby]

This is bit of a crazy discussion anyway -- most D.I.'s simply do not look as bad as some people here are saying, so all I can think is that either they are prejudiced against the approach or they have decided to be hyper-critical about this one aspect of moviemaking.

I have nothing against the concept of DIs. I think it is a tool that offers fantastic possibilities, but to me right now the loss in picture quality is just not worth it. Like I said, I have yet to see a DI where the skintones are as good as in a optically timed print. I do not mean to imply that in an optically timed print skintones always look good, but in my opinion DI just isn't ready yet.

 

To be fair, I have seen a noticeable improvement in DI quality over the last years. The best DI I have seen so far was 'Blueberry' by Jan Kounen. The fact that it was shot on 79 pushed one stop gave it a nice grainy quality and the muted color palette certainly helped the skintones.

 

And I do find it extremely worrying that so many people seem so taken by DIs. I mean if I read in AC that in 'Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind' Ellen Kuras first used DNR, and then sharpening to counteract the effects of DNR, just all bells go off. Or if Philippe Rousselot sings praises of DI for 'Big Fish' and when I go to see the film, it's a big smeary mess.