digital still to 35mm film

February 20, 2005

Hi there -

I saw a great film the other day called La Jetee - the chris marker film on which 12 monkeys was based... and here's my question:

if someone were to make a film like La Jetee nowadays, which was done using no moving pictures, just stills and background voice-over, it seems to me like a great way to do it would be to use high megapixel digital stills for the images, then import them directly into your FCP or Avid, copy the images out into the footage needed, and then lay down the voice overs as you will.

Then, when you wanted to make a 35mm print, wouldn't it ultimately be best after the cut list had been made on final cut, to simply create 8 x 10 prints of the stills, then shoot them with a movie camera approximating the amount of footage needed for each still, then send the whole thing straight to the neg cutter?

Or would some digital solution be easier somehow?

DOes this make sense?

thanks

Erik

Dominic Case · February 20, 2005

if someone were to make a film like La Jetee nowadays,

I worked on a film called "What I Have Written" about 10 years ago. It was shot by Dion Beebe (who of course has gone on to shoot Chicago and Collateral among other films). 10 years ago isn't "nowadays', but it's a lot more recent than La Jetee - which of course we all looked at. WIHW was a quite different story to La Jetee or 12 Monkeys, but the technique was interesting.

About a third of our film was still frames (almost) in black and white (almost). Although we considered -and tested digital work for these sections, we ended up dong it all optically. The still images were single freeze frames selected from film shot at 6fps - which gave motion blur: over the length of a shot we might choose two or three frames, each stretched out to fill the time until the next frame would occur. Sometimes the only movement was the actor's eyes. We had also tried using stills from a 35mm half-frame still camera (anything to save stock): but having the running footage made it easier to select the exact frames, and get the pacing right. I think that's an important factor in your suggestion.

The black and white (almost) was a simple colour drain, printing from a b/w and a colour IP on the Oxberry printer. It wasn't easy, but looked better than going via video (HD and full res digital scanning were yet to arrive). Believe it or not, the grain structure of the image helped a lot to sell the shots.

Still, your idea is clever, and if you got the right shots to start with, I guess it would work: you'd need to do some careful work with the neg cutter to connect your final Avid EDL to the negative you supplied - there wouldn't be any obvious time code or anything to identify each shot, for example: but careful preparation and ID'ing every shot would make it possible - for a willing beg cutter..

February 21, 2005

Interesting! - sounds like a cool project.

Why did you use half-frame cameras? For the shape of the neg?

Stas Tagios · February 21, 2005

Interestingly, "La Jetee" was originally intended as a live-action film, and was shot this way; the decision to tell the story almost entirely with stills came during post-production. I've heard varying stories as to why; one said Marker made the decision after some of the footage was ruined in the lab, and so to salvage the production, decided to make still frames from the footage that survived. Another said that Marker just decided the material worked better told in stills. Whatever the case, the decision resulted in one of the most compelling and haunting films I've ever seen.

Sam Wells · February 21, 2005

The story from Chris Marker himself which I've seen reprinted (and I think have here somewhere) is that "La Jetee" was shot with a Pentax still camera except for the famous eye shot, done with an Arri 2C "borrowed for an hour"

-Sam

February 22, 2005

"DOes this make sense?"

It makes great sense - but I would suggest pulling your digital stills into a compositing program like After Effects to create your moves and transitions - it would afford you a much greater degree of control. AE also allows you to move your "camera" in virtual 3D (something not possible when they made "La Jetee" was made) which can create a really interesting effect if done subtly.

Dominic Case · February 22, 2005

Interesting! - sounds like a cool project.
Why did you use half-frame cameras? For the shape of the neg?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It gave us normal 35mm motion picture sized frames that we could run in an optical printer.

Sam Wells · February 22, 2005

Once you go into doing motion fx in After Effects etc then it's no longer the original scenario of photographing the stills on a stand with a 35mm motion picture camera; it's a "DI".

I think the cautionry note with the original plan, as Dominic points out, is that you really are going to have to work out with the negative cutter what the proceedure will be *in advance* as what you have is a kind of handmade "EDL / cut list" -

-Sam

February 22, 2005

Once you go into doing motion fx in After Effects etc then it's no longer the original scenario of photographing the stills on a stand with a 35mm motion picture camera; it's a "DI".

I think the cautionry note with the original plan, as Dominic points out, is that you really are going to have to work out with the negative cutter what the proceedure will be *in advance* as what you have is a kind of handmade "EDL / cut list" -

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah - actually I'm thinking more of using a conventional 35mm camera, cropping the bottom 3/4" of the 6 x 4 print to get 1.85:1 as I go, then scanning them in. That way I can just rephoto the prints ... If I cut this in 24frames in final cut pro, the Cinematools should be able to generate a cutlist just like it would with 24 moving frames, I'd think?

BTW, I think this would work better than a half frame; where you'd get only get academy 1.33:1 I believe...

Keith Mottram · February 22, 2005

if your not doing any major moves then why not plan the film in fcp or whatever and rephotograph the stills with a 35mm motion camera. If your moves are quite simple then do the same with rostrum. However if you do digital you dont need to worry about a cut list. My route would be manipulate your frames as much as possible in FCP at SD (using proxie versions) export the sequence as XML import the XML into an After Effects 2K comp. using Automatic Duck (you can then replace your proxies and therefor maintain the full res of the stills), tweak any moves that you need to add too and then export those stills at 2K too whatever format your post house will take for an Arri Laser. I've done this very route myself and it works perfectly. You'll also be able to export a QT from FCP in SD and HD res for tapes.

Keith

February 24, 2005

if your not doing any major moves then why not plan the film in fcp or whatever and rephotograph the stills with a 35mm motion camera. If your moves are quite simple then do the same with rostrum. However if you do digital you dont need to worry about a cut list. My route would be manipulate your frames as much as possible in FCP at SD (using proxie versions) export the sequence as XML import the XML into an After Effects 2K comp. using Automatic Duck (you can then replace your proxies and therefor maintain the full res of the stills), tweak any moves that you need to add too and then export those stills at 2K too whatever format your post house will take for an Arri Laser. I've done this very route myself and it works perfectly. You'll also be able to export a QT from FCP in SD and HD res for tapes.

Keith

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

right on - I think I"m going to be move-free on this project, but that's a good tip.

thanks

EH