Jump to content

How were films shot on film digitised for blueray and TV to match the 2383 prints used for cinemas?


Recommended Posts

Trying to educate my self on the DI process of 35mm film. So far from what I've gathered, after shooting and developing they would have the film scanned to a log gamma like cineon into DPX files. Which they then took through editing and grading, eventually at the end they would grade to a 2383 lut to take into account how it would look on print. Those prints were sent to cinemas. Where im confused however, is when they would then digitise for online distribution like netflix, blueray, ect; would they scan the actual prints or would they use the scans from the originial negative and then just apply a 2383 lut in DI at the end?

Edited by Seth Baldwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

for a while almost every production had their own path.  Depending a lot on if the picture required many effects. or even if the Negative was cut or if the prints were made from a digital intermediate.  (Their was one TV series that used the scan and leave the negative alone  method that had to recently go back and cut and scan the negative as the scanning done at the time or original broadcast was not FULL HD.

Kodak even at one time made a LOW contrast Print film  (Kodak Vision Primetime if I recall) which could be scanned for video.  it did not catch on from what I have heard.

with digital origination, the opposite of course with Prints when needed made from the digital master.. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Seth Baldwin said:

Trying to educate my self on the DI process of 35mm film. So far from what I've gathered, after shooting and developing they would have the film scanned to a log gamma like cineon into DPX files. Which they then took through editing and grading, eventually at the end they would grade to a 2383 lut to take into account how it would look on print. Those prints were sent to cinemas. Where im confused however, is when they would then digitise for online distribution like netflix, blueray, ect; would they scan the actual prints or would they use the scans from the originial negative and then just apply a 2383 lut in DI at the end?

From my experience...  From my last film original...

Film was processed and an "off line" scan or telecine was made for editorial.  After picture lock, the takes used were scanned and conformed to the edit.

Color grading was done using a 2383 simulation LUT and a negative was output and the prints made. They looked pretty close to the DI simulation.  DI was done at Deluxe if I recall.

Not sure what happened with the video masters though.  Sony wouldn't give me a copy, and it was a foreign film, so there were not any to buy in the US.  I had asked that they output the video through the emulation LUT, but I'm not sure Sony followed through with that...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

So there sadly isn't one method that was used for this process, it really depended on the machines used. 

So CRT recorders (the earlier ones and the best) recorded to camera negative. They were never designed to record entire movies, but eventually that's what they were used for. Rooms full of them, recording at what... 5  - 10 seconds PER FRAME. They required a very specific setup due to recording onto negative. 

Laser recorders like the Arrilaser record to intermediate stock. Most of the movies during the DI period were done with these machines because they were much faster and you really wanted intermediate stock. Arrilasers don't require as specific of a setup as CRT recorders. But they do deliver an intermediate which can be used to strike prints. 

Modern machines like the Cinevator, record direct to print stock. They don't require as much finessing of the file AND they can record soundtrack at the same time in real time. They're limited to 2k, but they are fast and print stock is pretty cheap compared to intermediate or camera negative. So Cinevators are the cheapest solution to making prints. They weren't widely used in the US sadly, due to the amount of prints the US market needed, but over seas in places where they only needed 100 prints or something, they'd use the cinevator to much success. 

Most movies still cut negative until film was phased out in 2012 - 2014. So the film would be edited digitally, negative conformed to match the edit, then they would scan the negative at high resolution and that would be their master. They'd do a DI finish and then record the output back to intermediate film in most cases for printing. However, when films are 'restored' they are generally going back to the original camera negative, not the intermediate. Remember, most DI finishes were 2k, but we have plenty of releases that are 4k from that period, that's because they used the negative. So they have to re-time the film entirely from scratch, usually using a print from the film projected so they can do side by side comparisons. Now a days, we don't have that ability sometimes, so we have to work with a previous DVD release, which sucks. Still, the idea is to get close to the look of the prints. Some filmmakers go back and tweak things they couldn't in the past, but most of the UHD disc's I've seen, don't look that good. They're sharp, but the coloring doesn't seem to be like the originals. 

Anyway, today you'd use a cinevator and record your one "show" print directly off your Pro Res file. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Typically you’d color-correct with the print emulation LUT (which has nothing to do with creating a film look, it just makes sure you color gamut fits into the range of print stock) and then afterwards use a Rec.709 LUT instead and do a quick “trim pass” to make sure it looked right in Rec.709 for home video. So it’s basically the same color-correction as the theatrical version adjusted for Rec.709 color space and gamma. That’s sort of the entire point of a digital intermediate, you have a basic digital master from which you can make other versions with minimal adjustments.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Remember, most DI finishes were 2k, but we have plenty of releases that are 4k from that period, that's because they used the negative. So they have to re-time the film entirely from scratch, usually using a print from the film projected so they can do side by side comparisons.

Some of the films with 2K DIs went though 4K rebuilds from the negatives for the UHD releases (a few Sony releases that I know of), but the majority of UHDs for 2K DIs are upscales. Even so, they benefit from the larger dynamic range and color space and better compression UHD provides, versus Blu-Ray.

Edited by Ravi Kiran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 7/28/2021 at 5:38 PM, Ravi Kiran said:

Some of the films with 2K DIs went though 4K rebuilds from the negatives for the UHD releases (a few Sony releases that I know of), but the majority of UHDs for 2K DIs are upscales. Even so, they benefit from the larger dynamic range and color space and better compression UHD provides, versus Blu-Ray.

Exactly, it's actually kinda hard to find a real UHD release. Most of them are "classic" films pre the DI days, where they're actually doing a full restoration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...