Confusing (and probably silly) question about print film and digital

[Jeff Hammond]

I’m curious to know what the process is for digital distribution of a film that has been printed to print film.

For example, if I have this correct, when a  modern film using DP makes a movie, they shoot film, scan it for editing/vfx then print it to print stock for theatrical distribution (at least in theaters that still project actual film). When they do digital distribution of that film, do they scan the print film and distribute the scan? Or do they just distribute the finalized digital image?

I imagine this probably also depends on the budget/scope of the project.

It’s not something that I need to know for a project or anything, just a process I’m curious about. Thanks in advance!

[Tyler Purcell]

Well first misconception is that anyone is focused on theatrical prints, because nobody really is. Ever since DCP (digital cinema package) and Digital projection, the theatrical print side of things, has been not as important. The DI (digital intermediate) solution, solved a lot of problems with quality of prints. Increasing the resolution, with greater contrast, better color retention and in a lot of cases, a quicker post process. Some theaters held out until Deluxe and Technicolor closed their labs, which was in 2014. Once that happened, that was the end of film prints. So it's been over a decade since prints haven't really been a thing.

Sure some filmmakers like Christopher Nolan, PT Anderson and Quentin Tarantino, are still heavily invested in making prints, but only a hand full are made using the DI process. 

The "DI" process has changed over the years.

Prior to the advent of low-cost film scanners and high resolution digital post workflow, this is how films were done using the DI process. 

- Telecine the negative with edge code 
- Edit digitally (usually avid as it's the only solution that can manage the edge code properly)
- Conform the negative using edge code
- Transfer the cut negative 
- Color grade the transferred negative 
- Record (usually to negative intermediate stock) back to film 
- Make prints from the IN

Today, we don't cut the negative anymore, outside of a few filmmakers who do photochemical color (inter positive process) like Nolan and PT Anderson.  

- Telecine the negative 
- Edit digitally
- High Res transfer just the shots which are in the edit
- Color grade the transferred negative 
- Record (usually to negative intermediate stock) back to film 
- Make prints from the IN

There are also three ways to make prints. 

- Laser recording to Internegative stock was the most widely used method because you could get a very high resolution image (4k) and the prints looked really good. This process was however, the most expensive as internegative stock is expensive. 

- CRT record to camera negative. This is the way things were done prior to laser recording. The CRT recorders can't be pushed hard enough to record onto the very low sensitivity internegative stock without damaging the CRT itself. So recording to sensitive camera negative is what was very commonly done in the past. It's slightly cheaper and delivers excellent color without any digital grid pattern. Nearly all visual effects shots in movies during the film days, were recorded out using a CRT recorder, then the shots would be cut into the negative cut and re-scanned. To this day, CRT recording is kind of the holy grail, with really good rolloff and excellent color retention. The only downside is the CRT's themselves, which of course wear out over time and are impossible to replace unless ya got a big piggybank. 

- DLP record to print stock. This is done using a machine called a cinevator and it's a very fast way to strike low quality prints for theatrical. You do get a decent image, but you can clearly see the grid pattern from the DLP chip. These machines were not widely used in the states, but in other countries, were the holy grail for making fast prints for theaters that couldn't afford to switch over to digital. Print stock is also very cheap compared to camera negative and internegative stocks, so prints from a cinevator are WAY less money and only need to be processed before projection as the machine can also record soundtrack as well. 

Today there are a bunch of people experimenting with OLED solutions which are getting better and better. I think in the next few years, we will be able to make really good OLED recorders which will probably be higher quality than the cinevator, but I'm not sure if they'll ever trump the CRT recorders. Sadly the intermediate laser recorders are becoming harder and harder to find working. So they are being used less and less due to maintenance costs. So people charge A LOT of money to use them, but quality wise the laser recorders are very good,  just very tricky machines to setup and get working well. 

With the inter positive color process, the film is cut, graded photochemically and then they scan the "inter positive" which is the colored version. That scan is then used to make the DCP (digital cinema package) and also to record out to film. So why do that, instead of just making prints? The IP has excellent quality, but the process of making prints from an IP, loses quite a bit of quality. So you can hold more quality by doing a record out specifically for print making. Sounds kinda backwards, it's also very expensive, but for guys like Nolan, who cares. 

Also... Nolan has dumped the photochemical process, Tenet was done all digitally (DI) and it looked outstanding, better than Dunkirk by far. 


 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Tyler Purcell

[David Mullen ASC]

Actually the DI process normally skips cutting the negative — select scans are done to the camera rolls following the edge code information and then the scans are conformed electronically to the EDL to create an edited digital master. If prints are needed, then the digital master is recorded to intermediate stock usually as a negative image.

For “The Love Witch”, we had the 4-perf 35mm negative cut and answer printed photochemically for prints and then had to make a color-timed IP for scanning to make a DCP and masters for home video. If you are going to go this route, you are better off shooting in 4-perf 35mm, whether for flat 1.85 or anamorphic 2.40, so you can make contact prints.

[Jack Jin]

56 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said:

color-timed IP for scanning to make a DCP and masters for home video

What scanner was used? Because the end result looks fantastic with amazing 60s/70s color depth.

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Jack Jin said:

What scanner was used? Because the end result looks fantastic with amazing 60s/70s color depth.

That's the way the film looked actually. The BluRay is exactly what the film prints looked like honestly. David did a great job during the principal photography to get that look in-camera. Unlike modern films that are completely colored in post, when you do a photochemical finish, the colored IP is very close to the right color and only needs a tiny but of tweaking. 

[Jeff Hammond]

Thank you to everyone for your detailed and thorough responses. I’ve learned a lot.

One thing that I’m curious about is I came across a video on YouTube where they were talking about how filmmakers are always chasing the Kodak 2383 look in the DI. In the video they showed footage of The Master (PTA), Dark Knight (Nolan), Dunkirk (Nolan), as well as others I don’t recall. But is the footage that they’re referencing in that video actually scanned from 2383 printed film?

[David Mullen ASC]

No, print stock is high in contrast in order to maintain good blacks on a screen when a powerful light is shining through it, so it is not a good source for scanning compared to a lower contrast source like the negative or intermediate. Think of the DCP for digital projection as the electronic equivalent of the print, both show a similar higher contrast image on a screen. Think of the log scan as the electronic version of the negative, low in contrast to allow flexibility in color correction.

[Jeff Hammond]

Interesting. So when they’re using clips from those films (I’m assuming from a source like a blu-ray or digital download), there’s likely no 2383 involved? It’s just how the DI looks? 

[David Mullen ASC]

7 hours ago, Jack Jin said:

What scanner was used? Because the end result looks fantastic with amazing 60s/70s color depth.

It’s not really the scanner that creates the look, any decent scanner should capture the information on the film. I think in this case it was a 2K scan on a Lasergraphic system? The colorist was working with a color-timed IP and just kept the look that the prints had, within limits. The projected film prints looked very rich because I had overexposed the negative so it was printing with very high printer light numbers.

[David Mullen ASC]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Hammond said:

Interesting. So when they’re using clips from those films (I’m assuming from a source like a blu-ray or digital download), there’s likely no 2383 involved? It’s just how the DI looks? 

A transfer from a print actually does not make the image look the same as it did projected. You’re confusing some concepts here, most of the look comes from how it was shot, what follows after that is supposed to present that accurately. When digital cinema projectors and DCPs were first developed, the settings were created by trying to match the look of a film print being projected side-by-side with the digitally projected image. The idea was that the two versions in the theaters would look similar. It’s just that there are limits because of the difference in technologies — a film print, for one thing, is a subtractive color system while digital monitors and projectors are an additive color system. If you are planning on both a release in digital and in film prints after a DI process, then in color-correction of the log gamma original scans, you are supposed to use a film print LUT in the DI theater. This is NOT to add a film print look, it’s to limit your color gamut to what a film print can later create so you don’t create color effects in the master that only look correct in a digitally projected version.

Using a film print for a transfer is sort of a worst-case scenario but it does happen, like for video masters of old Technicolor movies where no color intermediate master exists and it’s too expensive to restore from the three b&w originals (if they even exist.) And the blu-ray of the European version of Ridley Scott’s “Legend” is from a transfer of a print because no negative or intermediate exists of that version, the negative had been re-cut to make the U.S. version.

[Jeff Hammond]

Ok so if one were to use a film print LUT in the DI theater while coloring a film for digital distribution (if I’m understanding that’s what these YouTubers are advocating), they’re potentially limiting what they can achieve in the final projection because they’re not coloring in an appropriate color gamut?

[David Mullen ASC]

It’s not a significant limitation per se, it’s just that certain color shades or saturation levels can be achieved with digital projection that a film print can’t reproduce and the idea is that what you are seeing in the DI theater should look the same everywhere after that (in theory). In normal cinematography it tends not to be a big thing (color reproduction in different display technologies), especially if the movie is on the desaturated side, but for CGI animated films, it’s a big issue, though they tend not to make prints any more.

The truth is that even with LUTs, the colorist will have to do a separate “trim pass” to make masters meant for laser projection or HDR versions, the Rec.709 home video version, etc. because even in the digital world there are some different display standards.

[David Mullen ASC]

These issues come up more in certain moments like with the color red — if you are using fake blood, for example, that shade of red will look different in P3 color space (DCI) versus Rec.709 (HDTV). I’m always dealing with fixing the shade of red lipstick, for example, because it quickly over-saturates in Rec.709. Greens can be a lot more fluorescent and saturated in digital displays than a film print can achieve, so you have to watch that if you don’t want a grassy lawn to look candy-colored.

[David Mullen ASC]

Where color film negative and print really shines, because the whole system was designed around it, is in subtle skin tone reproduction — don’t know why, maybe it’s just the nature of using CYM dyes and subtractive color to create those shades or maybe it’s just that film better captures the very subtle color variations happening under the skin rather than turn everything into a solid tan color, I don’t know. Of course, old color movies also spent a lot of time testing make-up as well to get it to look right on film stock.

[Giray Izcan]

David, do you mean when you shoot and print on film or it could it be di finish as well? I mean in terms of skin tone color reproduction when it is shot and finished photochemically or di differences - if there is any. I would like to know if you think di finish could yield just as rich skin tones as photochemical finish. I personally feel like print gives the image a certain pop whereas di finished films look a bit flatter. It is my personal opinion of course. Thank you. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by Giray Izcan

[Jeff Hammond]

Thank you so much to David and Tyler for all your knowledge. This has been very interesting and illuminating. Like I said, this isn’t something that I necessarily need to use for a project, nor something that I’ll probably ever need to use, but I was just curious as I’ve seen at least a couple companies selling these Kodak 2383 LUTs and power grades, and wondering what would be the advantage of using them.

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Jeff Hammond said:

I was just curious as I’ve seen at least a couple companies selling these Kodak 2383 LUTs and power grades, and wondering what would be the advantage of using them.

Yea it's all just BS, just another "insta look" situation for people who don't know how to grade.