Have finally went digital due to budget...is this acceptable quality?

[Matthew W. Phillips]

You could also do a film out to color negative from a log image after you have picture lock. Then re-scan it.

Landon is correct. You really miss the point of my financial situation.

[Landon D. Parks]

I really can't see why anyone would follow the digital -> film out -> Telecine back to digital workflow. Now that there is little reason to even make a film print, it would be cheaper to shoot on film, and simply do a telecine once and leave it at that, than it would doing both a film out and a telecine. Even if the money was there to do that, I have to ask why one would not just shoot on film in the first place.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I have to ask why one would not just shoot on film in the first place.

The ONLY reason I can see is if they are shooting a high ratio. Since raw stock is used for the throw away as well as the kept footage, the feet used would be less for filmout. Sadly, this doesnt save much since filmouts are far more expensive per foot than neg stock and processing.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I meant just for your finished cut. You seemed willing to buy software to fake it, so just putting it out there. There was another thread about that on this site recently. Though Livegrain has largely overtaken that technique.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I meant just for your finished cut. You seemed willing to buy software to fake it, so just putting it out there. There was another thread about that on this site recently. Though Livegrain has largely overtaken that technique.

The software I purchased for it was an indie 16mm grain pack which cost me $105 after tax. Much cheaper, I imagine, than a filmout. I know the filmout would look better but I think it is a question of diminishing returns at that point.