That digital sharpness is not something I really like so I understand why this process is necessary. The sharpness on film is just so awesome so organic.
That's awesome! I really don't understand why more productions don't do this. Digital gives you the most flexibility and highest quality in acquisition, and if you want the look of film, transferring to *actual film* gives you the look of *actual film*.
@@bighands69 Film is not superior on every level at all. If that were true, none of the old movies from yesteryear ever had to be restored. In reality, those films often have significant problems due to film degrading and can only be restored with _digital_ techniques. For special effects digital is a no-brainer anyway. You want the cleanest possible possible negative before putting the effects in. It's exactly the reason why the special effects people love the Alexa camera's as they are the best. Film is not as easy to use as digital on the set, it doesn't give instant viewing, it degrades with every step of the printing and processing process, it degrades over time with wear and tear, dirt, scratches, warping, fading, flickering, breathing etc. Then there's grain which certainly wasn't present on the set either. None of these problems occur with digital cinematography.
@@BlaBla-jj6sh The master copies of the digital will still need to be maintained and in 50 years time they could have issues if not properly looked after. Now that is not what I was alluding to when talking about film being superior. I am talking about picture quality in terms of how film looks far more subtle and the reason why digital looks so sharp and harsh is to do with the fact that digital is just a system of contrast with no subtlety in colors. HDR simply cannot complete with the photochemical effects of the process of films. I am afraid the digital is nowhere near the chemical processing abilities of film.
Film grain can be pleasing , it gives off an atmosphere. Just gotta know how to use it. Still Digital is superior and with all the softwares today we can create a lot of film looks that looks just as good. Film emulations is the thing, if you don't want to cover the expenses of real film. All these people saying that real film looks superior, but if I show them two frames of the same shot , one on film and one in digital graded to look like film with dehancer etc, they wouldn't know which is which
@@researchproject034 this is absolutely not true lol. people want film for the dynamic range and the fidelity. that is something film can do that digital has been trying (in vain) to get to. they've gotten close, and some digital sensors have gotten really close. but no digital sensor can capture what celluloid can.
Brilliant film and visuals, I come form the world of music production and debate of digital audio vs analogue reel to reel is a big one. I am fascinated by the fact they couldn't film staight up 35mm but did digital and then transferred to film. I am curious if the digital gave more range and control vs just filming straight digital. My question is did they film raw, do color correction etc then transfer to film? Who provides this service?
Yes and no. It does allow them to color grade but at the same time allow them to present a more natural looking production. For a large production it is much cheaper for them to use that film filter process than to try and go through every frame and correct. Autocorrection software does make the process faster but it cannot compete with a frame by frame approach.
@@bighands69 the emulsions also have a chemical reaction with the light, not something software really models all that well because it reacts to different light colours differently, at the end of the day it's just artistic choice.
Seems that Resolve can't quite do everything. ;-) I recall an interview with Sean Baker, director of 'The Florida Project'. He shot the night scenes on digital, and did a film-out of those scenes instead of using film emulation. He preferred the way it looked, particularly the light sources.
Really interesting and it's stimulated me into sending some of my digital stills to be converted to film slides which I'll then have scanned back to digital. However, my gut instinct is that they won't be dissimilar to the Photoshoped or Lightroomed versions I already have. But it'll be interesting to compare. I'm sure they tried but I would have thought simply by shooting on the Arri with Cooke lenses and then editing in Avid (or whatever post editing system they used) with the correct plugin (may have to have been custom made) they would have ended up with the same result and possibly less time consuming and costly. I don't know...Interesting nonetheless...
@@GoCreativeShow The slides have been sent and as soon as I receive them I'll get them scanned. I'll then do a quick vid with side by side comparisons.
I've now received the slides and have asked Photographique in Bristol to do two C-Type prints to compare to my own inkjet prints. As far as the scans were concerned there was very little difference, although with the B&W ones (which had already been treated with Silver Efex Pro 2 in Photoshop) I actually preferred the tranny scan. This probably is because the 'grain' which it collected from the Acros Silver Efex Pro treatment was added to by the 'real' grain from the tranny. Also, the contrast was slightly reduced, though not uniformly. I'll do a vid once I have all the comparisons.
@@GoCreativeShow well…I am thinking of shooting a short film on VHS or Mini DV to get the 90s vibe authentically. But film festivals ask for HD or higher resolution screeners. So I was trying to figure out a way to deal with that. I have seen many films in the past that were shot on lower resolution formats and then screened in cinema hall screens. So thought maybe there is a solution to this somewhere…
@@asapfilms2519 what if you just upscale in the project file. I've shot on mini DV and did this. it doesn't really change anything except making the file 1080 instead of 480
Ironically doing the filmout will actually HELP to preserve the movie while all other 100% digital filmproductions of our time will simply vanish in the digital dataloss void at one point.
I wonder if the same effect works with a 65mm transfer? Like if you film on a 12k camera and then transfer the footage onto 65. Would it look soft but crisp or about the same?
@@GoCreativeShow Thank you for the video Ben, it was probably the best video that explained the method. I was looking at Dolbe’s video on how Greg did the transfer on the Batman but they used a lot of very technical terms that I didn’t understand. You guys were able to explain it much better!
@@tallerwarrior1256 The biggest bottle neck with your approach is that the cinema projectors are only 4k and many will actually show a 2k source that has been upscaled for the projector. I have visited hundreds of digital theatres and the majority of them produce a horrible looking image that no 65mm process would even be able to better. The screen door effect is present on nearly every theatre I have been to.
@@bighands69 True but normally with 12K cameras or 65, most showings show a downscaled version since they’re not IMAX or Dolby screenings. But again it would be interesting to emulate the soft yet crisp texture that 70mm has without actually filming on over budget 65.
I actually found this video because I'm disappointed at Dune's blu-ray quality, which really isn't to par with modern stuff, it's grainy and blurry in many shots. Does everyone find this process fantastic, as the comments suggest?
You really think so? I don't know about that. This process seems creates a lot of unique qualities. Maybe they could have gotten close, but with a movie as big as Dune, I understand why they wanted it perfect. Thanks for watching. -Ben
@@lewisfilms There are absolutely no digital systems that can offer the 8k resolution of 35mm film, color details and the texture of the grain. Maybe there will be some system in the future that can do it but we are nowhere near that point.
Its interesting to hear it from the horses mouth on why they did this. It sounds like there wasn't really that much thought given to other aspects other than the feel of it. By his own admission here Grieg wasn't thinking about the technical side. Its weird that some filmmakers are really clued into the latest technology and to others it doesn't even seem like a factor. Watching the 4K blu ray at home, you can clearly see the resolution limitation that the 35mm scan brings. From my own viewing, 35mm is only good enough for 1080p and only movies like Tenet that were shot on 70mm film actually look like true 4K. On Interstellar there are scenes shot on 35mm and its a night and day difference.
That's probably because the film was scanned in 2K. That's what they usually go for distribution since most theatre projectors have that resolution. Usually, to reduce the time consuming process of doing it in 4K and then downgrading to 2K they go with 2K and fake the 4K by upscaling with digital software showing the limitations that you mention. For this film, they probably only scanned 4K for the IMAX 1.43:1 shots and they didn't even bother to use those versions for the 2K versions of the film but instead used a 2K scanned version. I say all this because film is able to got up to around 8K and from then it just doesn't add any more detail. But if you say that at 4K it doesn't look good it's probably because they just upscalled from 2K which again it's what 1080p is really like so you'd be right.
Only rich filmmakers have debates about film vs digital, most of us don't even have access to film, either DSLR, Mirror-less, Digital Cinema or your cellphone, that's it.
That is true for sure. But I think we can all debate on the esthetics as a viewer regardless of if we can afford to make a film or not. You agree? -Ben
@@GoCreativeShow Yes I agree with that, we can debate, but I also think it then becomes the filmmakers who debate about it, where the average viewer doesn't even know/see the difference...it would be like telling the Gen Z and some millennials that Ariana Grande recorded her latest album in a 50's studio on an 8 track with no computer - Okay, we don't know what that means, the only thing that matters is, is the music good. Same with movies, are they well written and acted. I didn't like the latest James Bond (No Time to Die) even if they shot it on digital it would still be the same to me. Basically what I'm saying is some filmmakers mustn't be too caught up on some finer detail that really wouldn't make much of an impact on the larger audience. Would this film (Dune) have sucked if they didn't do the film transfer? Doubt it. Blade Runner I believe was digital, it was great, not because of that but because it was well made.
@@BenTjibe I bet the Ariana Grande album, after it was recorded in a 50ies studio on an 8-track with no computers, was digitally brutalized in mastering to a DR of 5 because it needs to be loud (reasons unknown). Sometimes these things are done just because we need a cozy story for the performer/customer/consumer. We're talking about it now (although I never listen to Ariana Grande) so I guess it worked.
@@BenTjibe "Same with movies, are they well written and acted. I didn't like the latest James Bond (No Time to Die) even if they shot it on digital it would still be the same to me." Exactly. A lot of modern films are just not good, and no amount of artistic or technical wankery can fix a bad script. But then again, I have nothing against artistic perfectionism, if you have the budget. It's a complicated issue...
@@highks496 At the end of the day, digital vs film is all about tools. As Roger Deakins put it “heck i’d shoot Blade Runner on an iphone”. The important parts are the story, the sets, and the lighting.
Considering how shitty most digital projection is, they should have tried to distribute a couple film prints for the few remaining bright film projectors out there.
@@wright96d Dolby Vision can't hold a candle even to a 35mm projector with a bright lamp, let alone to 15 perf 70. When was the last time you actually handled a film reel or cut film by hand? You do realize there's no upper limit to how bright a film projector can be, right, unlike DLP and LCOS? Film also can have inky blacks and completely transparent parts of the emulsion for whites with no measurable bands of sudden compression jumps, unlike EVERY digital panel or projection system that either does something at the foot or the shoulder. And this isn't even getting into the resolution differences.
@@Reticuli Standard film projection is around 48 nits, IMAX is 80, and Dolby Vision is 108. And to get a lamp bright enough for film to match the upcoming DCI HDR standard of 500 nits, you'd vaporize the film long before an image appeared on the screen. If you like the look of film, that's fine. But digital blew past it in every objective technical metric possible a long time ago.
@@wright96d Digital looks lacking compared to film. If they really are putting out higher lamp brightness, it's not apparent in the quality of the image... and that includes the apparent brightness and vibrancy of the image. Neither Real, Dolby, nor IMAX digital has matched many of the 35mm first run prints I've seen in good auditoriums. If their specs are capable of better, they certainly haven't been utilizing them.
This is extremely NOT NEW. We have been doing this for years in both commercials, Music Videos, and features. It’s actually frowned upon in certain circles.
@@chumcool That's what my initial thought on this was. It sounds a bit like hipster audiophiles who listen to vinyl (recorded, mixed and mastered digitally) and claim it sounds "warmer". Either you shoot on film, or you don't. Converting digital recordings to film and back sounds like hifi-voodoo to me. But whatever rocks your boat, if you got the money...
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
That digital sharpness is not something I really like so I understand why this process is necessary. The sharpness on film is just so awesome so organic.
I couldn't agree more. Thanks for watching the interview.
BEN
I´d love to see a before and after.
Yes! That would be fascinating
That's awesome! I really don't understand why more productions don't do this. Digital gives you the most flexibility and highest quality in acquisition, and if you want the look of film, transferring to *actual film* gives you the look of *actual film*.
On a large special effects film it can be an option especially for challenging environments. Film is superior on every level.
@@bighands69 Film is not superior on every level at all. If that were true, none of the old movies from yesteryear ever had to be restored. In reality, those films often have significant problems due to film degrading and can only be restored with _digital_ techniques. For special effects digital is a no-brainer anyway. You want the cleanest possible possible negative before putting the effects in. It's exactly the reason why the special effects people love the Alexa camera's as they are the best.
Film is not as easy to use as digital on the set, it doesn't give instant viewing, it degrades with every step of the printing and processing process, it degrades over time with wear and tear, dirt, scratches, warping, fading, flickering, breathing etc. Then there's grain which certainly wasn't present on the set either. None of these problems occur with digital cinematography.
@@BlaBla-jj6sh
The master copies of the digital will still need to be maintained and in 50 years time they could have issues if not properly looked after. Now that is not what I was alluding to when talking about film being superior.
I am talking about picture quality in terms of how film looks far more subtle and the reason why digital looks so sharp and harsh is to do with the fact that digital is just a system of contrast with no subtlety in colors.
HDR simply cannot complete with the photochemical effects of the process of films. I am afraid the digital is nowhere near the chemical processing abilities of film.
Film grain can be pleasing , it gives off an atmosphere. Just gotta know how to use it. Still Digital is superior and with all the softwares today we can create a lot of film looks that looks just as good. Film emulations is the thing, if you don't want to cover the expenses of real film. All these people saying that real film looks superior, but if I show them two frames of the same shot , one on film and one in digital graded to look like film with dehancer etc, they wouldn't know which is which
@@researchproject034 this is absolutely not true lol. people want film for the dynamic range and the fidelity. that is something film can do that digital has been trying (in vain) to get to. they've gotten close, and some digital sensors have gotten really close. but no digital sensor can capture what celluloid can.
Brilliant film and visuals, I come form the world of music production and debate of digital audio vs analogue reel to reel is a big one. I am fascinated by the fact they couldn't film staight up 35mm but did digital and then transferred to film. I am curious if the digital gave more range and control vs just filming straight digital. My question is did they film raw, do color correction etc then transfer to film? Who provides this service?
Rich man's film grain filter.
Indeed.
-Ben
Yes and no.
It does allow them to color grade but at the same time allow them to present a more natural looking production.
For a large production it is much cheaper for them to use that film filter process than to try and go through every frame and correct.
Autocorrection software does make the process faster but it cannot compete with a frame by frame approach.
@@bighands69 the emulsions also have a chemical reaction with the light, not something software really models all that well because it reacts to different light colours differently, at the end of the day it's just artistic choice.
If I make an movie (especially a 2D animated film) I want it for sure printed on film, maybe even showed on film
I can see that
Great insight. Thank you for uploading! Think they may have found the magic sauce - as it looked beautiful
It certainly does. Thanks for listening
-Ben
This technique should be used more often.
Agreed
Seems that Resolve can't quite do everything. ;-)
I recall an interview with Sean Baker, director of 'The Florida Project'. He shot the night scenes on digital, and did a film-out of those scenes instead of using film emulation. He preferred the way it looked, particularly the light sources.
Oh interesting… I’d love to have him on the show to talk about that.
-Ben
Wonder if there's any viable options for indie film makers to do this process
Not sure, but that would be great if there were
Really interesting and it's stimulated me into sending some of my digital stills to be converted to film slides which I'll then have scanned back to digital. However, my gut instinct is that they won't be dissimilar to the Photoshoped or Lightroomed versions I already have. But it'll be interesting to compare. I'm sure they tried but I would have thought simply by shooting on the Arri with Cooke lenses and then editing in Avid (or whatever post editing system they used) with the correct plugin (may have to have been custom made) they would have ended up with the same result and possibly less time consuming and costly. I don't know...Interesting nonetheless...
That is an interest experiment, Mike. Forgive the pedantic nature of my question, but: What’s the process to transfer digital stills onto film slides?
Mike, you have to try this. I’d love to see the results.
- Ben
@@GoCreativeShow The slides have been sent and as soon as I receive them I'll get them scanned. I'll then do a quick vid with side by side comparisons.
I've now received the slides and have asked Photographique in Bristol to do two C-Type prints to compare to my own inkjet prints. As far as the scans were concerned there was very little difference, although with the B&W ones (which had already been treated with Silver Efex Pro 2 in Photoshop) I actually preferred the tranny scan. This probably is because the 'grain' which it collected from the Acros Silver Efex Pro treatment was added to by the 'real' grain from the tranny. Also, the contrast was slightly reduced, though not uniformly. I'll do a vid once I have all the comparisons.
@@MikeKleinsteuber I can’t wait to see it.
Hi, can anyone please guide me…how to transfer MiniDV footage to 35mm celluloid film….
I wish I knew, thats an interesting question. What are you trying to do? Sounds cool
@@GoCreativeShow well…I am thinking of shooting a short film on VHS or Mini DV to get the 90s vibe authentically. But film festivals ask for HD or higher resolution screeners. So I was trying to figure out a way to deal with that. I have seen many films in the past that were shot on lower resolution formats and then screened in cinema hall screens. So thought maybe there is a solution to this somewhere…
@@asapfilms2519 what if you just upscale in the project file. I've shot on mini DV and did this. it doesn't really change anything except making the file 1080 instead of 480
@@asapfilms2519upscale it
Ironically doing the filmout will actually HELP to preserve the movie while all other 100% digital filmproductions of our time will simply vanish in the digital dataloss void at one point.
I wonder if the same effect works with a 65mm transfer? Like if you film on a 12k camera and then transfer the footage onto 65. Would it look soft but crisp or about the same?
That's an interesting idea. now I'm curious too. Thanks for watching.
BEN
@@GoCreativeShow
Thank you for the video Ben, it was probably the best video that explained the method. I was looking at Dolbe’s video on how Greg did the transfer on the Batman but they used a lot of very technical terms that I didn’t understand. You guys were able to explain it much better!
@@tallerwarrior1256 That's so nice to hear! I appreciate it.
BEN
@@tallerwarrior1256
The biggest bottle neck with your approach is that the cinema projectors are only 4k and many will actually show a 2k source that has been upscaled for the projector.
I have visited hundreds of digital theatres and the majority of them produce a horrible looking image that no 65mm process would even be able to better.
The screen door effect is present on nearly every theatre I have been to.
@@bighands69
True but normally with 12K cameras or 65, most showings show a downscaled version since they’re not IMAX or Dolby screenings. But again it would be interesting to emulate the soft yet crisp texture that 70mm has without actually filming on over budget 65.
Looking forward to the Batman!
I actually found this video because I'm disappointed at Dune's blu-ray quality, which really isn't to par with modern stuff, it's grainy and blurry in many shots. Does everyone find this process fantastic, as the comments suggest?
That’s interesting. I haven’t seen the blu ray.
Very interesting 🤔🤔🤔
Yes, Film just can't give you wrong or atificial colors, advantage to Digital ... have the best of both worlds😄
Exactly
I bet you could get a similar result using software/filters/etc
You really think so? I don't know about that. This process seems creates a lot of unique qualities. Maybe they could have gotten close, but with a movie as big as Dune, I understand why they wanted it perfect.
Thanks for watching.
-Ben
@@GoCreativeShow you’re absolutely right! Love the show btw :)
tbh I'd rather trust the professional Cinematographer over some rando on RUclips
@@lewisfilms
There are absolutely no digital systems that can offer the 8k resolution of 35mm film, color details and the texture of the grain.
Maybe there will be some system in the future that can do it but we are nowhere near that point.
@@KingPWNinater same
Its interesting to hear it from the horses mouth on why they did this. It sounds like there wasn't really that much thought given to other aspects other than the feel of it. By his own admission here Grieg wasn't thinking about the technical side. Its weird that some filmmakers are really clued into the latest technology and to others it doesn't even seem like a factor. Watching the 4K blu ray at home, you can clearly see the resolution limitation that the 35mm scan brings. From my own viewing, 35mm is only good enough for 1080p and only movies like Tenet that were shot on 70mm film actually look like true 4K. On Interstellar there are scenes shot on 35mm and its a night and day difference.
I have to see the 4K blu ray now... thanks for the note.. and for watching the interview.
BEN
That's probably because the film was scanned in 2K. That's what they usually go for distribution since most theatre projectors have that resolution. Usually, to reduce the time consuming process of doing it in 4K and then downgrading to 2K they go with 2K and fake the 4K by upscaling with digital software showing the limitations that you mention. For this film, they probably only scanned 4K for the IMAX 1.43:1 shots and they didn't even bother to use those versions for the 2K versions of the film but instead used a 2K scanned version.
I say all this because film is able to got up to around 8K and from then it just doesn't add any more detail. But if you say that at 4K it doesn't look good it's probably because they just upscalled from 2K which again it's what 1080p is really like so you'd be right.
@@Jorge_Ambruster Interesting. Would be great to confirm this.
Only rich filmmakers have debates about film vs digital, most of us don't even have access to film, either DSLR, Mirror-less, Digital Cinema or your cellphone, that's it.
That is true for sure. But I think we can all debate on the esthetics as a viewer regardless of if we can afford to make a film or not. You agree?
-Ben
@@GoCreativeShow Yes I agree with that, we can debate, but I also think it then becomes the filmmakers who debate about it, where the average viewer doesn't even know/see the difference...it would be like telling the Gen Z and some millennials that Ariana Grande recorded her latest album in a 50's studio on an 8 track with no computer - Okay, we don't know what that means, the only thing that matters is, is the music good.
Same with movies, are they well written and acted. I didn't like the latest James Bond (No Time to Die) even if they shot it on digital it would still be the same to me.
Basically what I'm saying is some filmmakers mustn't be too caught up on some finer detail that really wouldn't make much of an impact on the larger audience. Would this film (Dune) have sucked if they didn't do the film transfer? Doubt it. Blade Runner I believe was digital, it was great, not because of that but because it was well made.
@@BenTjibe I bet the Ariana Grande album, after it was recorded in a 50ies studio on an 8-track with no computers, was digitally brutalized in mastering to a DR of 5 because it needs to be loud (reasons unknown). Sometimes these things are done just because we need a cozy story for the performer/customer/consumer. We're talking about it now (although I never listen to Ariana Grande) so I guess it worked.
@@BenTjibe "Same with movies, are they well written and acted. I didn't like the latest James Bond (No Time to Die) even if they shot it on digital it would still be the same to me."
Exactly. A lot of modern films are just not good, and no amount of artistic or technical wankery can fix a bad script. But then again, I have nothing against artistic perfectionism, if you have the budget. It's a complicated issue...
@@highks496 At the end of the day, digital vs film is all about tools. As Roger Deakins put it “heck i’d shoot Blade Runner on an iphone”. The important parts are the story, the sets, and the lighting.
Add adjustment layer, gaussian blur, add Filmconvert, grain 50%. Boomtown. lolololol
Hahaha. If only it were that easy.
-Ben.
@@GoCreativeShow It does kinda feel like purposely using bad lenses is that silly though.
Maybe if you system was powered by unicorn sweet it may work.
Considering how shitty most digital projection is, they should have tried to distribute a couple film prints for the few remaining bright film projectors out there.
Dolby Vision projection is brighter than even IMAX...
@@wright96d Dolby Vision can't hold a candle even to a 35mm projector with a bright lamp, let alone to 15 perf 70. When was the last time you actually handled a film reel or cut film by hand? You do realize there's no upper limit to how bright a film projector can be, right, unlike DLP and LCOS? Film also can have inky blacks and completely transparent parts of the emulsion for whites with no measurable bands of sudden compression jumps, unlike EVERY digital panel or projection system that either does something at the foot or the shoulder. And this isn't even getting into the resolution differences.
@@Reticuli Standard film projection is around 48 nits, IMAX is 80, and Dolby Vision is 108. And to get a lamp bright enough for film to match the upcoming DCI HDR standard of 500 nits, you'd vaporize the film long before an image appeared on the screen. If you like the look of film, that's fine. But digital blew past it in every objective technical metric possible a long time ago.
@@wright96d Digital looks lacking compared to film. If they really are putting out higher lamp brightness, it's not apparent in the quality of the image... and that includes the apparent brightness and vibrancy of the image. Neither Real, Dolby, nor IMAX digital has matched many of the 35mm first run prints I've seen in good auditoriums. If their specs are capable of better, they certainly haven't been utilizing them.
@@Reticuli Have you ever heard of the placebo effect?
This is extremely NOT NEW. We have been doing this for years in both commercials, Music Videos, and features. It’s actually frowned upon in certain circles.
You’ve tried it yourself? How did you like the final result?
Ben
@@GoCreativeShow Yes. To be quite honest, placebo effect. But hey... whatever the client wants.
@@chumcool That's what my initial thought on this was. It sounds a bit like hipster audiophiles who listen to vinyl (recorded, mixed and mastered digitally) and claim it sounds "warmer". Either you shoot on film, or you don't. Converting digital recordings to film and back sounds like hifi-voodoo to me. But whatever rocks your boat, if you got the money...
Converting to film, then back to digital, is frowned upon literally nowhere dude
@@KingPWNinater Okey Dokey Hipster. Stay Opinionated.