Warner Bros. doing digital transfers

[miker]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2114143/fr/rss/

They spent millions of dollars to repair, properly store, and in some cases meticulously restore original negatives, black-and-white nitrates, or duplicate copies.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because film ages so well, right?

Then there's Warner's work with Technicolor. Even with careful preservation, color negatives fade over time. But Technicolor negatives can look as good as new after decades. This is because Technicolor films consisted of three black-and-white negatives, which ran simultaneously through a special camera. Light hit each film strip through a prism filter. Afterward, each film strip was coated with a dye, and the three strips were then aligned, on top of one another, to form a coherent color image. It was a complex, costly process, which lasted only from 1935-54. (For a succinct detailed elaboration, click here.) The point is that black-and-white negatives don't fade

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

In some ways, these DVDs have finer color and detail than even the original film prints. In the old days, it was difficult to align those three strips perfectly. The task became still harder years later, when the films were reissued (or turned into earlier DVD transfers), because the negatives had stretched or shrunk over time. If you need all three strips to get the right color, and you can't line the strips up precisely, then the colors and the sharpness are going to be a bit off. However, with digital technology, the three strips can be aligned with absolute precision.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Distorted negatives? Tsk.

Another thing that makes the recent batch of Warner DVDs look so good: high-speed digital scanning. When a film is turned into a DVD, the first step is to scan each frame digitally and to store the data on a hard drive. The more times a frame is scanned, the more coherent is the resulting picture. Many DVD studios now scan films at "high-definition"?or 1,080 lines. Warners is one of just a few that scan at 2,000 lines (or, in the parlance, "2K scanning"). Soon, beginning with a Wizard of Oz reissue later this year, it will start releasing Technicolor DVDs scanned at 4,000 lines ("4K scanning"). This is a significant number. Engineers estimate that if you digitally reproduced all the information on a frame of 35mm film, you'd need about 4,000 lines of data. In other words, at least theoretically (and for more on this caveat, click here), 4K scanning captures everything that's on a film.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">4K scanning captures everything that's on a film.
I will repeat that:
4K scanning captures everything that's on a film.

Now, I'm most definitely not defending crappy 720x576 DV or any magnetic media here, but surely any fool can see the writing on the wall for film, even eventually for acquisition? Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon ...

[jb_617]

Not this again.

Film rules.


-----------------------

Fin.

[sn-films]

Originally posted by miker:
Now, I'm most definitely not defending crappy 720x576 DV or any magnetic media here, but surely any fool can see the writing on the wall for film, even eventually for acquisition? Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon ...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, but until that day comes we will still rely on 35mm film to capture our flying monkeys and dancing munchkins with 694% more clarity and precision. [img]wink.gif[/img]

Actually, the numbers in the article raise an interesting point. If 4K scanning fully captures 35mm film, then some basic math, and some generous rounding, could lead one to the following conclusion...

2K scanning = 16mm film
1K scanning = 8mm film

Taking that a step further, one of the HD formats is 1080-interlaced. Now, if the shot was tweaked at the acquisition phase such that the shot was native 1080-progressive at 24fps, wouldn't that be the same theoretical resolution as 8mm film from a strictly quantitative perspective? Just something to think about. Obviously, there would be distinct differences between the modified-HD image and 8mm film, but I still think its interesting...

Thanks for the article.

[miker]

A device that can scan film at 4k resolution? Do you know how physically big such a device would be? Huge, the size of a room.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We're talking digital and computers here. I remember when computers took up whole rooms. Now you have more processing power on your laptop than NASA had to put a man on the moon. But it didn't happen overnight.

I didn't say film is dead. But ask me again in 25 years.

Let's not forget that many films you watch today have been through a digital scanner, had effects applied, and then printed back to film. Some of the first I remember are Young Sherlock Holmes and 1492. And digitial is used for rig removal all the time on films you wouldn't even think needed digital effects.

And as for film being at atomic level, it's all about silver phosphate as I understand it (not being a chemist or an atomic scientist)

If I was to say that broadcasters are committed to going tapeless by 2010, would anyone cry over the death of tape? I sincerely hope not. Surely we should all be in favour of cheaper, high resolution formats whether they be film or digital? If digital gives film a reason to become competitive, perhaps film will get even better.

I didn't mean this to become yet another meaningless film vs digital debate, so I'll let Richard C. Sehlin of Kodak have the last word:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/m...2/sehlin.shtml

QUESTION: Can you foresee a time when Kodak will abandon film in favor of digital image capture?

SEHLIN: I've been in this business for about 25 years, and I can say that this is easily the most fascinating time I've seen. The next few years are going to be a lot of fun, watching how the creative community uses the new film, digital and hybrid tools. We make some of the best digital still cameras available today, so we have that as a frame of reference. There are still fundamental differences in the ways that film and digital images are recorded, perceived and stored, and I don't see that changing. I believe that the first time video vendors predicted the end of film was around 1956 when a banner headline on the front page of Daily Variety said, "Film Is Dead!" after the introduction of the Ampex two-inch videotape system. I remember when videophiles made the same predictions in 1981, after the first analog HDTV system was introduced. Just look at the progress we have made during the subsequent two decades. I read and hear all of the digital hype continuing to predict the death of film, and I get a kick out of it because I know what the possibilities are for the future.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[sn-films]

Originally posted by Peter_G:
You're very much entering the realm of the subjective here. As you no doubt know, resolution as we understand it from the lexicon of video and computers does not apply to film.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's why I said "theoretical" resolution. Obviously, there are major differences between the two mediums. I just took the comment from the engineers at Warner Brothers that 4K scanning captures everything that's on a film, and ran with it.

Out of curiosity, I did some quick math to see exactly how big that room would need to be to store the images that result result from 4K scanning. Uncompressed, I came up with around 10 terrabytes. If they use something similar to TGA compression instead, that number could drop as low as 1.6 terrabytes. Can someone double-check the math on that one? I'm just curious about the logistics involved with Warner Brothers process.

[Nigel]

Sorry I have been out on a job shooting--FILM.

This thread is about two different things:

1) Scanning/Transfer/TK

2) Origination

--------------
If we are talking Transfer of film to a digital format be it Tape or Hard-Drive then 2K and 4K are the best you can get. The transfer house I use doees 2K scans and I have seen some demos and talked some numbers and discovered that a 2K scan may or may not have an edge over traditional printing.

When you scan and then color correct you are using the full color space of the film on a 4:4:4 logrithmic level. However, film does not work on a log scale--It is organic and doesn't always fit into what a computer sees. Plus, who says that 4:4:4 is the best maybe if amp goes to 11 then 8:8:8 would be better??

Moreover, when you scan you have "What You See Is What You Get" print. Thus, avoiding having to make multiple answer prints to correct problems. Thereby cutting out the IP-IN-AP-RP printing chain which with each series of prints you lose a bt of resolution. Even after the loss you are still looking better than any video formats.

If WB is scanning all of their films for DVD release that only makes sense. Since in the end it would be the easiest way to either strike more prints or dumb the resolution down to NTSC and PAL levels.


Now, as for Originaton. There are some 2/4K cameras like the Viper, Dalsa or the Genesis. However, the downside to these cameras is that they are connected to a RAID with a cord. We are talking 15 to 30 TerraBytes for a short.

Plus, while they do look more like 35. They still are not there--4:4:4 Color. They still look like video(Which is the problem with any CCD or CMOS). Sure you will see their ads in the rags touting that "It's All There" yet on the page with 300dpi none of it is there.

Video has supposed to be killing film since it was invented and yet it hasn't. So they are trying to save some 70 year old popular films. Big Deal...Who can play the 50 year old Video tapes??

I understand that this board is filled with people that shoot on tape. But this is hardly a demonstration of how video is killiing film. It is more about how advances in technology are being used to save some things we all have enjoyed.

Good Luck
PS--If anyone here wants to do a test of their favorite DV camera next to film let me know.

[peter_g]

Taking that a step further, one of the HD formats is 1080-interlaced. Now, if the shot was tweaked at the acquisition phase such that the shot was native 1080-progressive at 24fps, wouldn't that be the same theoretical resolution as 8mm film from a strictly quantitative perspective? Just something to think about. Obviously, there would be distinct differences between the modified-HD image and 8mm film, but I still think its interesting...[

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you mean if you were to telecine an 8mm film negative and transfer onto a high definition format the quality of the HD video would be equal to the original negative?

You're very much entering the realm of the subjective here. As you no doubt know, resolution as we understand it from the lexicon of video and computers does not apply to film. A piece of film does not have pixels. It is a physical thing. Does the HD image recreate the 8mm negative perfectly, right down to atomic level? Does the HD projector recreate every photon that the 8mm projector projects? Is it possible to see the intricate details of an individual piece of grain on a frame of 8mm film from this HD image? No. Your reasoning is derived from error:

4K scanning captures everything that's on a film.
I will repeat that:
4K scanning captures everything that's on a film.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it doesn?t. Special effects guys render at 4k to transfer to 35mm, that?s all. The consensus seems to be that this looks pretty good. What is my point? Stop trying to understand film in video terms. It simply does not have a resolution.

As for Miker?s hilarious claim that:

surely any fool can see the writing on the wall for film

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will now proceed to debunk:

A device that can scan film at 4k resolution? Do you know how physically big such a device would be? Huge, the size of a room. Think about it. Even with moderate compression, such a device would create videos that were terabytes in size and would need massive processing power, massive disk space and an industrial electricity outlet. It scans one frame at a time and it doesn?t scan the image in anything approaching real time. Thus, it will be a long time before a digital camera exists that can record at 4k. It will be at least a decade or two before it becomes possible, never mind practical. Besides, 4k resolution is approaching being the highest resolution appreciable by the human eye.

More importantly, as I have said many times before, it?s not merely a matter of resolution. Why do you think most big budget drama series shoot on 35mm knowing that they will broadcast at standard definition?

[sn-films]

Nigel - excellent points regarding the workflow vs. acquisition! Too bad there's no way for most of us to actually see a side-by-side comparison of original 35mm content vs. content printed from a 2K or 4K scan.

I did a quick search for film scanners and found this beast. I would guess that this is similar to what WB is using to restore and archive their movies.

http://www.mediav.com.sg/scanner

It scans 35mm film at 4,000 lines and uses Kodak's 10-bit Cineon format. What's interesting about the Cineon format is that it uses 10-bit color channels, whereas most of us usually work with 8-bit formats such as DV, JPG, TGA, etc. The increase in the bits per color channel means the format is capable of storing more colors than NTSC or PAL formats, which ultimately yields more subtle variations. Nigel, I think this amp DOES go to "11". Then again, maybe they just made "10" louder.

Having more fun with the numbers, it looks like this beast will need 15 terrabytes for a 120 minute movie using a 4K scan in the Cineon file format. In order to do any realtime previews on this beast, the hardware needs to be capable of reading and rendering over 2GB of image data every second! By comparison, a new SATA hard drive for a typical home computer has a maximum sustained throughput of 150 MB/sec.

If I had one, I'd name it HAL.

[Nigel]

I have seen material from a 2k Scan that was shot on 35mm. You probably have too if you go to the movies. The first move to go through a 2k DI was "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?"

There are a few machines out there Sony has the Vialta, Thompson has the Spirit, And there are a couple others like the one you mentioned.

Bit rate is a huge part of what you see. When you icrease bit rate you are increasing dynamic range of the colors. When you put full strength color onto all channels you get better color.

Good Luck

[peter_g]

There is a great London based post production facility and lab, Soho images that has a spirit datacine. It processes a new, master negative from the camera negative based on an EDL. I would use it if I was going to make something on 35mm ? it is only slightly more expensive then hiring a neg cutter. I?d like to point out that I don?t appose digital post production and distribution at all ? I welcome it. I just think that it?s was silly of Miker (whom I respect) to cite a 4k scanner as evidence of films impending doom, even as a format for Origination.