You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

28 Days Later shot on XL1?!?!?

Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 4:52am

Post 1 of 41

tmaynard

Force: 450 | Joined: 15th Aug 2003 | Posts: 164

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I just recently bought the 28 Days Later DVD, and on the making of it states that they shot it on Digital Video. Now, as far as the Camera they used im pretty sure it was an XL1 for that was all I could see them using while they were explaining the use of Digital Video. Every movie I have seen shot with an XL1 hasn't even came CLOSE to the filmlike appearance of 28 Days Later. I would love to know exactly how they did it and got such great results? Thanks.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 5:42am

Post 2 of 41

MovieGuy334

Force: 560 | Joined: 18th May 2003 | Posts: 172

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

You know I am not sure. However, my dad is a photographer and we both now that the glass (lens) really REALLY makes a differance. The XL1 and XL1s--i'm sure you know--is very cool because there are hundreds of different lens/accesories you can use with it (if you have the money)

-MovieGuy334
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 6:11am

Post 3 of 41

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm pretty sure it's just a pro lens, and plenty of post work.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 6:26am

Post 4 of 41

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, it must have been shot on some kind of broadcast lens.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 7:07am

Post 5 of 41

ari

Force: 1219 | Joined: 4th Oct 2002 | Posts: 164

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

i heard that when it was in theaters it was bad quality but when it came out on dvd it was better quality and looked more like film.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 7:30am

Post 6 of 41

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Actually, it was the same quality in theaters and on DVD, but since it's shot on minidv, it looks better on DVD, since it's small format, as opposed to blown up on the screen. I didn't think it looked all that bad on the screen though.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 8:07am

Post 7 of 41

tmaynard

Force: 450 | Joined: 15th Aug 2003 | Posts: 164

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Thats very interesting. When trying to achieve the film look would you suggest me to stray in the Canon XL1 and XL1s direction... Or the Panasonic AG-DVX100a direction? I have heard the AG is MUCH better at achieving a good film look, but after I heard they used XL1 for 28 Days Later it blew me away. Also, is there as many compatible lenses and accesories for the AG as there is for the XL1? On a Final note, I would love for someone to attempt the feat of making their XL1/XL1s video looking as "filmlike" as 28 Days Later, and somewhat explain what they went through to get the look. It would be interesting to see.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 8:26am

Post 8 of 41

otteypm

Force: 1494 | Joined: 29th Mar 2001 | Posts: 775

Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

28 Days later had a 'Film Look' because they treated the production like a film. Lighting, setup, composition editing sets, locations etc etc all went to making it look like film, unfortunately there is no magical box that can make your stuff look wonderful, you have to have the working knowledge and experiance of the equipment to get the best out of it.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 8:56am

Post 9 of 41

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yes, what ottey says is true. And also, there's really no set "film look", since all films are different, but if you really want your movie to look like it was shot on film, shoot it on film. Although, I have no idea why you'd want to do that...
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 9:02am

Post 10 of 41

otteypm

Force: 1494 | Joined: 29th Mar 2001 | Posts: 775

Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah 'Film Look' is a fairly random term, you can't really compare the look of Seven to the look of Weekend At Bernies...
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 9:21am

Post 11 of 41

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I personally think that 28 Days Later looked pretty terrible in the cinema. It looked less so terrible on DVD but you can still notice the transition to film for the last section.

The digital stuff had quite a fake "film look" about it which I think is due to a huge amount of post processing with software like magic bullet
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 10:39am

Post 12 of 41

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

schwar wrote:


The digital stuff had quite a fake "film look" about it which I think is due to a huge amount of post processing with software like magic bullet
Does anyone find this funny? No offence.

razz
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 10:42am

Post 13 of 41

tmaynard

Force: 450 | Joined: 15th Aug 2003 | Posts: 164

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah, Well the movie I guess you could say had a decently good achievement at a film look. I really could tell a difference from it to other movies shot with an XL1. It just took me as surprize they used digital. I never saw the film in theatres, so I don't really know where you guys are coming from about the quality of it on the big screen. Overall though I thought they did a good job with the quality of the film on the DVD, I just thought it was excellent.. but that could just be my own personal experience with digital video achieving the film look. So, If you had the choice would you go XL1 or AG? Also, is their any other films that used DV and got better results then 28 Days Later, Im really curious to see what can be acheived. Thanks for your input!
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 10:48am

Post 14 of 41

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Film, when blown up to the big screen, has an infinite (theoretically) resolution. Digital is confined within pixels. There are only a certain amount of pixels in MiniDV. Making digital bigger then worsens the quality.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 10:53am

Post 15 of 41

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

That's always the argument of film students too...

When I was in school, we got to watch our final projects in a screening room on Universal's backlot, and one kid in my class shot his final on his XL1s instead of 16mm. I thought his looked better than anyone elses, even blown up. Of course, an XL1 or any minidv cam can't compare to 35mm, but I do think it gives it an interesting look, and it's certainly encouraging to those of us who shoot on video to see something like that on the screen and in the spotlight.

Did any of that make sense?
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 10:58am

Post 16 of 41

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Here's a list of some filmns shot on digital, for those interested. It's incomplete though

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/ulbp/bullfront.html
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 12:10pm

Post 17 of 41

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

It also helps that the video was transferred to film as it helps give the "film motion" which is as much, if not more important, than the "film look" to achieve the cinematic effect. Hence, when transferred back to DVD, the film has a "film motion" and partially a "film look" because it is on film now after all - it goes through a telecine process and you end end with 24 frames spread over 50i (for PAL) or 24 over 60 i (for NTSC), basically giving the same treatment as any other film, completing the illusion on a small screen like a TV...
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 12:53pm

Post 18 of 41

billy3d

Force: 2678 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2002 | Posts: 1273

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

yup, i think ur right john biggrin
one more thing, magic bullet is only good for NTSC user's, not for Pal dude's, magic bullet just makes the footage progressive for pal footage, and even the look suite is very slow, and takes a lot of time to render.
I recommend 55mm (plugin for AE) got some cool filters, not a full colour corrector, but does simple effect's and is fast!
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 6:20pm

Post 19 of 41

tmaynard

Force: 450 | Joined: 15th Aug 2003 | Posts: 164

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Interesting, Thanks for all the input guys. Also, Billy, what's this 55mm Plugin you speak of?
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 6:25pm

Post 20 of 41

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

BigFX FilmFX is very good, and very very fast.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 6:40pm

Post 21 of 41

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Firstly get a vx2100 razz

Secondly, film and analogue in general does not have infinate resolution, it just shows it in a different way. It is quite a tricky concept to understand and I was trying to explain it to a noob in the #fxhome channel a few weeks ago. They couldn't understand how analogue could ever be worse than digital since it has 'a smooth signal' whereas digital is sampled. Analogue doesn't store infinite detail, it just goes blurry instead of steppy.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 6:42pm

Post 22 of 41

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

But how cool would it be if something could be projected to a theoretically infinite size? Oh man, that'd be cool.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 6:59pm

Post 23 of 41

PhLogan

Force: 490 | Joined: 1st May 2004 | Posts: 290

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

between here |............................................................................................................................................................................| and here cool (thats alot, trust me.)
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 7:03pm

Post 24 of 41

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

When scanning standard 35mm film you would be hard pressed to get an image with no grain at over 3000dpi. That tends to give you an image which is around 4000 pixels in width. The best digital equipment at the moment is still under half that (HD1080 which is 1920x1080 pixels). Your bog standard DV camera is just 720x480 pixels so its not hard to see why DV footage looks a bit blocky on the cinema screen when it has under 1/5th the resolution of film.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 7:23pm

Post 25 of 41

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

35mm film is superior, and the fact that it can provide grainless images is impressive, BUT, to be honest... most of us here won't exactly be having our films shown at 'The Odeon' on a screen the size of around 50 elephants all piled up on top of eachother.

I've never used 35mm myself, but I've been told countless times that MiniDV gives you huge flexibility and control in how your film looks.

I'm quite happy using MiniDV, the only weakness for me is that it picks up HUGE amounts of grain - which looks amateurish and horrible.

Interesting post schwar, It's handy to have facts like that biggrin
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 8:01pm

Post 26 of 41

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

It only looks grainy if you have bad lighting.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 8:17pm

Post 27 of 41

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

JohnCarter wrote:

It also helps that the video was transferred to film as it helps give the "film motion" which is as much, if not more important, than the "film look" to achieve the cinematic effect. Hence, when transferred back to DVD, the film has a "film motion" and partially a "film look" because it is on film now after all - it goes through a telecine process and you end end with 24 frames spread over 50i (for PAL) or 24 over 60 i (for NTSC), basically giving the same treatment as any other film, completing the illusion on a small screen like a TV...
The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. Are you sure they telecined the movie from a film print? It makes eternally more sense to me that since the film was created on a digital source, they would just take the purely digital source and put it on the DVD, except for the end.

Why would they bother shooting on digital, transfering to film for theaters, then telecine-ing back to digital for DVD? I'd imagine there'd be somewhat of a quality loss if that was the case. And from what it sounds (I wouldn't know), the film looks much better on DVD than it did in theaters.

Someone explain this to me.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2004, 9:34pm

Post 28 of 41

Cutty201

Force: 188 | Joined: 14th Apr 2004 | Posts: 327

Windows User

Member

Aculag wrote:

That's always the argument of film students too...

When I was in school, we got to watch our final projects in a screening room on Universal's backlot, and one kid in my class shot his final on his XL1s instead of 16mm. I thought his looked better than anyone elses, even blown up. Of course, an XL1 or any minidv cam can't compare to 35mm, but I do think it gives it an interesting look, and it's certainly encouraging to those of us who shoot on video to see something like that on the screen and in the spotlight.

Did any of that make sense?
::tear:: Ya This video film thing has had me since day 1. When you are in post and thinking about how to make your film look crazy like film its all well and dandy until you see something that comes and smacks you in the face... I recently felt that smack in the face (again) from mmmProd's "NO!!!!" the second he said ya we shot that on 35mm ... I have then decided that Video doesn't capture the skin tones right... but then thought and was like...stfu haven't you watched the News...or CPAN... and was like "Damn your Right" ... I COMPLETELY forgot about the lens... I never even THOUGHT to factor that into the equation.

I am gonna get my hands on a Super8 Camera and mess around with that and see how far I get... though I guess the first step I really should be taking is moving up to a GL2 from my Sony TrV-240
Posted: Fri, 18th Jun 2004, 4:58pm

Post 29 of 41

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

Why would they bother shooting on digital, transfering to film for theaters, then telecine-ing back to digital for DVD? I'd imagine there'd be somewhat of a quality loss if that was the case. And from what it sounds (I wouldn't know), the film looks much better on DVD than it did in theaters.
It isn't better quality on DVD than shown on film. It simply looks better because its shown smaller.

There are a lot of reasons to go via film, including the fim look(tm) and the fact that it makes the conversion to the different final formats more standard and probably cheaper than doing something out of the ordinary. Also part of the film was shot on film anyway.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jun 2004, 5:33pm

Post 30 of 41

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

It only looks grainy if you have bad lighting.
True, but DV captures more natural grain and there's nothing you can do about it. It's hard to see but it's allways present, no matter what you shoot your on and how your scene is lit.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jun 2004, 6:09pm

Post 31 of 41

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

JohnCarter wrote:

It also helps that the video was transferred to film as it helps give the "film motion" which is as much, if not more important, than the "film look" to achieve the cinematic effect. Hence, when transferred back to DVD, the film has a "film motion" and partially a "film look" because it is on film now after all - it goes through a telecine process and you end end with 24 frames spread over 50i (for PAL) or 24 over 60 i (for NTSC), basically giving the same treatment as any other film, completing the illusion on a small screen like a TV...
The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. Are you sure they telecined the movie from a film print? It makes eternally more sense to me that since the film was created on a digital source, they would just take the purely digital source and put it on the DVD, except for the end.

Why would they bother shooting on digital, transfering to film for theaters, then telecine-ing back to digital for DVD? I'd imagine there'd be somewhat of a quality loss if that was the case. And from what it sounds (I wouldn't know), the film looks much better on DVD than it did in theaters.

Someone explain this to me.
if you used the originial digital footage, you wouldn't get teh film motion.

Also, as kid said, it's easier to transfer from film to the various world standards than trying to do it from whatever DV they used and go to DV PAL, DV NTSC, DV Japanese NTSC, DV SECAM and so on... The nightmares are endless... Also if you want to do a HD version for the few broadcasters that do HD, it's preferable to stay in film. And after paying half a gazillion dollars to have your video transferred to film in the first place, wouldn't you use that as your master?

You have a slight loss in resolution because the information isn't there when you go from video to film but when you downgrade later, film to vdeo, the loss is imperceptible on first generation copies because film has (currently) more resolution than all other medium you could transfer to.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jun 2004, 6:11pm

Post 32 of 41

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

JohnCarter wrote:

if you used the originial digital footage, you wouldn't get teh film motion.

Also, as kid said, it's easier to transfer from film to the various world standards than trying to do it from whatever DV they used and go to DV PAL, DV NTSC, DV Japanese NTSC, DV SECAM and so on... The nightmares are endless... Also if you want to do a HD version for the few broadcasters that do HD, it's preferable to stay in film. And after paying half a gazillion dollars to have your video transferred to film in the first place, wouldn't you use that as your master?

You have a slight loss in resolution because the information isn't there when you go from video to film but when you downgrade later, film to vdeo, the loss is imperceptible on first generation copies because film has (currently) more resolution than all other medium you could transfer to.
Ok, I guess that makes sense. I guess I thought they only transferred it to film the first place for distribution.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jun 2004, 8:54pm

Post 33 of 41

Cutty201

Force: 188 | Joined: 14th Apr 2004 | Posts: 327

Windows User

Member

Any who it doesn't matter smile in 5 - 10 years I predict hollywood will no longer be using film. Lucasfilms and sony are currently working on developing the latest & greatest in Digital Video for Hollywood. This collaboration started after the completion of Star Wars Episode 2, which was also NOT SHOT on film but digitally. The quality was g0dlike in my opinion and If they are going to be making and even better camera than the ones used it is most definately going to be the standard. Video is much more versatile (if you ask me) than film and one of the main factors holding it back in hollywood is the quality difference between video and film, which is now being closed.... HOWEVER the money not spent on the film will be spent on the cameras smile Seeing as how those crazsy cams being developed and the ones used in SW:EP2 are like 50+ Grand each smile
Posted: Fri, 18th Jun 2004, 9:00pm

Post 34 of 41

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

5-10 years is a bit of an overstatement... I'm sure hollywood will be using film for as long as there are still people telling you that you have to use film. But digital will work it's way up.

The way I see it, it's not the quality difference that is stopping people from switching to digital, it's just that "everyone else uses film" attitude. People don't want to change from the way their grandpappy made movies.

Anyway, it's about damn time people start using a new format, seeing as film has been the standard for a century.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 10:15pm

Post 35 of 41

pfac

Force: 200 | Joined: 6th Jun 2004 | Posts: 21

Gold Member

Ok, since the topic is hot, let me add up this question that has troubled me for some time:

Almost every major motion picture is shot in 35mm, and then transfered to video for the post-production and editing.

What resolution do they use for this?
Are they using HD (1920x1080)? Or bigger?
Cause if they use something like PAL (or even HD), it would definitely worsen the overall quality of the final result.

Can anyone help me on this one?
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 10:19pm

Post 36 of 41

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

35mm film is scanned at over 4000 pixels wide, so over double the quality of the top HD standard (1920x1080).

Ok, lets get a few things clear.. Film has more grain than HD but much higher resolution which is why it won't go away for a while yet. Although Star Wars EP2 was impressive when projected digitally it didn't look as great on film - on a really big screen you could see it didn't have the resolution of film. The main problem with filming digital is the storage - to film top quality HD1080P you need a really fast storage medium. To double that resolution to what is about the resolution of film your would need 4 times more storage bandwidth - nothing can handle this yet. Film will be around for a long while yet - I think once HD can match film for quality things will change.

Until home cameras can move beyond DV at 25mega bits per second HD isn't really going to happen - not with the quality it needs. The next step up (DVC Pro 50) is big money and this isn't going to change for quite a while because its quite complicated and expensive hardware. The $100k DVC Pro HD (or DVC Pro 100) cameras used on SW EP2 were not really that expensive (35mm cameras can easily cost this much) but I still think its going to be a while before it filters down to consumer level.

Last edited Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 10:41pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 10:23pm

Post 37 of 41

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm not sure, but I thought that filmmakers edit on computers a copy of the 35mm, but it doesn't matter what quality it it. What I seem to remember happening is that the edits carried out are actually processed on film in special labs, using the computer edit as an "example" but not as the source.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 10:25pm

Post 38 of 41

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

pfac wrote:

Ok, since the topic is hot, let me add up this question that has troubled me for some time:

Almost every major motion picture is shot in 35mm, and then transfered to video for the post-production and editing.

What resolution do they use for this?
Are they using HD (1920x1080)? Or bigger?
Cause if they use something like PAL (or even HD), it would definitely worsen the overall quality of the final result.

Can anyone help me on this one?
What is used to cut in computer is even lower than HD.

They use standard NTSC - or PAL - cut the movie in the computer then use a software, like CinemaTools for exemple, to conform the digital cut then based on that list, they physically cut and glue the negative in order to come up with a master which is used for all the prints that go to theaters.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 10:28pm

Post 39 of 41

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah, I think that's right.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 10:35pm

Post 40 of 41

Crawford

Force: 260 | Joined: 5th Oct 2003 | Posts: 162

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:

I'm not sure, but I thought that filmmakers edit on computers a copy of the 35mm, but it doesn't matter what quality it it. What I seem to remember happening is that the edits carried out are actually processed on film in special labs, using the computer edit as an "example" but not as the source.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right. From what I've read, the telecined digital copy is edited, creating an "Edit Decision List". This list -- which lists which frames to use from which reel, how to transition between them, etc. -- is used to actually piece together the film stock.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Jun 2004, 9:20am

Post 41 of 41

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

It depends if they are just editing the film or adding digital effect and grading.

If they are just making an EDL they'll use whatever realtime format their editor supports maybe even at lower resolution than PAL/NTSC. But this isn't the final footage used in the film, just a edit list.

If they are going to be adding CG or grading the image they have to scan the film on to the computer - thats what I was talking about before. Once the CG elements have been added the scene is then printed out on special (and very expensive) film printers. When this is the case they scan the film at well over twice HD resolution so you can't see the difference between the CG sections and the normal sections of film.