DV Blown up to 35mm Film for Cinema Release - WOW!

I saw a documentary last night that was shot with a small digital camera and blown up to 35mm for cinema release. It is called, DIE SALZMÄNNER VON TIBET ("The Salt Men Of Tibet"), a Swiss / German co-production, first released in 1997. It is a documentary from Ulrike Koch, running 108 minutes, colour, with a Dolby SR sound track.

I understand Ulrike Koch intended shooting the documentary on 16mm film, but the Chinese authorities prevented this happening. Apparently, she had no other choice but to shoot it on digital video posing as tourists, and later "smuggle" the tapes out of the country. The doco was shot by Pio Corradi with a Sony DCR-VX1000 camcorder which uses the min-DV format.

I went to see the doco primarily to study the quality of the blowup for big-screen presentation (but I also enjoyed watching the documentary itself). As for the quality ...... well in a word, I was very greatly impressed!! (.....and I'm am definitely from the film-die-hard camp). Who would have thought one of the cheapest video formats (..... essentially a consumer format) would blow up so well for cinema projection.

What has always amazed me with all digital formats that I've seen projected on a big screen (i.e. highly magnified), is that the structure of the image is largely invisible. By comparison, I can always see the image structure of film (i.e. the grain), on almost any size screen. It seems to me that the mechanics of digital presentation somehow "hides" the image-structural elements (or at least that is the impression I get). I know this is not a very technical explanation, and I would love to know the real reason behind this phenomenon (assuming my eyes are not playing tricks on me).

So in terms of image structure alone, I think any digital format is the equal of 16mm film. So therefore, in these terms alone, I think DIE SALZMÄNNER VON TIBET, looked as good as if it was shot on 16mm film! Well, certainly for the medium and closeup shots, and not for the wider, more panoramic shots (more about that later). Generally speaking, I'd say the result was better than than a projected 16mm print from a 16mm camera original on a similar size screen. This claim might come as some surprise, or perhaps seem a little outrageous, but I stand by it if we restrict the discussion to image structure alone.

When I studied the image on the screen carefully, I could see film grain. Actually, this even helped the illusion that you were watching a film image, even if subconsciously. What I saw, of course, was the very fine grain of the "internegative" (5245) and print stocks used in the 35mm blow up process. Funnily enough, it was less grainy than most films shot and printed entirely on 35mm film (because the particular stock mentioned above (5245) is among the finest-grain emulsions available). And the grain structure of a similar image blown up from 16mm or Super 16 would be more apparent. Similarly, if I had been watching a projected 16mm print on the same size screen, the grain would also be very apparent. And it the latter case, the image would be darker overall ("duller") as all 16mm projection tends to be in large auditoriums. If it is true that digital images are a threat to film-derived images in general, then the 16mm format will certainly be its first conquest.

But image structure alone is not the whole story. There are several other important factors that really differentiates digital and film images from each other, namely contrast, latitude, brightness, colour saturation etc. These are precisely the things that give the more desirable, "film look", as opposed to the "video look".

And this is why I was so impressed with the Ulrike Koch "film", as it held up so well in all these terms, and certainly very much better than I would have thought. And this particular documentary was a good comparative test case, as it had so many panoramic, landscape shots. The "limitations" of video is always more apparent in such shots, or to put it another way, film is usually unrivaled in this arena.

Tibet is a relatively cold, high-altitude, desert with harsh sunlight (and sometimes covered in snow). It is indeed a beautiful and majestic landscape. All the locations seen in the documentary were entirely treeless, and with almost no other vegetation to be seen anywhere. A skyline is visible behind barren hills, or rocky outcrops, in most of the wide exterior shots. In such shots there was a very wide brightness range, and an especially sharp transition where the line of the hills meets the open sky. The electronic medium doesn't handle such transitions very well, and often produces a dark line following (or outlining) the abrupt change of brightness. This was the single biggest "give away" that we were watching "video" and not film, and I think this particular phenomenon would be apparent to most cinema viewers, even the most undiscerning.

In the wide exteriors, the video-derived images also gave an overall feeling of "dullness". This anomaly is hard for me to explain, as the projected 35mm image in itself was certainly bright enough on the screen. However, the same image derived on film would have had a kind of inner brightness, so to speak. So brightness alone might not be the real issue here, but rather colour saturation combined with image contrast perhaps. Both contrast and colour saturation seemed a little weak relatively speaking, and in the wide shots especially.

But I need to try and keep this discussion in perspective. While the wide shots might have been somewhat lacking compared to film, they were still acceptable and pleasing images. Except perhaps for the skyline fringing mentioned earlier, I doubt if most people in the audience were aware they might have been looking at anything other than a normal film image (or in any case, are unlikely to care about the origin of the image anyway). For most people, the viewing experience need only to be acceptable enough to be pleasing to the eye, and certainly not distracting in broad technical terms. As always, the primary concern is the content of what they are watching, and not technical considerations.

Moreover, most of the closer shots in the film were excellent. Unlike the wider shots, they seemed rich, clear and powerful by comparison. The colour saturation and contrast problems mentioned earlier didn't seem to apply to the closer shots. It handled the lighting contrast well, to produce moody and aesthetically pleasing images. It was here that the video-derived image certainly gave a film-derived image a real run for its money.

The other factor that boosted the production value considerably, was the use of the Dolby SR sound track. With the stereo effect, and the enhanced low-frequency base reproduction, the track was extremely dynamic in parts. Especially for the pieces of music using traditional instruments producing a didgeradoo-type sound. The standard of the track added to the film-like experience, and helps you forget that the images originally came from a little, tourist-like camera.

Does all this mean we've found a super cheap way of producing high-quality documentaries or drama, not only for television, but also for the cinema. You can shoot with a camera costing a meager 5000 to 7000 guilders (US $2500 to US $3500), and even edit, and later track-lay and mix the sound track, in computers in your bed room. Well, technically, yes ..... but economically, maybe not. Putting issues of quality aside for the moment, the blow up (like all blow ups) is very expensive. The average 90 minute feature-film would cost in the vicinity of 90,000 guilders (US $45,000) to blowup to 35mm film in order to make it suitable for cinema distribution (costs about 1000 guilders per minute or US $500 per minute). This is a rough ball park figure, as different labs vary in the techniques used, and hence the resulting quality which is reflected in the price structure. At any rate, it is very expensive, and is a potential stumbling block in a financial sense. In some cases, you might be better off shooting in 35mm in the first place. But clearly, for, THE SALT MEN OF TIBET, and their problems with the Chinese Government, the digital route was probably the only way to produce such a unique documentary.

It is also interesting to consider combining formats. If it were possible to shoot the exteriors of a project like, DIE SALZMÄNNER VON TIBET, in 35mm, and intercut it with the digital material, then you would be getting the best of both worlds so to speak. The exteriors could have be covered with a fairly generous, but still low shooting ratio (say 1 : 3 or 1 : 4), and could be shot mute or MOS (i.e. without sync sound). For that portion of the film, it would cost about the same to shoot it on 35mm film from the outset, and get all the quality advantages that implies. This could be done with an inexpensive camera like the Arri 2C, for example. The rest of the film, including all the sync material could be derived digitally, with all the financial and other logistical advantages of shooting digital video. The two sources of material would intercut extremely well in my opinion, and make a far superior product for perhaps no significant additional cost, if any.

Amsterdam - 9th July, 1998)

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

DIE SALZMÄNNER VON TIBET 108 minutes, colour, Dolby SR

A film by Ulrike Koch Camera by Pio Corradi

Production: Catpics Co productions, Zürich and D.U.R.A.N., Berlin.

Distribution:

Contact Film Cinematheek
Postbus 3100
6802 Arnhem
The Netherlands
telephone: +31 20 443-4949

http://www.sundancechannel.com/festival98/filmguide/films/saltmeno.tin

http://www.filmforum.com/saltmen.html

http://www.zeitgeistfilm.com/current/saltmen/saltmen.html

http://www.libertynet.org/pfwc/98fest/films/saltmen.html

http://www.thecastro.com/html/springmovies/april25sffilmfestival.htm

http://www.citysearch7.com/E/E/SFOCA/0011/64/50/

http://www.tvgen.com/movies/features/summer98/saltmen.htm

Peter Gray
(near Los Angeles)
P.O. Box 5132
Pine Mountain Club, CA 93222
United States of America
telephone: +1(661) 242-1234

dp@petergray.org