Talk:Digital intermediate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

This article may be too technical for a general audience. Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.

This article needs some technical explanations. What's all that stuff about 2K and 4K resolution? ··gracefool |☺ 11:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 External link? 2 Milestone films 3 Digital Intermediate as an alternative to traditional photochemical color timing 4 Color Management 5 James Bond info not notable 6 I don't get it 7 Wikipedia is not a collection of links

[edit] External link?

I've broken the external links into a "service provider" and "equipment provider" list. Neither this is anywhere near complete, should we just remove all these links?--Onejaguar 00:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon editor 209.164.32.131 (talk · contribs) added the following external link, http://www.digitalintermediates.com. Other recently added links from this IP have been borderline spam, or at least a low quality links. Could someone more knowledgable about digital intermediates please investigate. BlankVerse ∅ 13:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milestone films

I believe the independet film Urbania (2000) was a 16mm->35mm DI that was done right before O' Brother.. at Cinesite, but I didn't want to mention it as a landmark becuase I believe other independet feature-length projects were done before this, most likely in Europe. Anyone know? --Onejaguar 00:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Intermediate as an alternative to traditional photochemical color timing

I don't think DI should be discussed in relation to color timing, not telecine. That's what digital intermediate is... instead of doing a photochemical intermediate, you can work on the images in the digital domain. Telecine: Film --> video
DI: Film --> Data --> (various stages of) Film
... or Film --> Video --> (various stages of) Film Traditional color timing: Film --> (various stages of) Film

There are two significant advantages to DI (and IMO it bears pointing out):

A- Creative advantages. DI allows digital manipulation of the image, allowing the colorist to establish a distinct 'look' to alter the mood and feel of the film. It is the visual counterpart to the musical scoring a film.
B- Technical advantages. DI can replace two photochemical generations of a film with a digital generation. (My knowledge here is sketchy.)

Minor advantages:
A- Greater latitude in color correction allows for greater inconsistencies in the captured image, since this can be corrected through digital color correction. This allows productions to shoot longer days.
B- Photochemical alternations like bleach bypass can be emulated via DI and undone, should the creatives change their minds.

The main disadvantage to DI is cost. However, this cost is reduced when there are a large number of VFX shots (since those shots have to be scanned anyways).

[edit] Color Management

In traditional color timing, there was much guesswork involved in predicting the color of the final release print. Devices like the Hazeltine color analyzer would provide an aid to the colorist, but the entire process was still mostly trial and error. Talented color timers would have a greater intuition for color and be more accurate in predicting the results of their adjustments.

In DI, this problem is solved by implementing a color management system, similar to how ICC-compatible color management systems is used for print work. DI solutions typically use 3D LUT solutions (i.e. Truelight) instead of ICC.

[edit] James Bond info not notable

Here is what I removed. Glennchan 06:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• 2006 - All 20 of the official James Bond movies are released on DVD as Ultimate Editions, both individually and all together in 'monster box' boxset form. As can be seen in the documentary on the Dr. No Ultimate Edition bonus disc, Lowry restored all the films by digitally scanning the original reels through 4K scanners, then, having restored the images with their suite of proprietary tools and adjusting the colour, the soundtrack for each film was also remastered in 5.1 (Dolby EX and DTS ES). The documentary also features a 'side-by-side' comparison of an original copy of Dr. No, with the restored version played alongside it, and the difference is immediately noticeable. The project took over two and a half years to complete, much longer than their 30-day project to restore the original Star Wars trilogy of movies for their boxset re-release. In one interview [1], John Lowry states that they required 'over 600 Apple computers with a combined storage capacity of 700 Terabytes', scanning over 42 miles of film at 4000x3000 pixels of resolution.

[edit] I don't get it

So, wait, what's the point of spending the money for the film and everything, and then scanning it on digital? Can't you just record the movie with an HD camera without all the hassle?

[edit] Wikipedia is not a collection of links

policy here
Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. ^[1] Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines.
2. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles.
3. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy.
4. Mere Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.

As such, I removed the service company listing. Which was sort of insidious advertising with little educational/encyclopedic value anyways. Glennchan 06:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)