MovieChat Forums > Frida (2002) Discussion > Death to digital intermediate.

Death to digital intermediate.

posted 18 years ago by candiag
9 replies | jump to latest

I don't know about anyone else, but for me, most digital intermediate ruins film. For those who don't know, when film comes out of a motion-picture camera, it's processed as the negative. From that negative comes all other prints. "Work prints" are produced to cut and edit together all the raw photographed material into an actual "cut" of the film. And from that cut, or another version of the film, will eventually come "the master." And from that master come all your theater prints and DVDs.

Well, what digital intermediate is, is taking a master print, feeding it through a computer, and using that computer to digitally "enhance" the look of a film; i.e. manipulating the sharpness, color, etc, and then creating another print that is "better" than film.

More often than not, having seen enough of this business, it's like putting sugar on ice cream; it's just something you don't do. Frankly it hurts my eyes to look at it.

I saw "Frida" on a glass screen projection T.V. Maybe the results are different in theatrical projection, but I can't imagine by much. Eitherway it makes DVD look sickly, where a lot of film ordinarily looks wonderful.

F.Y.I. Digital intermediate is new within the last five years. Look for the phrase "Mastered in High Definition" on the back of your DVD box. Unfortunately Fox Home Entertainment doesn't offer that information for their products. Check "technical specs" under the "Other Info" heading on any IMDb listing if you suspect foul play. Look under the "Cinematographic Process" subheading.

[–] spiraledsilence 18 years ago

i compleatly agree with you! i thought frida actualy pulled this off better than most films. the color tweeking is what really bothers me. i remember watching the lord of the rings special features, where they show a normal version and the 'enhanced' version, to point out how wonderful it is, and just being woebegone because the normal version was so much better!

[–] candiag 18 years ago

The "normal" version of any digitally intermediated film is usually more "natural"-looking too. If you're using a good film stock that takes full advantage of the beauty of color film, without being so overpowering that you're noticing the filmmaking materials more than the actual film itself, then you're helping to create a pleasant and enjoyable experience for the viewer.

The fundamental problem of digital intermediation and digital enhancement abuse is the whole "more human than human" approach; to borrow a phrase from "Blade Runner." It's the timeless delusion that you can have artistic materials that are so superior, so whatever, that they impress in and of themselves, or are meant to be the piece in and of themselves. And I think that ultimately rests in a bottomless insecurity that whatever you're doing, it's just not going to be good enough; so you overdo everything.

For a short list of superior-looking color films that I've come across and really enjoyed looking at see below.*

I'm not sure if there's any hope for digital intermediation as a concept or a technology, because it's fundamental nature seems excessive. It involves taking an entire film and feeding it through a machine so you have a god-like control over ever single frame if you want it. As if filmmaking wasn't involved enough.

*
Havoc, dir. Barbara Kopple (2005)
Pollock, dir. Ed Harris (2000)
The Upside of Anger, dir. Mike Binder (2005)
Melinda and Melinda, dir. Woody Allen (2004)

[–] les_kinky 18 years ago

You guys are talking about Colour Grading right? This is a normal process with any film.

[–] candiag 18 years ago

We're talking about films that use digital intermediation. The overwhelming majority of motion pictures are still not scanned into a computer until they're ready to be "digitized" for DVD. But for those which are, before normal theatrical release, the filmmakers are typically interested in employing the vast tools of digital technology to either manipulate individual frames, or "enhance" the look of the entire film for sharpness, color, contrast, or any other visual element. Digital intermediation allows for the complete package of digital manipulation. Some guy sits in front of a computer a "plays" with the look of a film, whereas all direct visual controls used to be in the hands of photographers (in camera), lab technicians who developed and printed the film, and editors who assembled the film from all the raw photographed material.

It's like taking film out of the hands of the film technicians, and then putting it into the hands of computer technicians; in a bad way. There's more than enough control and creative opportunity with the traditional materials of filmmaking. People are just taking things way too far using a supplemental technique (digital manipulation) that used to be used just for individual scenes, frames, or details. It's now become a primary element to filmmaking, where there are too many primary elements. It's just too much.

[–] kellyharris720 18 years ago

I don't agree. It's not always going to default as a bad film

[–] candiag 18 years ago

Yeah, well, show me a film where that's not the case. A film is meant to be seen. It's extremely hard to enjoy when you don't like looking at it.

[–] peachila 18 years ago

I thought it added a lot to this movie. Since the enhanced colors are a part of Frida's surrealism in my opinion. Also let us see the beauty of the traditional colors of the Mexican clothing and everything else.

Yes, it would've still been good without it. But it makes it really special. Not a lot of movies are as colorful and appealing as this.

[–] dougbarkermrf109 18 years ago

I think Taymor's intention was to have every single shot looking like a painting, and the digital intermediate definately helped with that. I thought it was beautiful.

[–] plundstr20 18 years ago

Did someone just say that the majority of films are NOT scanned into a computer...? Sorry, but even low-budget films nowadays are entirely edited using computers and certainly color graded to some extent.