The Ethics of Film Digitization or:

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Film Scanner

This final paper was written for Michael Friend’s Archeaology of the Media class (MIAS 220) and was a result of my then nascent interests in the ethics of film digitization.  When I began writing this paper, I set out to learn about the complex technical history of film scanners, and to ultimately discern what gets lost (or made better) when a film transitions from grain to pixel.

 

Film scanning is perhaps the most important step in a digital preservation and restoration workflow.[1] Given the many possibilities in processes and varieties of capable systems that have emerged in the past decade, it is imperative that film archivists familiarize themselves with the technology behind these devices, and the ethical dilemmas they pose, in order to continue safeguarding cinema’s legacy in the digital age. This paper will present a brief history on the development of film scanning technology, the essential technical specification of contemporary film scanners, the benefits and limitations of these devices, and ultimately the ethical implications they pose in transforming a film artifact into a sequence of zeros and ones. 

 

The emergence of digital technologies for storing and manipulating moving images originated on film in the early 1990s and quickly revolutionized film production, as well as the archival field of film preservation.[2] It was at this time that digital technologies, initially created for the integration of computer-generated imagery (CGI) within the same filmic image, began to be used for film restoration. Manufacturers of these digital technologies realized that digital tools could be used to carry out image enhancement techniques in the digital realm, and potentially do them more effectively and more cheaply than with photochemical processes.[3]

 

Kodak’s Cineon was the original major fully integrated digital post-production system and was used to carryout the first full-scale digital restoration project on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).[4] By the mid 1990s, digital restoration technologies were being widely discussed as an alternative to photochemical methods even though the cost was beyond the reach of archival work. A decade later, the cost of digital restoration tools had reduced significantly and digital technologies became accessible for both commercial and non-commercial archival use. Although many non-profit film archives continue to struggle in transitioning from an analog oriented preservation workflow, to a digital preservation workflow, time is of the essence as photochemical preservation practices are becoming more and more obsolete. For example, in Film Restoration: The Culture and Science of Audiovisual Heritage Leo Enticknap states that “…it is probable, therefore, that in the foreseeable future a film restoration workflow based on photochemical duplication and a final output to film will simply no longer be possible, because neither new, unexposed film stock, nor the laboratory services needed to print or process it, will be commercially available anymore.”[5] Indeed, as digital technologies continues to rapidly evolve, archivists dealing with film preservation and restoration need to have a clear understanding and acceptance of these technologies in order to properly assess their actions and outline the ethical boundaries of their work in the digital age. So what role do film scanners play in all this?

 

The first stage in a digital preservation workflow is scanning film elements into digital files. Scanning film is the process by which the analog image on the photographic film element, such as the traditional image composed of continuous tones of gray and infinitely varying colors, is converted into a digital file of zeros and ones. The machine that performs this operation is called a film scanner and is manufactured to produce an authentic digital replica of a film. These machines are very similar to optical printers, except that the imaging device is not a reel of unexposed, raw film stock, but instead an electronic imaging device. In order for film scanners to authentically replicate a film’s photographic image, they must be able to digitally recreate the resolution, dynamic range, density and color of their filmic source.[6] Indeed, while the digital technologies behind film scanners continue to rapidly evolve, the subject of whether or not the digital surrogate they produce is equivalent in “quality” to the filmic source is still fiercely debated both amongst cinephiles and archivists alike, and will be addressed later in this paper.  

 

The scanning process of a film consists of a marriage of analog and digital technologies and is the most crucial step in a digital preservation/ restoration workflow. Throughout the scanning process, the analog film image is converted into a digital file and saved as one of several formats such as Cineon (developed by Kodak), DPX (Digital Picture Exchange), or TIFF (Tagged Image File Format). These particular file formats are especially favored in the field of film archiving because they preserve the original raw image data of the film and thus contain the most amount of uncompressed original film data possible. This is especially important when preserving films that are too far gone for photochemical processes, and can only withstand one more run through the film scanner before perishing entirely. Accordingly, by extracting the most amount of data from the film and saving it as one of these formats, a restorer can then proceed with an adequate amount of information to restore the work in the digital realm.[7]

Consequently, before a scanning technician loads the film elements onto the scanner, the crucial decision of choosing the appropriate file format for their workflow must already be established (DPX, TIFF, etc.). Currently, the format most commonly used in professional settings is Digital Picture Exchange (DPX) as it is the industry-standard for storing and exchanging digital representations of motion picture film. The format is derived from the image file format originally developed by Kodak for use in its Cineon Digital Film System and was later adopted and further developed by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE).[8]

 

DPX files are used for digital preservation/ restoration workflows because the data itself contains a measure of the density of the exposed film; furthermore, the image data contains three channels representing red, green and blue components, each using 10 bits per sample. This provides a great deal of flexibility in storing color information, color spaces, and color planes. Additionally, DPX files are able to store infrared data, such as the detection of dust particles via an infrared pass, in the alpha channel.[9] The DPX file format is especially beneficial for archival purposes because it enables the creation and storage of information about the file (metadata) within the file itself. This is composed of three sections: generic file information including data format, motion picture and television industry specific information such as perforation edge number or video time code information, and user-defined information which may include ASCII data.[10] So how does a film element effectively transition from a material artifact into a DPX file? In order to understand a film’s digital transition, it is necessary to examine how a contemporary film scanner functions.

 

A film scanner is comprised of six key components: A film transport system, a light source, a digital sensor, electronics that convert the image to zeros and ones, a user interface (usually a computer workstation), and a storage device.[11] However, before film elements even touch these mechanisms, they must be inspected in order to ensure their optimal performance within the film scanner.  So the removal of artifacts from the film emulsion before scanning is generally considered preferable instead of having to deal with them in the digital domain later. Consequently, ultrasonic cleaning, rewashing and polishing are still part of the digital workflow in preparation for scanning. So after the film elements have been thoroughly inspected and prepared for scanning, they are ready to begin their digital transition.[12]

 

With the inspected film elements in hand, the operator then loads the already exposed and developed film print onto the film spool and plate, and laces it through a series of rollers, capstans, the film gate block and finally to the receiving reel. From there the film follows a relatively simple operational protocol. It is first moved past the scanner’s light source and digital sensor, or light detector. In some devices the film moves past the scanning aperture in a continuous path—this process is referred to as a “continuous-scan.” The technique behind continuous-scan film scanners comes from earlier telecine technologies that were in use primarily when films were being transferred to television. These devices transport the film continuously at a constant (often rapid) speed without employing film sprockets as the film moves past the imaging device. Continuous-scan devices utilize capstan drives to provide the friction necessary to transport the film onto the non-contact gate for minimal wear.[13] Furthermore, optical pin registration is utilized in order to stabilize the film, thus completely eliminating the use of a film’s perforations. Although there have been major advances in image stabilization technologies in scanning devices in the past decade, these technologies can still prove to be unsatisfactory, especially when dealing with older/ damaged films. When this is the case, restorers have to rely on digital tools to stabilize the image after it has been scanned.[14]

 

Other film scanners utilize an intermittent pull-down method in which the film is pulled down one frame at a time and is momentarily locked into place by register pins in the aperture as the image is scanned. Unlike the continuous-scan devices, these scanners are descendants of film technology, and are not ideal for archival usage due to their reliance on film sprockets.[15]  

Throughout the past decade, engineers have developed several methods for converting an analog image into a stream of digital data. In each method, the technology follows the same routine methodology— the device looks at almost 2.5 million points on a standard Academy 35mm frame, detects the color and luminance value of the light at each point, and converts that into a packet of digital data. This is accomplished by using a line array, frame array, or spot sampler type of digital sensor or chip.[16] Currently, the most commonly used electronic imaging device is the charge-coupled device (CCD), which generates an electrical signal that varies in power according to its exposure to light. This light sensitive semiconductor digitally captures an image and is akin to the same technology found in consumer and professional digital cameras.[17]

 

The intensity of the signal output from the CCD is measured as digital data. High-end scanners will contain a CCD for each of the primary colors (red, green, blue) and thus record a digital equivalent of the color separation elements. Other scanning devices will only use two CCDs—one to capture the luminance (light and dark) and the other to capture the chrominance (color) information. (The latter requires a Bayer mask in order to appropriately capture the color information.) This two-CCD-method proves to be particularly advantageous when scanning black and white film because it can be scanned using the luminance sensor only, thus avoiding the need to remove color noise after the scanning process.[18]

 

Contemporary film scanners and the technologies behind them have come a long way since their impractical beginnings as telecines or flying-spot scanners. For example, film scanners as they are known today can be traced to the early 1990s, where there tremendous cost and unproductive speed of operation made them unviable for film archiving. At the time, machines that cost half a million dollars would typically take up vast amounts of room space and scan at a rate of between one and four frames per second. Thus a feature length film would require up to a month of continuous, 24/7 scanning in order to be completely digitized.[19] Currently, there are models on the market that scan up to 4K resolution in real time, and are even purposely built to be compact desktop machines for ease of use and practicality. Examples of these film scanners are: Cintel: diTTo, dataMill and Klone, Filmlight: Northlight, Imagica: ImagerXE and HSX, Arri: Arriscan, Digital Vision: GoldenEye II and III.

 

The improvements in a film scanner’s speed is due in large part to major advancements in computer processing power, which in these devices is used to convert the electrical signals produced by the CCD into image data in the required format. The factor at work in the rapidly evolving technologies of film scanners is called Moore’s law, which states that the amount of computing power available for a given price will double approximately every two years.[20] This law has proven to be relatively accurate over the years, particularly when applied to technologies related to the digital scanning of photographic images and their subsequent manipulation by a computer.

 

Another major advancement in film scanning technology is the adoption of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as their light source. LEDs are greatly advantageous over incandescent filament bulbs in archival settings because they generate almost no heat, making them relatively safe to use with nitrate film stock. Furthermore, their luminance can be adjusted to produce almost any color temperature within the visible spectrum, thus enabling faded film stock to be scanned with inbuilt color correction.[21] For example, software control in the scanner itself such as in Digital Film Technology’s Scanity enables film elements to be graded, with the intensity and color temperature of the light source changed between shots, during the scanning process.[22]

The modern film scanner has allowed for the scanning of film elements with physical defects as well, something that photochemical processes are not able to do, or would be extremely time-consuming (repairing damaged perforations) to do. The major advances in film scanner technology make most physical film repair and master element assembly, which typically occurs in preparation for photochemical duplication, unnecessary in a digital preservation/ restoration workflow.

 

One of the aims of film archives is to safeguard the integrity of the cinematographic heritage. To do so, the original information (e.g. image details and colors) contained in films should not be lost during digitization. Leo Enticknap notes that there are currently two variables within the scanning process itself that determine the quality of the digital output:

 

The resolution and colour depth at which the frames (individual images) will be scanned, and whether any grading or colour correction will be undertaken during the actual scanning or as a software function afterwards. The decisions made will depend largely on the relative capabilities of the scanner, the restoration software being used to work on the files it produces afterwards, and the speed of the hardware it is running on.[23]

 

Thus the resolution of a scan is a trade-off between the detail of image information captured and the volume of data that will need to be stored, and the computing power needed to process it. Furthermore, with this statement, Enticknap introduces two crucial concepts when discussing film’s transition to digital: resolution and color depth. In From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition, Giovanna Fossati notes that these two concepts have the biggest influence on the final quality of a film’s digital surrogate because they determine how the film’s components will be transcoded to digital data.[24]

 

Resolution in film scanning technology refers to the capacity in which the device can digitally describe the detail from the film element, which is quantified by measuring the amount of smallest distinguishable elements in the filmic image. In photography resolution is measured via grain, whereas in digital imagery, it is measured in pixels. Simply put, the higher the number of grain or pixels per frame, the better the resolution. So whereas grain in a photographic film frame is a randomly distributed system of crystals with a wide variability of dimension of shape, pixels in digital images form a system of identical elements arranged in an orderly fashion.  Therefore, Fossati notes, “The resolution of a photochemical system is therefore hard to compare with that of a digital one, as they reproduce images by means of two different of representation.”[25] Accordingly, how large is the storage capacity of a film negative? And how many pixels are needed to properly transfer this spatial information as completely as possible into the digital realm?

 

According to the VES Handbook of Visual Effects: Industry Standard VFX Practices and Procedures, film material always posses the same performance data:

 

The smallest reproducible detail (20% modulation) on a camera film negative (up to EI 200) is about 0.006mm….This can also be considered the size of film’s pixels, a concept that is well known from electronic image processing. It does not matter if the film is 16mm, 35mm, or 65mm—the crystalline structure of the emulsion is independent of the film format.[26]

 

However the film format becomes relevant when determining the film’s overall storage capacity. Thus 35mm films contain more (although the same kind of) data than 16mm films, and 65mm more than 35mm. Thus, according to the studies performed by the Visual Effects Society, a negative 35mm image is equivalent to 4135 digital pixels.

 

The maximum information depth is achieved with a line grid of 80 lp/mm. The largest spatial frequency in the film image is there- fore 1/0.012mm (line 0.006mm gap 0.006mm). According to the scanning theorem of Nyquist and Shannon, the  digital  grid  then has  to  be  at  least  twice  as  fine,  that is, 0.012mm/2 0.006mm. Converted to the  width of the  Super 35mm negative, this  adds up to 24.92mm/0.006mm 4153 pixels for digitization.[27]

 

Therefore, if projected on a 4K projector, a 4K+ scanned 35mm film negative will provide its filmic resolution without loss and “…make it possible to see the quality of 35mm negatives without incurring losses through analog processing laboratory technology.”[28]

 

 Accordingly, The VES Handbook posits the resolution of a modern 35mm color film expressed in digital terms to about 4K or 12, 924, 136 pixels per frame (4153 x 3112 pixels). These results fall in line with other studies, such as the guidelines issued by the European Broadcasters Unions (EBU), Preservation and Reuse of Film Material for Television, which state:

 

Technology is now available to scan and digitize the full information available in film images. Experience with such equipment shows that a pixel pitch of 6µm (about 160 pixels per mm) is considered sufficient to reproduce current film stocks. This corresponds to a scan of 4K x 3K (actually 4096 x 3112) over the full aperture on 35mm film. If film is scanned at lower resolution (corresponding to a large pixel spacing), less information is captures and more aliasing artifacts are introduced.[29]

 

Although the findings from the EBU and the Visual Effects Society correspond to one another, these results continue to be fiercely challenged by many film loyalists, promoting the EBU to release a statement defending their previous findings:

 

There are many opposing views on the resolution and bit depth needed to record film images, and the areas of contention may be summarized by reference to a number of different philosophies. These range from concepts that originate from intrinsic film characteristics (the nature of film and processed film emulsion themselves) to others that take more pragmatic approaches.[30]

 

EBU’s statement carefully addresses the “different philosophies” pertaining to resolution, in an age of digital transition. So while the advent of film scanners has proven to be extremely beneficial to film archiving, the digitization of film nonetheless brings up various issues pertaining to the ontological integrity of a film artifact, and the ability of these devices to authentically replicate the filmic image.

 

In From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition, Fossati goes into great detail about the theoretical implications of film’s transition to digital. She addresses the paradox currently facing film digitization in regards to preservation by stating:

 

…one of the aims of film archives is to safeguard the integrity of the cinematic heritage. To do so the original information (e.g. image details and color) contained in films should not be lost during digitization. On the other hand, a standard value to quantify the resolution needed for correct digitization of a film does not exist, since for every film (and for every scene or shot within the same film) a different resolution might be sufficient to guarantee that all information is safely digitized.[31]

 

Like Leo Enticknap, Fossati notes that authentically replicating a film’s resolution and color is necessary in order to preserve cinematic history. However, for Fossati, there is no set standard to determine the amount of digital resolution needed in order to digitally duplicate a film. Consequently, although some believe that scanning a film in 4K and above are satisfactory in terms of preserving a film’s image, the opposite can be debated. For example, when asked about the proficiency of scanning film for preservation, Disney’s director of library restoration and preservation Theo Gluck replied, “Some might argue that a 4K scan is overkill on a 1928 black-and-white negative, but we’ve been very happy with the results—we’re confident 4K has captured all the information on that negative.”[32] Thus at the center of this debate lies the (in)ability to remain true to the ontological integrity of the film medium—one of the most debated topics in the current discussion of film preservation.[33]

 

In her book, Fossati provides an interesting insight to this debate. She urges archivists to move past romanticized notions of the medium-specificity linked to the ontological integrity of the work, and instead to focus on where they vouchsafe the ontology of film as works perpetually migrate across different mediums.[34] Thus Fossati acknowledges that digital tools allow archivists to safe keep a work’s original look, whether through digital touch-up or surrogate duplications. Therefore as long as the work is safeguarded and well-kept, whether through digital management or through inspections of the physical medium, film preservationists can continue to successfully preserve cinema’s relics. With her argument, Fossati goes against previous preservationist ideas of collecting and maintaining as much as possible of the original film format. Furthermore, Fossati’s argument stems from Walter Benjamin’s seminal essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In his essay, Benjamin addresses film’s ability to reproduce a work of art as plurality of mechanical processed copies and discusses the concept of authenticity in regards to reproduction. He notes, “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” Benjamin goes on to state that the "sphere of authenticity is outside the technical" so that the original artwork is independent of the copy, yet through the act of reproduction, something is taken from the original by changing its context. With this in mind he introduces the idea of the "aura" of a work, which is the “…authenticity of a thing…all that is transferable from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced.” [35]

 

While the advent of mechanical reproduced works of art led Benjamin to assume that the “aura” of the works was lost, Fossati argues that a newly recognized authenticity originates when film enters the archive, “…film as original defines the historical film artifact as the carrier of the film’s authenticity, once it is re-territorialized by entering the archive.”[36] Accordingly, Fossati views the “uniqueness” of any film as a circumstance, rather than a quality native to the work. Thus as films were a product of mass-production, she argues for archivists to focus on the work outside the material medium, such as the efforts put forth by archives to provide and guarantee the verification of a new copy, regardless of the medium.[37] Her claim resonates with Michael Punt’s take on the ontological differences between the physical and the digital, albeit in more technical terms:

 

Just as there is no technology that is not the product of human action, so there are no autonomous digits in electronic data—just impulses of electricity. The digits are introduced much later, and at each successive interpretation of pulses into digits, and digits into pulses of light that touch the screen and produce an image, a software program needs to be written. In the same way that the photo-chemical procedures of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries depended on prior views of reality to inform chemical engineers and lens grinders, so computer program emulate a prior view of what that image should look like. [38]

 

So while Fossati initially comments on the unviability of a “correct digitization of a film,” she nonetheless urges archivist to cease their ongoing romance with celluloid in order to continue preserving film heritage. Although archivists cannot collectively come to an agreement on the “authenticity” of the digitized data produced by a film scanner, it nonetheless shouldn’t halt digitization efforts, or the adoption of digital technologies within film archives.

 

It was only 15 years ago when executives at seven Hollywood studios stated that digital technologies did not figure prominently to their preservation/restoration practices. Since then there have been numerous full-length digital-restorations of classic films such as The Godfather (1972), Dr. Strangelove (1964), and The Red Shoes (1948), as well as the adoption of these technologies by archives.[39] The digitization of motion pictures has come a long way in the past decade and so has the attitudes towards these digital technologies. While there was a time where film archivists were pessimistic on what could be achieved through film scanners, the rapidly evolving technologies behind these machines have made them a staple in any facility that is serious about film preservation. Consequently these machines have completely (re)defined archival practice and workflow in the digital age.

With their sights to the digital future, archivists must collectively come together to overcome the many debates pertaining to the (loss of) “authenticity” and “integrity” in film digitization. For example, in his 2004 survey of the archival workflow at George Eastman House, Paolo Cherchi Usai notes that digital technology is a “…questionable technology and not appropriate to a long-term conservation of audiovisual artifacts” due the inherently rapid technical obsolesce these technologies.[40] While there are very real issues with digital preservation and digital technologies, film scanners have allowed for the preservation and restoration of numerous films that would not have been possible with traditional, photochemical processes. Accordingly, as Caroline Frick notes in Saving Cinema: The Politics of Preservation:

 

As the digital era encourages greater democratization and participation in audiovisual collecting, sharing, and viewing, film preservationists must challenge themselves to look further outside of their comfortable, increasingly professionalized perches to new, unknown professional domains to create collaborative ventures for longevity[41]

 

Indeed, in this ever-increasing digital environment, there is no doubt that the future of film preservation will be wholly and momentously impacted by the digital, and film scanners with all their technical glory, stand at the forefront of this new age.

 

Works Cited:

 

[1] Enticknap, Leo. "The Technique of Film Restoration." Film Restoration: The Culture and Science of Audiovisual Heritage. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 79. Print.

 

[2] Ibid., 82.

 

[3] Ibid., 115.

 

[4] Aldred, John. "Disney's Snow White: The Story Behind the Picture." The Association of Motion Picture Sound. Winter, 1997. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.

 

[5] Enticknap, Leo. "The Technique of Film Restoration." Film Restoration: The Culture and Science of Audiovisual Heritage. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 81. Print.

 

[6] Finance, Charles. "Film Scanning and Recording." The VES Handbook of Visual Effects Industry Standard VFX Practices and Procedures. Ed. Jeffrey A. Okun and Susan Zwerman. Amsterdam: Focal, 2010. 506.

 

[7] Ibid.

 

[8] Kainz, Florian. "Image Compression/ File Formats for Post-Production." The VES Handbook of Visual Effects Industry Standard VFX Practices and Procedures. 2nd ed. Ed. Jeffrey A. Okun and Susan Zwerman. Amsterdam: Focal, 2014. e6-20.

 

[9] Ibid.

 

[10] "Sustainability of Digital Formats Planning for Library of Congress Collections. "Digital Moving-Picture Exchange (DPX), Version 2.0. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000178.shtml>.

 

[11] Finance, Charles. "Film Scanning and Recording." The VES Handbook of Visual Effects Industry Standard VFX Practices and Procedures. Ed. Jeffrey A. Okun and Susan Zwerman. Amsterdam: Focal, 2010. 506.

 

[12] Enticknap, Leo. "The Technique of Film Restoration." Film Restoration: The Culture and Science of Audiovisual Heritage. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 107. Print.

 

[13] Ibid., 105.

 

[14] Finance, Charles. "Film Scanning and Recording." The VES Handbook of Visual Effects Industry Standard VFX Practices and Procedures. Ed. Jeffrey A. Okun and Susan Zwerman. Amsterdam: Focal, 2010. 510.

 

[15] Ibid.

 

[16] Ibid.

 

[17] Ibid., 846.

 

[18] Enticknap, Leo. "The Technique of Film Restoration." Film Restoration: The Culture and Science of Audiovisual Heritage. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 105. Print.

 

[19] Ibid.

 

[20] Fossati, Giovanna. "Film Practice in Transition." From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 2009. 67. Print.

 

[21] Enticknap, Leo. "The Technique of Film Restoration." Film Restoration: The Culture and Science of Audiovisual Heritage. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 109. Print.

 

[22] Digital Film Technology. Scanity: High Performance, Cost-Effective, Multi-Application Film Scanner. <http://www.dft-film.com>.

 

[23] Enticknap, Leo. "The Technique of Film Restoration." Film Restoration: The Culture and Science of Audiovisual Heritage. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 107-108. Print.

 

[24] Fossati, Giovanna. "Film Practice in Transition." From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 2009. 77. Print.

 

[25] Ibid., 76.

 

[26] Finance, Charles. "Film Scanning and Recording." The VES Handbook of Visual Effects Industry Standard VFX Practices and Procedures. Ed. Jeffrey A. Okun and Susan Zwerman. Amsterdam: Focal, 2010. 493.

 

[27] Ibid., 494.

 

[28] Ibid., 501.

 

[29] European Broadcasters Unions (EBU), Preservation and Reuse of Film Material for Television. “The Conversion Process. 2001. 60. <https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3289.pdf>.

 

[30] European Broadcasters Unions (EBU), Preservation and Reuse of Film Material for Television: Supplement 1. “Estimates from intrinsic film characteristics.” 2004. 10. <https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3289s1.pdf>.

 

[31] Fossati, Giovanna. "Film Practice in Transition." From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 2009. 79. Print.

 

[32] Bosley, Rachael K. “State of the Art: An Update.” American Cinematographer - The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques; Dec 2008; 89, 12; 74.

 

[33] Mattock, Lindsay Kistler. "From Film Restoration to Digital Emulation." Journal of Information Ethics 19.1 (2010): 74-85. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.

 

[34] Fossati, Giovanna. From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 2009. 115-117. Print.

 

[35] Benjamin, Walter. "Illuminations." The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Trans. J. A. Underwood. London: Penguin, 2008. 202-39. Print.

 

[36] Fossati, Giovanna. From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 2009. 211. Print.

 

[37] Ibid., 123.

 

[38] Punt, Michael. “D-Cinema—d-Déjà  vu.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 2, 2004: 8-14.

 

[39] Bosley, Rachael K. “State of the Art: An Update.” American Cinematographer - The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques; Dec 2008; 89, 12; 74.

 

[40] Usai, Paolo Cherchi. "Digital Film Restoration at George Eastman House." Image 42, 2004: 19. Web. 2 Mar. 2015.

 

[41] Frick, Caroline. Saving Cinema: The Politics of Preservation. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. 168. Print.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

©Michael Pazmino 2017