With the demise of Dalsa's digital cinema division, Joe di Gennaro explains what was special about the Dalsa Origin and outlines the environmental advantages of digital capture over film.

Article first published: February 2009

I can count on one finger the number of cameras that actually record a 4K image uncompressed, and the Dalsa Origin is it. Each frame the camera records is 48Mbit, and each discrete frame is sent from the camera to a Codex recorder via fiber optic cable, uncompressed complete 4K resolution. Simultaneously, there’s a DVI output from the camera that gives you a 2K monitoring image with a less than one frame delay, so you don’t have the typical 4K-to-2K resolution lag that would make camera operating a bit difficult. So the ability to monitor the camera is in real time. While recording that full resolution image, the Codex machine is creating low resolution proxies that you can send to any one of a number of drives to simultaneously make a downconverted copy, edit the downconverted copy, play it back and make sure that you can get the coverage.

The beauty of the Dalsa Origin camera is that it uses 35mm lenses with a fully optical viewfinding system. So that the viewfinder of the camera is through the lens like a 35mm film camera, identical to a 35mm film camera. So you get all of the image evaluation capabilities of looking at a ground glass; you get to watch focus, you get to watch absolute composition and you get to watch the warning track around the top and bottom of the frames. So that you can anticipate the entrance of a microphone or a grip stand or something like that. No electronic viewfinder can deliver that kind of overscan capabilities and again makes the camera head and shoulder above any other digital camera for recording.

Ten years ago, I wouldn’t have thought twice about digital cinematography as an option, but developments in the industry since then have totally turned my head around. It's very similar to the way electronic editing took over the post-production process. Once upon a time you needed a warehouse, laundry bins and a staff of seven people to edit a movie. Now you can do the entire thing with a DRAM's worth of electricity on a laptop computer.

Look at the footprint you leaves behind when you shoot 35mm film. You start your movie by digging a hole and mining silver; you then pollute the water and the air in making film, then develop that film with more chemicals and more possible pollution, then you’ve got this film that your going to use as work print and never use again. 35mm is good for maybe 75 screens before it’s too scratched to use again. Shipping 35mm film across the country, you have a thousand theaters who are releasing the movie. That’s a thousands prints at £200 a piece going all over the country via fossil fuel to get there. You have this huge expense all in the name of two hours of entertainment. I find that unconscionable.

Digital cinematography, on the other hand, again small amount of electricity, storage items that can be used and reused, and distribution through fiber optic or electronic or some portable and reusable storage. This makes digital cinematography so much more eco-friendly that shooting 35mm film, and that’s my biggest argument now, even if it does have slightly less image resolution.

That said, we're getting to the point now where people can't tell the difference. In fact, digital projection looks so pristine compared to 35mm prints that people prefer it without even knowing why. The standard audience does not even know they’re watching digital projection and the only thing they’re missing is projector weave, dirt, scratches and shutter flutter. There’s no question, digital cinema wins.

Joe di Gennaro With more than 20 years of field experience, Joe has worked with some of the world’s best (and a few of the world’s worst) directors. He embraces the opportunity to work with new technology (QIK2JDG was the first production to use the Viper FilmStream process) and he enjoys the challenge of working with modest resources.