Which movie will you be going to see first on July 21, 2023: Oppenheimer or Barbie? ============================= 💭Join our Discord Channel💬 ► discord.gg/3aeNPU7GHu 🐦Twitter ► twitter.com/frame_voyager 📷Instagram ► instagram.com/framevoyager/ 🎵TikTok ► www.tiktok.com/@framevoyager
In France, if you want your movie to be shown in theatres, you have to make a film print for national archive. So every french production has a film print archived.
You can make prints from digital files relatively easily. I mean you don’t have to shoot film to make prints. But that’s great! Just from an archival standpoint, todays print film is incredibly stable.
@@leanderfalkenberg4308 On 70mm 15-perf IMAX prints it’s on a separate digital file. Often on a DVD. On regular 70mm prints there is an optical or magnetic track on the film. Both a time code markings on the print to synch up with the digital audio.
My local IMAX has 15/70 prints of the dark knight trilogy, interstellar, dunkirk, tenet, and 1 of 4 prints of the 'unrestored' 2001 space odyssey that nolan supervised. They will be addin Oppenheimer to their collection and fingers crossed they rescreen everything again in summer to hype up the new film. Black and white 70mm 1.43 aspect ratio will be crazy!
What is your "local" IMAX? Even TCL Chinese Theatre (previously: "Mann's Chinese Theater" previously: "Grauman's Chinese Theater") uses IMAX with Laser nowadays.
Christopher Nolan is one of my favorite directors BUT regarding cinematography we cannot forget Hoyt Van Hoytema. The guy is a GENIUS ! I still haven't come back from NOPE. I mean, the way he shot the night scenes. So brilliant.
@@FrameVoyageryeah I thought nope’s story was calling more importance to itself than it actually possessed, but the cinematography was amazing. As was the cinematography for Her and Dunkirk.
@@AyushBakshi agreed. Young people probably like it because they’re comparing it to the trash that’s been released recently. Nope was a very lukewarm film.
Very well done! I know a few things about how they got the BW 65mm to work for Oppenheimer: As you assumed they used 5222 Eastman Double-X and cut that in 65mm size for use in 5 and 15-perf cameras. That’s not that big of a deal since film can be cut in any size from master rolls and 5222 is available in medium format for photography from CineStill as BWXX. The lab, FotoKem had to switch their 65mm development machines from color to BW once or twice a week depending on what Nolan shot. Nolan finishes on film! No digital intermediate, only CGI shots go though a computer and even they are color corrected during the film printing with photochemical color timing. Because Oppenheimer is IMAX and 70mm the BW footage is being printed onto Kodak 2383 color print film and might have some slight coloration in the highlights or shadows because of that. The digital version of this will be made by scanning a color timed inter positive print and grading that to match the analog master print. With this process Nolan couldn’t have converted to BW in post since it would introduce another film generation into the mix and Nolan makes his IMAX prints directly from the camera negative for image maximum quality. And it’s not IMAX film really. It’s just regular 65mm film shot sideways with 3x the image area. But the film is not specifically IMAX film.
Appreciate it! And that sounds about right on how I would expect them to make this. Still would say it's a film made to use with an IMAX camera, but I get your point! Thanks for some of the extra details!
@@FrameVoyager Oh no it’s definitely made with IMAX cameras, it’s just the film that’s not specifically IMAX. It’s like when you put regular 35mm film in an X-Pan panoramic camera, it doesn’t become special panoramic film. It’s still just 35mm film.
@@Dennis94913 Yes basically. You’d still have to consider the film base. Idk if Double-X would be more susceptible to tearing in 65mm but if not then you’d only need to cut it in a different size from the master roll.
Even a moment spent highlighting the vanishing history of nitrate film stocks makes this video worthwhile. Of course there is more to it - much more to it than just that. But thanks for drawing our attention to the thorny issue of archival preservation of the moving image.
No problem! Yeah, that's always the hard thing with these videos is you could go on so many tangents. Try to give as best overview on it as we can without bogging the whole video down in it 😅
It's sobering to realize that there will come a day in the not too distant future where every frame of nitrate film will be lost to oblivion, and any image of the frame not otherwise transferred to another stock or format will utterly vanish from history.
@@barrymoore4470 Not necessarily, Scorsese started The Film Foundation for this very reason, to provide proper archival for films that otherwise could be lost to time. So there’s still hope!
@@matthewrocca4197 If understand correctly, though, nitrate stock inevitably decomposes with time, even under optimal storage conditions. I believe (and I hope I'm wrong!) that any nitrate film not eventually transferred to safety stock will invariably dissolve into oblivion in due time. In a sense, that entire early nitrate era of cinema will be lost to even specialists, as the nitrate prints preserving the special visual qualities of nitrate simply won't exist anymore.
@@matthewrocca4197 Look up Martin's open letter to Kodak and the controversy around Kodak and what they actually knew about just how long their films will last. Martin was bloody pissed off. He is doing his best to preserve film but the problems are baked in so to speak. Kodak has offered film stocks and processes that will not fade. Technicolor films if stored properly do not tend to fade. Kodachrome does not fade and their unreleased process called Azochrome will not fade. Cibachrome does not fade and dye transfer does not fade. Digital simplicity and people that do not want to wait for prints is why Kodak died along with film and film cameras. I can still get double perf 70mm stock and huge rolls of film for my Cirkit camera if needed but not from the Great Yellow God who is no longer a serious player in my world.
Besides the technical aspects as in this video, shooting in black and white (or shooting a digital video/photo in black and white setting on the shoot), gives you the opportunity to compose the right contrast in colors, based on their hue. You basically have to be careful because in black and white, you may get a different contrast if you just desaturate colors, as some will look the same. So it's really a challenge and experiment to form the right contrast shooting in black and white
I'm surprised B&W CMOS sensors aren't more popular- my understanding is the dynamic range is incredible PLUS they let in a bunch more light since there's no BAYER FILTER
Same! ARRI and RED and plenty of others have created B&W digital cameras. Haven't seen them used that much. Might be worth exploring in another video at some point
Probably because there isn't much demand for B&W content and development of camera is expensive, the same with buying camera just for B&W things, which could be highly restrictive unless you specialise in only that one thing.
Also you can get an astoundingly high resolution out of it because you can use every cell as a pixel, instead of each field of 4. Honestly it should be cheaper because you skip the bayer filter application, and can use much larger, easier to make cells for the same image size. Given how much I enjoy B&W film, I'd love to get a digital B&W camera.
I can't recommend 5222 enough. Every filmmaker owes it to themselves to try shooting it at least once. It's a beautiful emulsion that hasn't been changed since it was released in 1957. It has about 6-7 stops of dynamic range and renders reality as if it's a charcoal drawing. In 16mm, it is quite grainy as well. But in IMAX, it will no doubt evoke the look of mid-century portraiture taken on 6x6 and 4x5 camera which I'm sure is one of the motivations behind Nolan's decision to use it.
Very big quality difference. Even digital cameras have monochrome versions for filming black and white. We explained the process in the video and how it's just different
Christopher Nolan has the power to further captivate us with his crafts. His direction is something that should be consistently taken note of. He’s widely acclaimed as a storyteller of sorts. Oppenheimer already looks amazing right from the get go.
Film is actually coated in way larger format and then just cut down to the size you need. Be it 120 stills film, 35mm, 16mm, or 70mm. So it most likely was as easy as you summarised!
I never contemplated Guy Pearce look until now. Genius in its simplicity of why it looks and feels the way it does. Digital recording leaves the same taste in my mouth, at least in medium playback. Not sure about the capturing process.
Whatever one's feelings about Nolan as an artist, respect is due him for his recognition and honoring of celluloid film as a discrete visual medium with its own distinct qualities, and his continued commitment to working in and preserving this precious medium. I think it's great that he's expanding the technical and visual parameters of black-and-white film with this latest project, and my curiosity is certainly aroused by what I've seen (though I am admittedly not fond of the IMAX format).
Yeah I'm interested to see how it all turns out. I'm hoping to get to go to an IMAX 70mm theatre to go see this movie. Might see about doing a video to cover it
But even Nolan has to admit that this may be one of the very last movies to be shot on film. Kodak accommodated his need for 65 mm black and white IMAX film but that is such an extreme except to the rule.
@@Sacto1654 It certainly will become more and more rare for raw film stock to be manufactured, actual films photographed, and celluloid films to be exhibited. Nolan and Quentin Tarantino are two of the few major directors active today who have the interest and clout to shoot on film, and once they either lose interest and/or give up on the old medium, it will be further consigned to obscurity. It is my understanding, though, that contemporarily made motion pictures are still, at least sometimes, archived as film transfers, as celluloid film is still a more reliable means of preserving the work than digital technology. If I am correct in my understanding, this represents a kind of lingering afterlife for the film medium.
Very well made as always, like a mini documentary. Mentioning now dangerous nitrite film was, my great grandfather had a few different jobs and one job he had was working as a projectionist in a cinema, possibly in the late 1940s-50s at least. I found out that one day one of my dad's cousins who worked with him in the cinema, after putting in the film into the projector and it started playing, it caught fire and could have burned the place down, but luckily that didn't happen.
I've read that many (most or all?) of the cinema projection booths in the nitrate era of film exhibition were coated with asbestos to protect against fire. When prints of feature films were released or rented to private individuals or clubs or societies, they were routinely transferred onto acetate stock as a safety measure. It's amazing that nitrate stock was used as long as it was.
Nitrate stock is why safety stocks came into being. And if you look at what EK has offered over the ears, it is truly astounding. I really wish Kodak was Kodak.
@@barrymoore4470 Kodak released a new base and called it Kodak Safety Film. This was done to eliminate these issues. Celluloid film base is nothing more than cellulose nitrate, an explosive. But, it was all they had back in the day. .
The most well known directors always create that aura of mystique around themselves. Doesn't mean they are good, but it does make them super interesting haha
I like to think Oppenheimer had that “destroyer of worlds” planned. Like, he came up with it in the shower a day before, and after the test goes off, everyone is congratulating each other, and he tries butting in “yeah, hey, now I am bec-“ but he gets cut off by other people being like “great job everyone!” and then he waits for a another moment of silence “uhh, uh, _*now I am become death…”* People are like “wait what?” and he’s all coy “yeah just a cool thing I thought of just now, nbd.”
I think another big reason why Nolan doesn't want to convert color film to bw is because he likes to finish his films photochemically. I can't see any other way to convert color film to bw than to do it in a DI process.
That's a good point! Yeah, I would assume there are various technical and creative reasons for Nolan to use B&W film specifically. Also the fact that he is an absolute purist when it comes to film lol
Black and white film is the best choice if your goal is black and white images on the screen. As an aside, my favorite process is Technicolor 3-Strip.all shot on black and white film.
@@robertmaxey5406 Do you happen to know if Technicolor color is even possible anymore? Everyone says it’s sadly extinct, even Tarantino has said that he’s tried to resurrect it but for technical reasons he doesn’t understand, it can’t seem to be done. I’m trying to emulate that look on a feature I’ll be directing, shot on film, and trying to figure out the best way to achieve it!
@@matthewrocca4197 no offence but the look will be just that, only the look. Big difference to be sure. As for bringing back Technicolor, the short answer is no. The company did bring it back for a time, but they had a hard time finding qualified people who understood the process. By process, I mean the three-strip process or Process #4 which dominated the industry. For awhile, Technicolor made dye transfer prints by color separation of one of Kodak's color negative stocks. Absolutely not the same thing. It was largely a cost saving measure. Ever see a Technicolor camera in a blimp? Huge. Lots of light was required as well. This meant lots of heat on the set. Besides Natalie Kalmus is dead. Kodak could make matrix film, dyes and other materials you would require, but the experts are long gone. The equipment is largely gone. To bring it back would require lots and lots of effort. Not to mention, cost. I seriously doubt Quentin's ability. Not saying it can't be done, but it would be very tough. It is now just a very fond memory, sadly.
This movie may be one of the last hurrahs for movies shot on film stock. Digital cameras for movie work from ARRI and Sony have gotten so good in the last 10 years that very few filmmakers outside of Christopher Nolan will still stick to using film in movie production.
Atleast Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson from big Hollywood names are using film on all their films. And many indie filmmakers still want to shoot on film.
Actually that’s not completely true: to echo what Mirrori said, I’m an indie filmmaker working on comparatively very low budgets, nowhere near Nolan level (yet 😉) but I’m still making the choice to shoot on film. And it’s not as outrageously expensive as people generally assume. It just depends on how you work with it. For example, I shot list and storyboard everything very thoroughly, block it out and then I only need to do a few takes usually. That makes it less expensive. The production days go quicker this way and actors are more excited by the format so they’re more precise in their performances, knowing there won’t be a lot of takes. So this further saves money on production. Shooting on film actually saves money & time in post because there’s way less footage to sift through and color correction goes by much quicker because the colors and aesthetic already look so beautiful that it takes a lot less polishing. Kodak is also a fantastic company, and they’re offering me an incredible discount on stock because I’m also a teacher educating young students on celluloid. So there are all kinds of benefits and cost effective ways to shoot on film, if one is resourceful and creative about it! Which is why I firmly believe the medium will stand the test of time.
@@matthewrocca4197 However, there are two big problems: 1) film stock is now very expensive to procure and 2) finding a film lab to process the film is getting harder and harder to do. You really wonder how much money Nolan had to put up to get the specialized black and white IMAX film stock and to find a film lab that can process this unusual type of film stock for _Oppenheimer_ .
@@Sacto1654 Good points. But there are always creative workarounds. For example, the feature I'm working on right now is under 80 pages long, some scenes are B&W, and the shooting ratio I'm going for is 5:1, which is achievable due to the above-mentioned meticulous planning in pre-production. Partnering up with Kodak from an educational angle provides an amazing discount, and it also helps to have a DP who can attain a discount at the lab due to his exemplary working relationship with them (CineLab if you're curious). Don't get me wrong, I agree fees are high, but I also think a director should fight for shooting on celluloid if that's what he/she wants to accomplish, and don't be afraid to get creative in your approach to cutting costs. As I mentioned, you'll potentially save a lot of money on # of shooting days and in post.
When I worked at Locanda Verde in NYC, they had an Italian red wine that at first taste made me think of black and white film grain. Don’t know why or how but that’s how I was able to understand it and explain it. Unfortunately can’t remember the name of the wine.
Being that both Vision3 in 65mm and Double X have acetate film base, and that Cinestill has been selling Double x in 120 medium format for a while, I imagine it was a matter of just sending the master rolls down the 65mm cutter. I really hope that just like how E100 became available as a 35mm motion stock after it was used for that Netflix show, 65mm Double X becomes available for purchase
Cannot wait for this movie! Nolan still makes IMAX movies like no other! Didn’t see Tenet in IMAX because of Covid but I saw Dunkirk at it was a full experience like no other.
One small correction to your explanation of B&W. Not all Kodak nor B&W has T-Grain. That only is applicable to one kind. Other than that, thanks for the video. :)
nolans comments about archival and media reminds me of a similar question where Steve Albini from electrical audio about digital audio and vinyl. that being, and im paraphrasing; vinyl is great for archival because there isnt a tried and true way of archiving digital and the playback method for vinyl is very basic.. Also the choice for using black and white in certain scenes i totally get what hes tried and is attempting with this new movie.. it illicits a tone and your eyeballs break react differently to a monotone palette. There are some examples of this used in the most recent david lynch's twin peaks season 3.. anyway...
You have to feel at least a little bit how lack of knowledge / understanding of shooting on film gets in the way of producing content like this :D Most of your audience likely never shot on film and never will, which it makes it an easy audience (from technical standpoint), but while creating this clip you surely felt "I'm speculating about this thing I don't fully understand" thought pass through several times X) As for the B&W film they used - it's more or less an existing stock, that is produced in 120 format which is almost exactly the same width as "65mm film". Here is where the speculation should be - how much did Kodak actually do here. Is it just marketing partnership and all they did was simply perforate master rolls of 120 film that required minimal retooling and no actual R&D or did Kodak get a budget they invested into hiring new people (or level-upping existing personnel) and coming up with something new that will eventually become available to other filmmakers. P.S.: Kodak is currently positioning itself as a coating company, they are battery and solar panel component supplier. Film is a side gig from their corporate point of view.
So while I am glad to see Kodak finally get a win again, it would have been incredibly ironic had they worked with Fuji. I wonder how that phone call would have gone.
I'm not sure *where* IMAX film is still being screened anywhere anymore. Even "AMC Loews Metreon 16 with IMAX" in San Francisco (which I think others have stated is the second largest IMAX theater in the USA?) projects 15/70mm film and 4K Dual Laser, but provides absolutely ZERO insight to viewers which is which for any given screening and my guess is most of it is digital, not film.
one of the reason why film is still used for preservation is because if you shoot on 70mm today, in 20 years you will be able to rescanner that film in 16k or whatever resoultion will be the meta then and so on. if you shoot in 4k/8k today that file will be forever in 8k. we are 4k rescanning stuff from the 80's that was shoot on 35mm and despite is more than 40 years old that stuff now looks shoot today w a today camera.
Bullshit you can't digitally store a movie for the next 20-30 years. Store to tape with backups, pull it out every ten years and put it on the latest media. LTO has been made for this purpose for decasdes.
Fun fact about acetate cellulose, it is the material high quality frames for glasses are made of. There are cheaper injection moulded frames as well, but longer lasting frames are made from sheets of acetate cellulose!
Today very few of the filmmakers around know how good black-and-white films can be. I know Kenneth Branagh did one in the 80s which is pretty good and George Clooney did one about Edward R Morrow and that was shot totally in black and white and I think he directed it it was pretty good. Too bad that the black and white medium has been discarded.😐
I think it's worth voicing the fact that every time 'Nolan' was uttered, I literally heard 'no one'. So you can imagine this is immensely confusing. Otherwise really enjoyed the video.
A bit off topic, but I’m curious if you guys would be interested in making a video on quantum dot image sensors? The potential benefits of these sensors seems absolutely insane compared to CMOS. It’s also looking like they might be right around the corner of hitting the market.
Let's be real, for preservation digital is objectively superior since you can make identical copies without any degradation and have as much redundancy as necessary.
But, try playing a videogame from the 90s that came on a CD on your computer of today (I know it's a different thing but take it as a metaphor). I've tried it multiple times. It's not just that you may not have a CD reader nowadays, but even if you have one, the game doesn't install and you can't do anything about it. I've tried this and believe me, even after searching on the internet, with virtual machines, with older drivers... Nothing works. This applied to film. Every time you changed the way the software works, you'd have to revise the digital copies of all the films you are preserving and update them so they work with the newest system. With film, you can keep it well stored and saved in a cool and dry ambient for 50 years, come back without any projectors for it, and still you can put light through it and the image projects on the wall. That's future proofing.
I remember a reddit comment saying it would be awesome if the movie was black and white first and then color after the explosion so I wouldnt be surprised if screenwriters steal ideas from online people😒
I believe it was Einstein who said "I don't know with what weapons world war 3 will be fought, but I know that world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Very heavy shit.
The Eastman Kodak Company produced that film right here in Rochester, NY, and the George Eastman museum is at the cutting edge of film preservation. *ALSO,* Eastman Kodak had a NUCLEAR REACTOR (for neutron generation/product testing) at the Kodak Park research/Production facility!
As someone who uses a 35mm film camera, true B&W film looks very different (and much better) than color film that’s later converted to B&W. It can capture highlights and shadows in a very unique and striking way.
@@rufaiajala The light sensitive layer of photographic film is made up of silver halide crystals. When exposed to light through a camera, these crystals react and capture an image. I can’t find anything detailing the exact makeup of color film (compared to black and white), but I believe it has an extra chemical layer to capture color. When manufacturers are creating a film stock they can alter the chemical makeup to create different “looks”. Kodak’s Portra line, for example, is known for its pastel tones and was created as a portrait film. Black and white films are designed to capture highlights and shadows differently because that’s all it can capture. Color film can still look good when converted to black and white in post, but it wasn’t created with that look in mind so it won’t do as good as true black and white.
I don’t have any interest in arguing what’s “better” and I don’t have a lot of experience with black and white film, but I do have a lot of experience with shooting digital in both color and black and white. I will say that I’ve looked at sample images from $150,000 achromatic cameras (they only shoot in grayscale) and my little Nikon D40 that I purchased on eBay for $21 produces images that are much more pleasing to my eye.
That awkward moment when you see your face pop up in a Frame Voyager video. 10:30 To be fair I switched to Davinci Resolve before it was the cool thing to do 😎😂
Specific shots in it and it's not clear if it was black and white film or post converted. Regardless, this is the first film to feature b&w imax film and it was specially developed by Kodak. All Technical specification of that music video here www.imdb.com/title/tt5431624/technical/ show that it was shot on Kodak 65mm color film. So likely post converted
I took photography and darkroom courses in the mid 80's, and used B&W film. Kodak T-Max was fairly new, and it offered high resolution and very dark "dmax". Later, my "normal" (color print film) vacation photos looked washed out and grainy in comparison. A dedicated B&W film is _much_ better than just shooting color film in shades of grey only. Now, what will the print use? Are they switching film stock based on the scene and splicing it all back together, something you never do on the distribution print? Or is it just printed on color film, losing the deep blacks and higher resolution of the true B&W footage?
People are switching to Davinci Resolve so fast right now because Peter McKinnon & Matti Happoja switched to it. When I use to tell people they should switch, they always said no
You make it appear that there are only two options for film stock base material -- old combustible and new unworkable. Had you been around in the 1950s, '60s, '70s, experience would make you informed in substantial and nuanced ways. For many years, there were post-nitro stocks that could be operated effectively in cameras and could be spliced conveniently without resorting to using tapes. There were (are?) post-nitro camera-original negative and positive stocks designed with effective color and density latitude for generous release prints, and that would not damage a camera that jammed. If you saw a movie in a theater in the 1960s-1970s, there's a very good chance it was not polyester (well past the days of nitro) -- while other prints of the movie were kept on polyester as backup. Distributed prints became disposable in the early 1950s, because total wear-out was almost inevitable, whatever the base material. But even in those days even "B" movies had archive copies stored properly, up to a point. (If a movie saw a rapid gain in popularity, further prints could be struck from a clean print more easily than from the negative of the release edit. Those are the source of many restored films.) Far, far more film warehouses were lost to aggressive real-estate economics than to fire or other material disasters after the nitro era. That may also be partially the case in the nitro era. Even the average person on the street knew the dangerous instability of nitro stock in its day. Just as we know that refrigerated food can spoil and even become toxic. Look in every fridge you see for the next year and decide exactly what you'd do with what's in there at that moment. That's how movie storage was decided in the nitro era. If the movie was deemed past its healthy life -- in the market or for further storage -- it was, for better or worse, tossed. Neglect and mishandling were not the biggest cause of loss. Dubious-yet-thoughtful consideration could mean that the film my gr-granddad enjoyed seeing the most in 1929 was thrown away, but the one that your gr-grandma enjoyed seeing the most is still in decent storage. The ratio might be 84/16. But the decisions were made, not neglected. It's that orphans got no love at all. Judgement was brutal. Values go in cycles. People are subject to their lack of imagination about what will be valued in the future. Digital archiving was thought to mitigate by handling massive volumes of data. Archiving can be mitigated by reconciling the physical and aesthetic realities; making informed decisions. Biased uninformed discriminatory thinking reconciles nothing.
BTW: Please don't jump to the conclusion that because I use refrigerated food as a storage comparison, I mean that refrigeration is mandatory or can be expected to be the primary-option film storage method. I'm suggesting that a common best-practice for food is not fool-proof. We have yet to reconcile a best-practice for movie storage. The oldest instances of film storage were subject to the same thinking that is common to what's in the typical domestic refrigerator: imperfect, and with inexact time limits. Loose parameters in a well-known instability.
I can get argument, that having real, physical copy of movie is important, but I don't get it as key argument for shooting movies on film. There must be machines that can record digital content into physical film. How would they record movie on film, edit it on computers and then display back on real, analog IMAX projectors. After all, technically you just need film and special kind of projector to display frames into film, so you can "undigitise" anything if you want. That shooting on film to have physical copy left for future doesn't convince me.
Digital copies can definitely be printed onto film and archived that way, but Nolan’s choice to shoot on film is not about only that. It’s about the alchemy and magic of shooting on celluloid, as well as the superior image that he is able to capture. Sure he could shoot digitally and store it analog, but the image wouldn’t be the same. It would be a copy of an image that he considers inferior. So to shoot it on film AND archive it that way is the most effective methodology and the purest.
The absolutely ridiculous and cartoonish scratch and film dirt effect you added to the monochrome stills take makes me question whether you're qualified to even talk about film at all!
So, it's being shot on IMAX film stock, but will any IMAX theaters actually project film prints? So many went to "lie"MAX long ago. One MPEG (Motion Pictures Editors Guild) friend seems to think that all the film copies will stay with the studio and the only thing in screenings will be digital and I have little reason to doubt his expertise.
Nah there are still theaters that project on film. It’s getting rarer and rarer sadly, but in Los Angeles there’s the cinema that Quentin Tarantino owns, the New Beverly, which is fully committed to their mission of “always on film”. Most theaters now exhibit on DCP only but there are still a few that will roll out the film projectors for a special event movie like this!
@@matthewrocca4197 There are theaters, sure. However the list of IMAX theaters here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_venues for example, doesn't show a single screen in California with a 15/70 capability anymore (though purportedly the Metreon in San Francisco, which is the second largest IMAX screen in the USA has such capabilities, they do not display what format a screening is in, particularly not since the Metreon was aquired by Lowes from Sony). Moreover, TENET, apparently only had 13 15/70 prints for the entire world, and speculation is that if a dozen 15/70 prints are made of Oppenheimer, that will be about the most. From what I have been able to research, the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, CA will do a 70mm (5 perforation, vertical reel) screening (they also did a 70mm 5 perf screening of the 2001 remaster) but I cannot find conclusive information anywhere, about any 15/70 horizontal IMAX screening of Oppenheimer anywhere. For me, the entire reason to care about this being shot in IMAX film, is to see an IMAX 15/70 film print screening.
I wonder how many people will actually see this movie as a projected film print? Nolan seems to make these technical decisions based on the viewing exoerience he will get to have, which will be far higher than the majority of people.
A small number I should guess. When was the last time any of you saw a Technicolor three-strip IB Print? Not many, I guess. And that is a shame. Owing to the nature of original Technicolor prints and the fact they can't be recreated makes it difficult to see one projected on the big screen. And what a shame. Should you get a chance to see one, go see it.
I will definitely drive two hours (three in traffic) to Los Angeles to go see this projected as an actual film print! There’s nothing like that experience, seeing it projected on DCP doesn’t do it justice. Same reason I journeyed out to Tarantino’s theater the New Beverly to go see “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” for the bazillionth time this past weekend, so I could see it again in its proper format 🎞️
What a tough movie, very exhausting! Nolan's most boring film so far:( Soundtrack, no one is interested after such a performance! Craftsmanship, however, it is well done as always, but only meant for one time viewing. Will probably never look at this movie again, for that he is just not entertaining enough:( Also the atomic explosion was not spectacular at all:( Here CGI would have been good! 🥺😅🤷🏻♂️ And yes, have seen him in IMAX, but has not brought much:(
I have the Filconvert products and although I grew up with B&W (1950/60s) I just cannot bring myself to apply to my efforts. I attended many "how to" classes but still cannot develop a B&W "vision". Oh well ...
@@FrameVoyager Heck yeah! It's a lot different! I'm literally taking hands notes of the changes and looking to incorporate some of the subtle change. Like, I like how you cut Nolan out in the very beginning and sort of slowly zoom in and little things like that. haha I swear these videos should be on Netflix. The editing is superb. Keeps me engaged.
Amazing video,Very informative! Just wanted to ask if Imax claims to have 18k res on their 70mm film which is later projected at 70mm in select locations, doesn't the film get converted to digital for post-production and then back in film for the final print? That would bring the resolution back to 4k right?
First of all, film has no set resolution, so this 18k estimate is an exaggeration, and most film labs will scan IMAX negatives at 12k maximum. There is a demo by cinematographer; Steve Yedlin (who did The Last Jedi and Knives Out) showing that an Alexa 65 camera (which shoots at 6.5k) still holds more detail than a 12k scan of IMAX 15/65mm negative. So resolution isnt everything, there are other factors than pixel count. Second, Nolan likes to finish his films photochemically, so for shots featuring no digital effects will just be printed and timed the traditional way. For shots that feature vfx, the negatives are scanned at 12k or 8k, VFX are done at 6k, then those shots filmed out back onto IMAX negative at 6k again.
Let's just say I've talked to several different experts and no one can agree on resolution for film lol. Which is understandable for something chemically based converting to something digitally based. But Kraft Punk gives a good explanation
Kudos to Nolan for his commitment to art and technical challenges in the film industry. I believe that digital filming is also possible without postproduction manipulations and artifice, but I quite appreciate Nolan’s choice based on the quality of the results.
IMAX film stock is identical to regular 5/70 stock physically. The areas for the sound track changes, but otherwise its entirely the same stock, so its highly likely that very little actual R&D had to be done to create black and white IMAX stock.
IMAX movies have never encoded their soundtracks on the film. They were originally put on separate 35mm magnetic film reels and synced to the projector. Later the system was updated to use CD-ROM discs, and then updated again to use DVDs. For the CD and DVD systems the audio is usually copied onto the sound system’s hard drive instead of being played directly off the disc, but either way the film print still has to be manually positioned in the projector on a specific frame for the audio to be correctly synced to the image.
@@jordanbradford7729 You're correct, but this had no bearing on the film used in the cameras, as they didn't encode the sound on the film ever either, for 5/70 or IMAX. You're correct that the sound sync still relies simply on specific timing based on a start frame. Theoretically, IMAX has the space on the edge to encode a DTS timecode if one wanted to do that differently in the future, however, the speed the film moves at may raise some issues, as from my experience projecting, DTS already has sync issues with the speeds 5/70 moves at.
My guess, is that the B&W portion of the movie is going to be the post atomic bomb world. We've created something that coild destroy mankind as we know. Oppenheimer knows it and the color is drained from the world for him. Thats my guess at least. Kind of how The Grand Budapest Hotel goes B&W when fascism takes over Europe. Hate and bigotry takes all the color from the world. It probably wont be as jarring though since Grand Budapest is basically a dollhouse.
Knowing that Nolan can actually get way too sentimental on the characters he writes on; it would make sense if he gets to use the BnW scenes on the moments that Oppenheimer gets conscious about what he's actually doing. I mean, I'm still arguing only on the things I've seen in the trailer and some few movies, but yeah. Now talking about the Quality of IMAX besides the digital tech; I'd understand the point of choicing IMAX if it wasn't because today's digital video quality is not a big problem anymore away from the decoding media and its corruption, the same way any film works with the physics.
Would Saving Privat Ryan be better on IMAX? Answer: NO Imaging shooting scenes like this ruclips.net/video/OWXz3ldXlXY/видео.html with the BRRRRRRRRR of an IMAX 5 feet away from you. I love Nolan but this obsession is dumb in my opinion
Nitro-Cellulose has a more common name. Gun Cotton. For an example of use, see Battleship New Jersey. The 16" guns were bag loads of nitrocellulose propellant grains. Another common use was ping pong balls of all things. they were nitrocellulose up until the 90's early 2k's
I always wondered why BW film looked different to just turning the colour off a colour film image. Thanks for the explanation of the chemical difference. Just fascinating! Explains the sharpness difference. “Clouds” can never be as sharp as crystals.
Work for a very old school system. 10 years back we collected every old film from 100 schools. Some started smoking the second we opened the can. We had to get a fire box in the warehouse. Some looked like the one you showed with bubbles. No fires but it would it would have not been long. S FL so very humid here too. The steel, that's why salvors are pulling up pre war wrecks from deep ocean. Pre war no radioactivity
Kudos to Nolan for correctly stating the truth most people are unaware of - that there is no stable digital archiving format or workflow available today, and the only truly long-term storage medium we know today is film - particularly black-and-white film stored at low to very low temperature. Color films may be separated into three RGB strips of black-and-white film and stored in the same way.
I love me some Nolan, but the argument of digital media not able to reliably archive is BS. This is where my professional expertise far outweighs his. Although solid state storage has not reached it potential yet it is very reliable. Furthermore, traditional hard disk drives can last 20 years + if cared for appropriately. Most degradation of anything actually comes from the elements like temperature, humidity, exposure to light, and the sorts. Therefore, environmentally controlled storage spaces are actually the primary concern when preserving something. This includes digital storage and, of course, film.
Film, old or new, can be re-scanned for modern digital sales. Even though one can use a BMD 12K camera to capture, once sales require more, then only film will suffice.
3:28 Ehhh not exactly sure that is accurate. Polyester film- yeah that is spot on... But the majority of camera stocks are designed to break away to prevent that.
Which movie will you be going to see first on July 21, 2023: Oppenheimer or Barbie?
=============================
💭Join our Discord Channel💬 ► discord.gg/3aeNPU7GHu
🐦Twitter ► twitter.com/frame_voyager
📷Instagram ► instagram.com/framevoyager/
🎵TikTok ► www.tiktok.com/@framevoyager
That’s a tough choice 🤔
Barbie of course
Both, back to back showings
Barbie in IMAX and Oppebheimer on my phone.
@@St-hu3om 💀💀💀
In France, if you want your movie to be shown in theatres, you have to make a film print for national archive. So every french production has a film print archived.
Ah, god bless the French!
And it’s stored in a beautiful fort : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_de_Bois-d%27Arcy
You can make prints from digital files relatively easily. I mean you don’t have to shoot film to make prints. But that’s great! Just from an archival standpoint, todays print film is incredibly stable.
Cool! Do you know how they store the soundtrack?
@@leanderfalkenberg4308 On 70mm 15-perf IMAX prints it’s on a separate digital file. Often on a DVD. On regular 70mm prints there is an optical or magnetic track on the film. Both a time code markings on the print to synch up with the digital audio.
My local IMAX has 15/70 prints of the dark knight trilogy, interstellar, dunkirk, tenet, and 1 of 4 prints of the 'unrestored' 2001 space odyssey that nolan supervised. They will be addin Oppenheimer to their collection and fingers crossed they rescreen everything again in summer to hype up the new film. Black and white 70mm 1.43 aspect ratio will be crazy!
I HATE you...
What is your "local" IMAX? Even TCL Chinese Theatre (previously: "Mann's Chinese Theater" previously: "Grauman's Chinese Theater") uses IMAX with Laser nowadays.
TCL and the AMC Universal City bring out their 15/70 projectors for Nolan films. Every other film is projected in Imax dual laser
@@grey5626 the BFI London has all that Movies;) but not the 2001 one when i am correct
we live in a world where nolan has not won an oscar for best director yet 😮
It's INSANE
In 2023, Oscars are fucking irrelevant.
@@FrameVoyagerKubrick didn’t win one either, so it’s ok 🤫
Critics hate him... because he doesn't pay them to write something good.
He’s transcended above the Hollywood establishment
Christopher Nolan is one of my favorite directors BUT regarding cinematography we cannot forget Hoyt Van Hoytema. The guy is a GENIUS ! I still haven't come back from NOPE. I mean, the way he shot the night scenes. So brilliant.
I LOVED the cinematography from NOPE, the story kinda lost me towards the ending. But I'll definitely be doing some on that movie in the future
@@FrameVoyageryeah I thought nope’s story was calling more importance to itself than it actually possessed, but the cinematography was amazing. As was the cinematography for Her and Dunkirk.
The worst shit I ever tortured myself with. NOPE
The Acting and pacing... The heck too unbearable for me.
The visuals were good.
@@AyushBakshi agreed. Young people probably like it because they’re comparing it to the trash that’s been released recently. Nope was a very lukewarm film.
Eh. It’s a smart idea but the way shadows look are completely off to what seeing things at night would be like
Very well done! I know a few things about how they got the BW 65mm to work for Oppenheimer:
As you assumed they used 5222 Eastman Double-X and cut that in 65mm size for use in 5 and 15-perf cameras. That’s not that big of a deal since film can be cut in any size from master rolls and 5222 is available in medium format for photography from CineStill as BWXX.
The lab, FotoKem had to switch their 65mm development machines from color to BW once or twice a week depending on what Nolan shot.
Nolan finishes on film! No digital intermediate, only CGI shots go though a computer and even they are color corrected during the film printing with photochemical color timing. Because Oppenheimer is IMAX and 70mm the BW footage is being printed onto Kodak 2383 color print film and might have some slight coloration in the highlights or shadows because of that. The digital version of this will be made by scanning a color timed inter positive print and grading that to match the analog master print. With this process Nolan couldn’t have converted to BW in post since it would introduce another film generation into the mix and Nolan makes his IMAX prints directly from the camera negative for image maximum quality.
And it’s not IMAX film really. It’s just regular 65mm film shot sideways with 3x the image area. But the film is not specifically IMAX film.
Appreciate it! And that sounds about right on how I would expect them to make this. Still would say it's a film made to use with an IMAX camera, but I get your point! Thanks for some of the extra details!
@@FrameVoyager Oh no it’s definitely made with IMAX cameras, it’s just the film that’s not specifically IMAX. It’s like when you put regular 35mm film in an X-Pan panoramic camera, it doesn’t become special panoramic film. It’s still just 35mm film.
Gotcha! Good to know
Is a master roll just a very wide roll of film that can be cut into different gauges? if so the tooling process should be quite easy.
@@Dennis94913 Yes basically. You’d still have to consider the film base. Idk if Double-X would be more susceptible to tearing in 65mm but if not then you’d only need to cut it in a different size from the master roll.
I love Nolan's dedication to the medium. Really makes me wish there was a film IMAX theater remotely close so I could see it as intended.
Same
Where do you guys live if you don’t mind me asking
To me, this is more exciting than CGI, which is as common as dog doodoo.
none here in ohio :(
Only 30 theaters around the world will have it on 1570. I live near 4 of them (socal)
Even a moment spent highlighting the vanishing history of nitrate film stocks makes this video worthwhile. Of course there is more to it - much more to it than just that. But thanks for drawing our attention to the thorny issue of archival preservation of the moving image.
No problem! Yeah, that's always the hard thing with these videos is you could go on so many tangents. Try to give as best overview on it as we can without bogging the whole video down in it 😅
It's sobering to realize that there will come a day in the not too distant future where every frame of nitrate film will be lost to oblivion, and any image of the frame not otherwise transferred to another stock or format will utterly vanish from history.
@@barrymoore4470 Not necessarily, Scorsese started The Film Foundation for this very reason, to provide proper archival for films that otherwise could be lost to time. So there’s still hope!
@@matthewrocca4197 If understand correctly, though, nitrate stock inevitably decomposes with time, even under optimal storage conditions. I believe (and I hope I'm wrong!) that any nitrate film not eventually transferred to safety stock will invariably dissolve into oblivion in due time. In a sense, that entire early nitrate era of cinema will be lost to even specialists, as the nitrate prints preserving the special visual qualities of nitrate simply won't exist anymore.
@@matthewrocca4197 Look up Martin's open letter to Kodak and the controversy around Kodak and what they actually knew about just how long their films will last. Martin was bloody pissed off. He is doing his best to preserve film but the problems are baked in so to speak.
Kodak has offered film stocks and processes that will not fade. Technicolor films if stored properly do not tend to fade. Kodachrome does not fade and their unreleased process called Azochrome will not fade. Cibachrome does not fade and dye transfer does not fade.
Digital simplicity and people that do not want to wait for prints is why Kodak died along with film and film cameras. I can still get double perf 70mm stock and huge rolls of film for my Cirkit camera if needed but not from the Great Yellow God who is no longer a serious player in my world.
Cris Nolan is always trying to make something fresh, and that for he owns my respect.
Even if it doesn't always work out well, he always is pushing the boundaries
13:44 I remember the Line from the Hindu scripture the bhagavad-gita :- Now I become death the destroyer of worlds
There is more to it. It's a story but I cut it down for timesake
Besides the technical aspects as in this video, shooting in black and white (or shooting a digital video/photo in black and white setting on the shoot), gives you the opportunity to compose the right contrast in colors, based on their hue. You basically have to be careful because in black and white, you may get a different contrast if you just desaturate colors, as some will look the same. So it's really a challenge and experiment to form the right contrast shooting in black and white
I'm surprised B&W CMOS sensors aren't more popular- my understanding is the dynamic range is incredible PLUS they let in a bunch more light since there's no BAYER FILTER
Same! ARRI and RED and plenty of others have created B&W digital cameras. Haven't seen them used that much. Might be worth exploring in another video at some point
Probably because there isn't much demand for B&W content and development of camera is expensive, the same with buying camera just for B&W things, which could be highly restrictive unless you specialise in only that one thing.
There are many of these used for astrophotography.
B&W is still a tough sell for most distributers and production companies. That's why you don't see it a lot.
Also you can get an astoundingly high resolution out of it because you can use every cell as a pixel, instead of each field of 4. Honestly it should be cheaper because you skip the bayer filter application, and can use much larger, easier to make cells for the same image size. Given how much I enjoy B&W film, I'd love to get a digital B&W camera.
I can't recommend 5222 enough. Every filmmaker owes it to themselves to try shooting it at least once. It's a beautiful emulsion that hasn't been changed since it was released in 1957. It has about 6-7 stops of dynamic range and renders reality as if it's a charcoal drawing. In 16mm, it is quite grainy as well. But in IMAX, it will no doubt evoke the look of mid-century portraiture taken on 6x6 and 4x5 camera which I'm sure is one of the motivations behind Nolan's decision to use it.
Why don't they just film it regularly and then turn on grayscale in the editing software?
Very big quality difference. Even digital cameras have monochrome versions for filming black and white. We explained the process in the video and how it's just different
Christopher Nolan has the power to further captivate us with his crafts. His direction is something that should be consistently taken note of. He’s widely acclaimed as a storyteller of sorts. Oppenheimer already looks amazing right from the get go.
I really enjoyed reading American Prometheus. I hope Nolan digs into the post WWII drama between Oppenheimer and the US Government.
"Thanks to our sponsor, the type of thing Christopher Nolan hates with every fiber of his being"
😏
Film is actually coated in way larger format and then just cut down to the size you need. Be it 120 stills film, 35mm, 16mm, or 70mm. So it most likely was as easy as you summarised!
I never contemplated Guy Pearce look until now. Genius in its simplicity of why it looks and feels the way it does. Digital recording leaves the same taste in my mouth, at least in medium playback. Not sure about the capturing process.
Whatever one's feelings about Nolan as an artist, respect is due him for his recognition and honoring of celluloid film as a discrete visual medium with its own distinct qualities, and his continued commitment to working in and preserving this precious medium. I think it's great that he's expanding the technical and visual parameters of black-and-white film with this latest project, and my curiosity is certainly aroused by what I've seen (though I am admittedly not fond of the IMAX format).
Yeah I'm interested to see how it all turns out. I'm hoping to get to go to an IMAX 70mm theatre to go see this movie. Might see about doing a video to cover it
But even Nolan has to admit that this may be one of the very last movies to be shot on film. Kodak accommodated his need for 65 mm black and white IMAX film but that is such an extreme except to the rule.
@@Sacto1654 It certainly will become more and more rare for raw film stock to be manufactured, actual films photographed, and celluloid films to be exhibited. Nolan and Quentin Tarantino are two of the few major directors active today who have the interest and clout to shoot on film, and once they either lose interest and/or give up on the old medium, it will be further consigned to obscurity.
It is my understanding, though, that contemporarily made motion pictures are still, at least sometimes, archived as film transfers, as celluloid film is still a more reliable means of preserving the work than digital technology. If I am correct in my understanding, this represents a kind of lingering afterlife for the film medium.
Very well made as always, like a mini documentary. Mentioning now dangerous nitrite film was, my great grandfather had a few different jobs and one job he had was working as a projectionist in a cinema, possibly in the late 1940s-50s at least. I found out that one day one of my dad's cousins who worked with him in the cinema, after putting in the film into the projector and it started playing, it caught fire and could have burned the place down, but luckily that didn't happen.
Appreciate it! And that's awesome. Glad it didn't burn the place down! haha
This is like that scene in Inglourious Basterds "Face of Vengeance" scene!
I've read that many (most or all?) of the cinema projection booths in the nitrate era of film exhibition were coated with asbestos to protect against fire. When prints of feature films were released or rented to private individuals or clubs or societies, they were routinely transferred onto acetate stock as a safety measure. It's amazing that nitrate stock was used as long as it was.
Nitrate stock is why safety stocks came into being. And if you look at what EK has offered over the ears, it is truly astounding. I really wish Kodak was Kodak.
@@barrymoore4470 Kodak released a new base and called it Kodak Safety Film. This was done to eliminate these issues. Celluloid film base is nothing more than cellulose nitrate, an explosive. But, it was all they had back in the day. .
I think Nolan is such a special director because the story behind all the film that man is just as interesting as the films themselves.
The most well known directors always create that aura of mystique around themselves. Doesn't mean they are good, but it does make them super interesting haha
@@FrameVoyager lol, I think you just described Tommy Wiseau to a T.
@@javidaderson 😂😂😂
I like to think Oppenheimer had that “destroyer of worlds” planned. Like, he came up with it in the shower a day before, and after the test goes off, everyone is congratulating each other, and he tries butting in “yeah, hey, now I am bec-“ but he gets cut off by other people being like “great job everyone!” and then he waits for a another moment of silence “uhh, uh, _*now I am become death…”* People are like “wait what?” and he’s all coy “yeah just a cool thing I thought of just now, nbd.”
I think another big reason why Nolan doesn't want to convert color film to bw is because he likes to finish his films photochemically. I can't see any other way to convert color film to bw than to do it in a DI process.
That's a good point! Yeah, I would assume there are various technical and creative reasons for Nolan to use B&W film specifically. Also the fact that he is an absolute purist when it comes to film lol
Black and white film is the best choice if your goal is black and white images on the screen. As an aside, my favorite process is Technicolor 3-Strip.all shot on black and white film.
@@robertmaxey5406 Do you happen to know if Technicolor color is even possible anymore? Everyone says it’s sadly extinct, even Tarantino has said that he’s tried to resurrect it but for technical reasons he doesn’t understand, it can’t seem to be done. I’m trying to emulate that look on a feature I’ll be directing, shot on film, and trying to figure out the best way to achieve it!
@@matthewrocca4197 no offence but the look will be just that, only the look. Big difference to be sure.
As for bringing back Technicolor, the short answer is no. The company did bring it back for a time, but they had a hard time finding qualified people who understood the process. By process, I mean the three-strip process or Process #4 which dominated the industry.
For awhile, Technicolor made dye transfer prints by color separation of one of Kodak's color negative stocks. Absolutely not the same thing. It was largely a cost saving measure. Ever see a Technicolor camera in a blimp? Huge. Lots of light was required as well. This meant lots of heat on the set.
Besides Natalie Kalmus is dead.
Kodak could make matrix film, dyes and other materials you would require, but the experts are long gone. The equipment is largely gone. To bring it back would require lots and lots of effort. Not to mention, cost. I seriously doubt Quentin's ability. Not saying it can't be done, but it would be very tough.
It is now just a very fond memory, sadly.
This movie may be one of the last hurrahs for movies shot on film stock. Digital cameras for movie work from ARRI and Sony have gotten so good in the last 10 years that very few filmmakers outside of Christopher Nolan will still stick to using film in movie production.
Atleast Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson from big Hollywood names are using film on all their films.
And many indie filmmakers still want to shoot on film.
Actually that’s not completely true: to echo what Mirrori said, I’m an indie filmmaker working on comparatively very low budgets, nowhere near Nolan level (yet 😉) but I’m still making the choice to shoot on film. And it’s not as outrageously expensive as people generally assume. It just depends on how you work with it. For example, I shot list and storyboard everything very thoroughly, block it out and then I only need to do a few takes usually. That makes it less expensive. The production days go quicker this way and actors are more excited by the format so they’re more precise in their performances, knowing there won’t be a lot of takes. So this further saves money on production. Shooting on film actually saves money & time in post because there’s way less footage to sift through and color correction goes by much quicker because the colors and aesthetic already look so beautiful that it takes a lot less polishing. Kodak is also a fantastic company, and they’re offering me an incredible discount on stock because I’m also a teacher educating young students on celluloid. So there are all kinds of benefits and cost effective ways to shoot on film, if one is resourceful and creative about it! Which is why I firmly believe the medium will stand the test of time.
@@matthewrocca4197 However, there are two big problems: 1) film stock is now very expensive to procure and 2) finding a film lab to process the film is getting harder and harder to do. You really wonder how much money Nolan had to put up to get the specialized black and white IMAX film stock and to find a film lab that can process this unusual type of film stock for _Oppenheimer_ .
IMAX are launching new Film Cameras, and have said they're committing to making film, as well as offering Digital.
@@Sacto1654 Good points. But there are always creative workarounds. For example, the feature I'm working on right now is under 80 pages long, some scenes are B&W, and the shooting ratio I'm going for is 5:1, which is achievable due to the above-mentioned meticulous planning in pre-production. Partnering up with Kodak from an educational angle provides an amazing discount, and it also helps to have a DP who can attain a discount at the lab due to his exemplary working relationship with them (CineLab if you're curious). Don't get me wrong, I agree fees are high, but I also think a director should fight for shooting on celluloid if that's what he/she wants to accomplish, and don't be afraid to get creative in your approach to cutting costs. As I mentioned, you'll potentially save a lot of money on # of shooting days and in post.
Props to Nolan for building a working nuclear bomb and vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki yet again just for the sake of the movie.
When I worked at Locanda Verde in NYC, they had an Italian red wine that at first taste made me think of black and white film grain. Don’t know why or how but that’s how I was able to understand it and explain it. Unfortunately can’t remember the name of the wine.
That sounds like an excellent wine
Because it's a FILM and not a long TikTok video like all the other movies today
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Always happy to hear about this aspect of filmmaking and preservation.
Being that both Vision3 in 65mm and Double X have acetate film base, and that Cinestill has been selling Double x in 120 medium format for a while, I imagine it was a matter of just sending the master rolls down the 65mm cutter. I really hope that just like how E100 became available as a 35mm motion stock after it was used for that Netflix show, 65mm Double X becomes available for purchase
Cannot wait for this movie! Nolan still makes IMAX movies like no other! Didn’t see Tenet in IMAX because of Covid but I saw Dunkirk at it was a full experience like no other.
One small correction to your explanation of B&W. Not all Kodak nor B&W has T-Grain. That only is applicable to one kind. Other than that, thanks for the video. :)
Appreciate the correction!
nolans comments about archival and media reminds me of a similar question where Steve Albini from electrical audio about digital audio and vinyl. that being, and im paraphrasing; vinyl is great for archival because there isnt a tried and true way of archiving digital and the playback method for vinyl is very basic..
Also the choice for using black and white in certain scenes i totally get what hes tried and is attempting with this new movie.. it illicits a tone and your eyeballs break react differently to a monotone palette. There are some examples of this used in the most recent david lynch's twin peaks season 3..
anyway...
You have to feel at least a little bit how lack of knowledge / understanding of shooting on film gets in the way of producing content like this :D
Most of your audience likely never shot on film and never will, which it makes it an easy audience (from technical standpoint), but while creating this clip you surely felt "I'm speculating about this thing I don't fully understand" thought pass through several times X)
As for the B&W film they used - it's more or less an existing stock, that is produced in 120 format which is almost exactly the same width as "65mm film". Here is where the speculation should be - how much did Kodak actually do here. Is it just marketing partnership and all they did was simply perforate master rolls of 120 film that required minimal retooling and no actual R&D or did Kodak get a budget they invested into hiring new people (or level-upping existing personnel) and coming up with something new that will eventually become available to other filmmakers.
P.S.: Kodak is currently positioning itself as a coating company, they are battery and solar panel component supplier. Film is a side gig from their corporate point of view.
So while I am glad to see Kodak finally get a win again, it would have been incredibly ironic had they worked with Fuji. I wonder how that phone call would have gone.
I wish u could still wach movies on film where i live its all digital you would have to drive 10+ hours to see someting on IMAX film
Same 🥲
I'm not sure *where* IMAX film is still being screened anywhere anymore. Even "AMC Loews Metreon 16 with IMAX" in San Francisco (which I think others have stated is the second largest IMAX theater in the USA?) projects 15/70mm film and 4K Dual Laser, but provides absolutely ZERO insight to viewers which is which for any given screening and my guess is most of it is digital, not film.
@@grey5626 its the movies why wouldn't they wont to use film cost more so what that's what movies are
one of the reason why film is still used for preservation is because if you shoot on 70mm today, in 20 years you will be able to rescanner that film in 16k or whatever resoultion will be the meta then and so on. if you shoot in 4k/8k today that file will be forever in 8k. we are 4k rescanning stuff from the 80's that was shoot on 35mm and despite is more than 40 years old that stuff now looks shoot today w a today camera.
Wow this was a really great video 👏🏽
Appreciate it!
Bullshit you can't digitally store a movie for the next 20-30 years. Store to tape with backups, pull it out every ten years and put it on the latest media. LTO has been made for this purpose for decasdes.
Haha I agree. This is Nolan just being Nolan haha
Fun fact about acetate cellulose, it is the material high quality frames for glasses are made of. There are cheaper injection moulded frames as well, but longer lasting frames are made from sheets of acetate cellulose!
Oh interesting!
Today very few of the filmmakers around know how good black-and-white films can be.
I know Kenneth Branagh did one in the 80s which is pretty good and George Clooney did one about Edward R Morrow and that was shot totally in black and white and I think he directed it it was pretty good.
Too bad that the black and white medium has been discarded.😐
I agree, so sad!
I think it's worth voicing the fact that every time 'Nolan' was uttered, I literally heard 'no one'. So you can imagine this is immensely confusing. Otherwise really enjoyed the video.
A bit off topic, but I’m curious if you guys would be interested in making a video on quantum dot image sensors?
The potential benefits of these sensors seems absolutely insane compared to CMOS. It’s also looking like they might be right around the corner of hitting the market.
Let's be real, for preservation digital is objectively superior since you can make identical copies without any degradation and have as much redundancy as necessary.
I don't disagree with you haha!
But, try playing a videogame from the 90s that came on a CD on your computer of today (I know it's a different thing but take it as a metaphor). I've tried it multiple times. It's not just that you may not have a CD reader nowadays, but even if you have one, the game doesn't install and you can't do anything about it. I've tried this and believe me, even after searching on the internet, with virtual machines, with older drivers... Nothing works.
This applied to film. Every time you changed the way the software works, you'd have to revise the digital copies of all the films you are preserving and update them so they work with the newest system.
With film, you can keep it well stored and saved in a cool and dry ambient for 50 years, come back without any projectors for it, and still you can put light through it and the image projects on the wall. That's future proofing.
@@Jorge_Ambruster I don’t think I’ve ever heard this better articulated, bravo!
I remember a reddit comment saying it would be awesome if the movie was black and white first and then color after the explosion so I wouldnt be surprised if screenwriters steal ideas from online people😒
Or vice versa
I believe it was Einstein who said "I don't know with what weapons world war 3 will be fought, but I know that world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
Very heavy shit.
I guess the closest thing to this was the old Fox "Grandeur" format that "The Big Trail" was shot on in 1930
The Eastman Kodak Company produced that film right here in Rochester, NY, and the George Eastman museum is at the cutting edge of film preservation. *ALSO,* Eastman Kodak had a NUCLEAR REACTOR (for neutron generation/product testing) at the Kodak Park research/Production facility!
As someone who uses a 35mm film camera, true B&W film looks very different (and much better) than color film that’s later converted to B&W. It can capture highlights and shadows in a very unique and striking way.
Could you explain more on how B&W film does this?
@@rufaiajala The light sensitive layer of photographic film is made up of silver halide crystals. When exposed to light through a camera, these crystals react and capture an image. I can’t find anything detailing the exact makeup of color film (compared to black and white), but I believe it has an extra chemical layer to capture color.
When manufacturers are creating a film stock they can alter the chemical makeup to create different “looks”. Kodak’s Portra line, for example, is known for its pastel tones and was created as a portrait film. Black and white films are designed to capture highlights and shadows differently because that’s all it can capture. Color film can still look good when converted to black and white in post, but it wasn’t created with that look in mind so it won’t do as good as true black and white.
I don’t have any interest in arguing what’s “better” and I don’t have a lot of experience with black and white film, but I do have a lot of experience with shooting digital in both color and black and white. I will say that I’ve looked at sample images from $150,000 achromatic cameras (they only shoot in grayscale) and my little Nikon D40 that I purchased on eBay for $21 produces images that are much more pleasing to my eye.
That awkward moment when you see your face pop up in a Frame Voyager video. 10:30 To be fair I switched to Davinci Resolve before it was the cool thing to do 😎😂
😂😂😂😂😂 lol forgot about this integration haha
For peeps look for when he covers the question why black and white it at 11:00 .. props for stretching it out 15 min it was very informative
Xavier Dolan shot Adele music video “Hello” on IMAX film. Which was black and white
Specific shots in it and it's not clear if it was black and white film or post converted. Regardless, this is the first film to feature b&w imax film and it was specially developed by Kodak. All Technical specification of that music video here www.imdb.com/title/tt5431624/technical/ show that it was shot on Kodak 65mm color film. So likely post converted
Every Frame Voyager video feels a documentary in itself
Haha appreciate it! We do like doing some deep dives to talk about history behind things. We might have to do a full length doc one of these days
I took photography and darkroom courses in the mid 80's, and used B&W film. Kodak T-Max was fairly new, and it offered high resolution and very dark "dmax". Later, my "normal" (color print film) vacation photos looked washed out and grainy in comparison. A dedicated B&W film is _much_ better than just shooting color film in shades of grey only.
Now, what will the print use? Are they switching film stock based on the scene and splicing it all back together, something you never do on the distribution print? Or is it just printed on color film, losing the deep blacks and higher resolution of the true B&W footage?
People are switching to Davinci Resolve so fast right now because Peter McKinnon & Matti Happoja switched to it. When I use to tell people they should switch, they always said no
😅😅😅 yeah I use premiere pro still. Just have too much built into it at this point
@@FrameVoyager that I totally understand, it’s a valid reason
You make it appear that there are only two options for film stock base material -- old combustible and new unworkable. Had you been around in the 1950s, '60s, '70s, experience would make you informed in substantial and nuanced ways. For many years, there were post-nitro stocks that could be operated effectively in cameras and could be spliced conveniently without resorting to using tapes.
There were (are?) post-nitro camera-original negative and positive stocks designed with effective color and density latitude for generous release prints, and that would not damage a camera that jammed. If you saw a movie in a theater in the 1960s-1970s, there's a very good chance it was not polyester (well past the days of nitro) -- while other prints of the movie were kept on polyester as backup. Distributed prints became disposable in the early 1950s, because total wear-out was almost inevitable, whatever the base material. But even in those days even "B" movies had archive copies stored properly, up to a point. (If a movie saw a rapid gain in popularity, further prints could be struck from a clean print more easily than from the negative of the release edit. Those are the source of many restored films.)
Far, far more film warehouses were lost to aggressive real-estate economics than to fire or other material disasters after the nitro era. That may also be partially the case in the nitro era.
Even the average person on the street knew the dangerous instability of nitro stock in its day. Just as we know that refrigerated food can spoil and even become toxic. Look in every fridge you see for the next year and decide exactly what you'd do with what's in there at that moment. That's how movie storage was decided in the nitro era. If the movie was deemed past its healthy life -- in the market or for further storage -- it was, for better or worse, tossed. Neglect and mishandling were not the biggest cause of loss. Dubious-yet-thoughtful consideration could mean that the film my gr-granddad enjoyed seeing the most in 1929 was thrown away, but the one that your gr-grandma enjoyed seeing the most is still in decent storage. The ratio might be 84/16. But the decisions were made, not neglected.
It's that orphans got no love at all. Judgement was brutal. Values go in cycles. People are subject to their lack of imagination about what will be valued in the future. Digital archiving was thought to mitigate by handling massive volumes of data. Archiving can be mitigated by reconciling the physical and aesthetic realities; making informed decisions.
Biased uninformed discriminatory thinking reconciles nothing.
BTW: Please don't jump to the conclusion that because I use refrigerated food as a storage comparison, I mean that refrigeration is mandatory or can be expected to be the primary-option film storage method. I'm suggesting that a common best-practice for food is not fool-proof. We have yet to reconcile a best-practice for movie storage. The oldest instances of film storage were subject to the same thinking that is common to what's in the typical domestic refrigerator: imperfect, and with inexact time limits. Loose parameters in a well-known instability.
I live in a city with one of the last true 15-perf 70mm IMAX projectors. Dunkirk was amazing. I can’t wait to see this!
Ughhhhh, trying to find one for Oppenheimer
@@FrameVoyager I just checked and the one here isn’t operating anymore. Apparently it’s broken. The nearest one is two hours away now. Ugh.
yeah no
I can get argument, that having real, physical copy of movie is important, but I don't get it as key argument for shooting movies on film. There must be machines that can record digital content into physical film. How would they record movie on film, edit it on computers and then display back on real, analog IMAX projectors. After all, technically you just need film and special kind of projector to display frames into film, so you can "undigitise" anything if you want.
That shooting on film to have physical copy left for future doesn't convince me.
Digital copies can definitely be printed onto film and archived that way, but Nolan’s choice to shoot on film is not about only that. It’s about the alchemy and magic of shooting on celluloid, as well as the superior image that he is able to capture. Sure he could shoot digitally and store it analog, but the image wouldn’t be the same. It would be a copy of an image that he considers inferior. So to shoot it on film AND archive it that way is the most effective methodology and the purest.
The absolutely ridiculous and cartoonish scratch and film dirt effect you added to the monochrome stills take makes me question whether you're qualified to even talk about film at all!
Cool stuff
Great video. However, I find it quite appalling that you advertised a digital to film-look software on a video about Christopher Nolan...
So, it's being shot on IMAX film stock, but will any IMAX theaters actually project film prints? So many went to "lie"MAX long ago. One MPEG (Motion Pictures Editors Guild) friend seems to think that all the film copies will stay with the studio and the only thing in screenings will be digital and I have little reason to doubt his expertise.
I believe the Toronto or Vancouver one still has the original projector. And the same for the BFI in London
Nah there are still theaters that project on film. It’s getting rarer and rarer sadly, but in Los Angeles there’s the cinema that Quentin Tarantino owns, the New Beverly, which is fully committed to their mission of “always on film”. Most theaters now exhibit on DCP only but there are still a few that will roll out the film projectors for a special event movie like this!
@@matthewrocca4197 There are theaters, sure. However the list of IMAX theaters here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_venues for example, doesn't show a single screen in California with a 15/70 capability anymore (though purportedly the Metreon in San Francisco, which is the second largest IMAX screen in the USA has such capabilities, they do not display what format a screening is in, particularly not since the Metreon was aquired by Lowes from Sony).
Moreover, TENET, apparently only had 13 15/70 prints for the entire world, and speculation is that if a dozen 15/70 prints are made of Oppenheimer, that will be about the most.
From what I have been able to research, the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, CA will do a 70mm (5 perforation, vertical reel) screening (they also did a 70mm 5 perf screening of the 2001 remaster) but I cannot find conclusive information anywhere, about any 15/70 horizontal IMAX screening of Oppenheimer anywhere.
For me, the entire reason to care about this being shot in IMAX film, is to see an IMAX 15/70 film print screening.
I hope he manages to mix the dialogue track properly this time around(unlike with Tenet).
I wonder how many people will actually see this movie as a projected film print?
Nolan seems to make these technical decisions based on the viewing exoerience he will get to have, which will be far higher than the majority of people.
I definitely want to go see it on 70mm film. Have a few around me but definitely worth it
A small number I should guess. When was the last time any of you saw a Technicolor three-strip IB Print? Not many, I guess. And that is a shame. Owing to the nature of original Technicolor prints and the fact they can't be recreated makes it difficult to see one projected on the big screen. And what a shame. Should you get a chance to see one, go see it.
I will definitely drive two hours (three in traffic) to Los Angeles to go see this projected as an actual film print! There’s nothing like that experience, seeing it projected on DCP doesn’t do it justice. Same reason I journeyed out to Tarantino’s theater the New Beverly to go see “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” for the bazillionth time this past weekend, so I could see it again in its proper format 🎞️
What a tough movie, very exhausting! Nolan's most boring film so far:( Soundtrack, no one is interested after such a performance!
Craftsmanship, however, it is well done as always, but only meant for one time viewing. Will probably never look at this movie again, for that he is just not entertaining enough:( Also the atomic explosion was not spectacular at all:( Here CGI would have been good! 🥺😅🤷🏻♂️ And yes, have seen him in IMAX, but has not brought much:(
Oppenheimer looks a lot like the 'G-Man' from 'Half Life'.
Hmmmm... Hadn't thought of that
Considering Cinestill sells this film in 120 format, it can’t have been rocket science for Kodak to produce it in 65mm.
I have the Filconvert products and although I grew up with B&W (1950/60s) I just cannot bring myself to apply to my efforts. I attended many "how to" classes but still cannot develop a B&W "vision". Oh well ...
Woah, nice edits! Love it! Great job on this!
Appreciate it! Cool to see the process of rough cuts to final cuts isn't it? haha
@@FrameVoyager Heck yeah! It's a lot different! I'm literally taking hands notes of the changes and looking to incorporate some of the subtle change. Like, I like how you cut Nolan out in the very beginning and sort of slowly zoom in and little things like that. haha I swear these videos should be on Netflix. The editing is superb. Keeps me engaged.
Amazing video,Very informative! Just wanted to ask if Imax claims to have 18k res on their 70mm film which is later projected at 70mm in select locations, doesn't the film get converted to digital for post-production and then back in film for the final print? That would bring the resolution back to 4k right?
First of all, film has no set resolution, so this 18k estimate is an exaggeration, and most film labs will scan IMAX negatives at 12k maximum. There is a demo by cinematographer; Steve Yedlin (who did The Last Jedi and Knives Out) showing that an Alexa 65 camera (which shoots at 6.5k) still holds more detail than a 12k scan of IMAX 15/65mm negative. So resolution isnt everything, there are other factors than pixel count. Second, Nolan likes to finish his films photochemically, so for shots featuring no digital effects will just be printed and timed the traditional way. For shots that feature vfx, the negatives are scanned at 12k or 8k, VFX are done at 6k, then those shots filmed out back onto IMAX negative at 6k again.
@@kraftpunk6654 Ok. Thanks alot for the info.
Let's just say I've talked to several different experts and no one can agree on resolution for film lol. Which is understandable for something chemically based converting to something digitally based. But Kraft Punk gives a good explanation
Christopher Nolan should direct a Mission Impossible movie. Just imagine the crazy stunts they'd put in there.
Kudos to Nolan for his commitment to art and technical challenges in the film industry. I believe that digital filming is also possible without postproduction manipulations and artifice, but I quite appreciate Nolan’s choice based on the quality of the results.
you seen Kill Bill, in color ?
What does this channel understand ?
IMAX film stock is identical to regular 5/70 stock physically. The areas for the sound track changes, but otherwise its entirely the same stock, so its highly likely that very little actual R&D had to be done to create black and white IMAX stock.
IMAX movies have never encoded their soundtracks on the film. They were originally put on separate 35mm magnetic film reels and synced to the projector. Later the system was updated to use CD-ROM discs, and then updated again to use DVDs. For the CD and DVD systems the audio is usually copied onto the sound system’s hard drive instead of being played directly off the disc, but either way the film print still has to be manually positioned in the projector on a specific frame for the audio to be correctly synced to the image.
@@jordanbradford7729 You're correct, but this had no bearing on the film used in the cameras, as they didn't encode the sound on the film ever either, for 5/70 or IMAX. You're correct that the sound sync still relies simply on specific timing based on a start frame. Theoretically, IMAX has the space on the edge to encode a DTS timecode if one wanted to do that differently in the future, however, the speed the film moves at may raise some issues, as from my experience projecting, DTS already has sync issues with the speeds 5/70 moves at.
Just came back from a 70mm screening and it was wonderful. I can't wait for it come out on Blu-Ray so I can watch it again.
This is the most underrated channel fr. Great job guys!
Appreciate it! 👊👊👊
Agreed. Netflix quality. We're spoiled here on RUclips.
@@CNC-Time-Lapse 🥰🥰🥰
this is such a redundant subject, I just don't get why go for bw.
That’s cool, but I pay to watch films in color. So I would like it to be in color:)
Ask for a proportional refund afterwards.
@@davidjames579 I will
Looks incredibly boring. You could sum it all up in 2 minutes.
My guess, is that the B&W portion of the movie is going to be the post atomic bomb world.
We've created something that coild destroy mankind as we know. Oppenheimer knows it and the color is drained from the world for him.
Thats my guess at least.
Kind of how The Grand Budapest Hotel goes B&W when fascism takes over Europe.
Hate and bigotry takes all the color from the world. It probably wont be as jarring though since Grand Budapest is basically a dollhouse.
Knowing that Nolan can actually get way too sentimental on the characters he writes on; it would make sense if he gets to use the BnW scenes on the moments that Oppenheimer gets conscious about what he's actually doing. I mean, I'm still arguing only on the things I've seen in the trailer and some few movies, but yeah.
Now talking about the Quality of IMAX besides the digital tech; I'd understand the point of choicing IMAX if it wasn't because today's digital video quality is not a big problem anymore away from the decoding media and its corruption, the same way any film works with the physics.
Would Saving Privat Ryan be better on IMAX?
Answer: NO
Imaging shooting scenes like this ruclips.net/video/OWXz3ldXlXY/видео.html with the BRRRRRRRRR of an IMAX 5 feet away from you.
I love Nolan but this obsession is dumb in my opinion
Nitro-Cellulose has a more common name. Gun Cotton. For an example of use, see Battleship New Jersey. The 16" guns were bag loads of nitrocellulose propellant grains.
Another common use was ping pong balls of all things. they were nitrocellulose up until the 90's early 2k's
I always wondered why BW film looked different to just turning the colour off a colour film image. Thanks for the explanation of the chemical difference. Just fascinating! Explains the sharpness difference. “Clouds” can never be as sharp as crystals.
Work for a very old school system. 10 years back we collected every old film from 100 schools. Some started smoking the second we opened the can. We had to get a fire box in the warehouse. Some looked like the one you showed with bubbles. No fires but it would it would have not been long. S FL so very humid here too. The steel, that's why salvors are pulling up pre war wrecks from deep ocean. Pre war no radioactivity
Kudos to Nolan for correctly stating the truth most people are unaware of - that there is no stable digital archiving format or workflow available today, and the only truly long-term storage medium we know today is film - particularly black-and-white film stored at low to very low temperature. Color films may be separated into three RGB strips of black-and-white film and stored in the same way.
You got a like from me for the Tim and Eric’s Universe clip.
Great video. Small correction, however. It is more correct to say "cellulose acetate" rather than "acetate cellulose." Just sayin'.
Thanks for the info!
This channel is just flat out amazing.
I love me some Nolan, but the argument of digital media not able to reliably archive is BS. This is where my professional expertise far outweighs his. Although solid state storage has not reached it potential yet it is very reliable. Furthermore, traditional hard disk drives can last 20 years + if cared for appropriately. Most degradation of anything actually comes from the elements like temperature, humidity, exposure to light, and the sorts. Therefore, environmentally controlled storage spaces are actually the primary concern when preserving something. This includes digital storage and, of course, film.
Film, old or new, can be re-scanned for modern digital sales. Even though one can use a BMD 12K camera to capture, once sales require more, then only film will suffice.
You mean Why Nolan’s Oppenheimer B&W IMAX Film is so special. Now it looks like Oppenheimer made a black and white film…
As a photographer who has shot on BW film his entire life, this was inspiring.
"'i believe we did''
So if I understand it correctly, the film exists in two versions on IMAX prints? The colour and black&white versions?
I wonder what anime he'll reference in this one! 😅😅
Eeeek! $1611 for 1000ft of film works out at just less than 2.5 minutes of recording time @ 30fps - don't mess up!
The Trinity Test was special, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were barbaric and unnecessary.
This is just a film.
3:28 Ehhh not exactly sure that is accurate. Polyester film- yeah that is spot on... But the majority of camera stocks are designed to break away to prevent that.
Eastman Double-X is a wonderful film stock. Contrast, tonality, luminance, and grain… just fantastic!
Irrc. National geographic still archives images with transparent (E6) dupes and puts them in cold storage.