Why Oppenheimer Won Best Cinematography
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2024
- Christopher Nolan is famous for shooting his movies on the grand 70mm Imax format. Since the beginning of his career he has shot every single movie on analog film instead of digital. For Oppenheimer, Nolan went as far as using experimental black and white film made by Kodak, something that has never been done before. Not many movies these days are shot on the "old" analog film format because of the rise of digital cameras, however Christopher Nolan and Quentin are filmmakers who swear by analog film. Why is it that? Is it pure nostalgia? Does that mean analog is still better than digital? Or is there something bigger underlying their choice? Let's find out...
The Wind That Shakes The Barley, Aftersun and Once Upon a time in America are streaming on MUBI in the Netherlands and many other countries. Get 30 days free: mubi.com/ducinema
0:00 Is analog film dead?
1:42 Analog vs Digital
4:00 Cinema or at Home?
6:00 Why Roger Deakins loves digital
7:30 The Magic of Film
- Business Inquiries: ducinemaofficial@gmail.com
The rights for all the songs in this video are purchased through Artlist: artlist.io/referral/3497535/D...
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
#oppenheimer #christophernolan #imax 
Кино
What's your favorite Christopher Nolan movie?
Momento & Interstellar & the dark knight all time fav's, also Dunkirk (3 narrative screenplay got me)
Tenet
Dark Knight Inception and Memento all my favs from him. Oppenheimer is my fav after those. Nolan is the 🐐
The Prestige, Memento, TDK. Those are his most tightest films, with all departments working well across the board.
My favourites are 1. Interstellar 2. Oppenheimer 3. Dunkirk 4. Inception 5. The Prestige
I'm not that big on the Dark Knight trilogy
I don’t like the film vs digital debate, because in general I hate the idea of hard rules in art. I can absolutely see why people prefer film to digital, but to say it’s just better is closed minded to me. I like Deakins take on this, different films require different equipment, and the person using the equipment matters more than the equipment itself.
@@bulletproofkarma9480but you don't always want better dynamic range and better color, that's the exact point!
i agree! digital and analog have their own perks and setbacks. they are equal in my eyes cz like paintings it doesn't matter wether it's traditional or digital, it's the dude doing it
Completely agree with you and love Deakins approach. While yes, Tarantino as a master of his craft, every single interview I see of him, talking about film vs. digital, he comes across as a huge snob which generally makes me dislike him personally. His movies do speak for themselves tho, but so do the movies of Deakins, Fraiser and Lubetzki who shoot beautifully on digital and film.
@@moritzzoellner at least whenever I’ve seen Tarantino talk about it his arguments aren’t based as much in fact as they are his own personal experience, which is fine if he feels that way, but it’s not very persuasive.
I like film, the thing is where will most people see your work? In a theater with a film projector? At home on their TV? Or on their phones.
So glad I was able to see Oppenheimer in original 70mm Imax at the Science Museum in London - arguably the best cinematic experience I've ever had
Interstellar, but Inception comes close behind!
Like Nolan said -”IMAX, is like 3D without the glasses”🔥
I really want to see what imax oppenheimer with 3d glasses looks like. The orignal imax 70mm was really great already
@@dzrknx yes that would be cool to see the effect!
I think the bigger issue is that digital filming tends to go hand in hand with the "fix it in post" mentality. I exclusively shoot movies or series digitally but I'm adamant as DP that we always put as many real elements in front of the sensor as possible, and do everything in front of the camera as practically as possible. I think that's one of the reasons why things shot on film feel more real, even if there's compositing going on you know somewhere somebody put a puppet or a miniature in front of a film camera and something real was captured to celluloid. It's the difference between fabrication (CGI) and forced perspective (The miniature set isn't as big IRL as it is made to look on screen). You can do just about anything with color grading and effects these days to make digital look like film if that's what you're going for.
Agree with the comment except the connection with fix it in post. I’m a VFX supervisor and also a set supervisor and the pipeline difference between digital and film is basically a scan step after the lab is done their luma calibration and that’s it. The moment you need to grade it, it goes digital, fixing film or digital in post isn’t dependent of the original medium nowadays. We work with intermediaries from the scan on, there is no compromise between the 2 mediums when it comes to post apart from reverse stabilizing gate weave to be able to integrate effects.
@@unspecialistYeah well I watch a couple of movies here and there and I think film is stupid and smelly and we should shoot movies on iphone 6s thank you.
Agreed. The movie Joker comes to mind. Had no idea it was shot digitally.
Digital offers superior colorimetry and wider dynamic range. "Film" means "intrinsic limitations we don't have to deal with anymore.". And certainly digital can look like film. But why limit it in that manner?
I just saw Oppenheimer in 70mm at the Sun theatre in Melbourne. It looked stunning to me. I think film and digital have their place depending on what you wish to achieve artistically.
Well, well, well. I'll never be sold on this. A 16k shot (4 times the current 8k standard) projected on a imax sized screen (imax is 18x24 meters usually, but I'll consider a 18x32 to keep the aspect ratio) would have a discerning distance of about 6 meters. Meaning a person with perfect 20/20 eyesight won't be able to resolve 2 points from eachother at more than 6 meters. At the IMAX I've been the closes seat is probably about 9 meters from screen.
Doing the math with the claimed 18k and 18x24 meters IMAX screen gives you about 4.5 meters.
Sitting at halfway through the seats you'll never be able to phisically discern an imax roll from a 8k digital printed on film.
I mean, literally, phisically impossible.
@@REVOLUTIONS51 cinema nerd sad face.
I saw Whoppenheimer on imax and to be honest, before going I had lost my love for going to the cinema and watching a movie. But now watching that film re-ignited my love for cinema, see the trinity test on that big screen really changed me. I cried after watching the movie
I thought the movie itself sucked. Big time.
WHOPPENHEIMER HAHAH "I WANT A WHOOPERHEIMER PLS WITH FRIES HAHA"
If you lost your love for cinema you need to find better pictures
As a 70mm projectionist, keeping the art of film projection alive is imperative. Shoot however you want, but when you go to distribute a movie, it should be on film. Blade Runner 2049 got 70mm trailers to run before Dunkirk, and it looks stunning... compare that to our *SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLAR* digital projector we have which can manage... 2k (1080p equivalent). Film reigns supreme.
They perfected colour films with the tri-colour film process, in the 1940's
"leave her to heaven' for example,
Then they adopted cheaper, easier, lower image quality single film colour process
@@bulletproofkarma9480 compression. It will take a long time until we have really high quality lossless film, and until then I don't see it being a viable alternative.
What if some day 18k will be possible for Digital ?
@@RandomMusik It wont, and even then, the cost wont ever make sense. Current 2k cinema projectors cost upwards of 100k USD.
this is why tradition is superior to liberation
Good video, just want to clarify though that the image used in the thumbnail and shown at 1:49 is actually a digital still taken on a Fujifilm GFX and not an IMAX film still (the press release those photos are from contain a mix of both and the Fuji vs Imax images are labelled as such in the file names).
Just goes to show how stupid it is to say that film is superior nowadays. 😂
yea this video has a lot of problems like that
I get it - both sides. One of the things that truly annoyed me when watching Oppenheimer, was that the eyes very very often out of focus and sometimes the only thing sharp were the ears or/and the background. I understand they probably shot with a very open aperture and it is enormously difficult for the 1stAC (given the few shooting days) but what is the point of going through all of this hassle, when the eyes or faces are not sharp in the end. 18k doesn't help with that either.
About the 'phone' point: Yes, it is extremely wonderful that everybody has the option to capture videos. But to make a film means much more than having a camera. I hate that argument: 'just go out and shoot a film'. Because actually shooting it requires still either a big chunk of money or people who work for free - so to say: unpaid work. Locations, food, travel costs, ... you name it, still needs to be covered. I think it is a romanticized view on the modern freedom of moviemaking.
Sorry for being a bit negative here. Still thank you very much for your video and for the work you put into it. I don't mean it personally, it is meant as a joke and a bit to proof my point: You didn't even had to shoot it, so why do you need a sponsor?
Focus has nothing to do with the medium it was shot on. Shoot that same scene through that lens on an equivalently-sized sensor, and the focus will still be soft on the edge. Most cinema lenses don't stop down super far, since you don't need perfect corner to corner sharpness in most situations that a cinematographer will want to capture.
I personally found that to be very engaging. I had no need to see every face in full detail and sharpness, every scene,scene after scene, especially in the second half where there are a lot of mid and close up shots. An out of focus face here or a sharply focussed nose there actually cut the banality of the shot, enough to be slightly interesting without actually being distracting. It was almost as if Hoytema was painting in broad strokes, without being too concerned about the finer details, as long as the final portrait came out looking beautiful.
Tarantino offers the perfect explanation for some directors shooting film at 6:50. He says you can shoot a film with a cell phone, and he doesn't mean that in an inclusive democratization is good kind of way. Shooting on film for him was as he said, a mount everest most could not climb. Digital is like building an elevator to everest.
There is a strong streak of elitism and exclusivity about being in a prestige circle, of being in a way of making art by it's nature not accessable to but a tiny minority that is important to the philosophy of some filmmakers. Kinda Nietzsche/Rand super format for super people mindset.
That’s just stupid. You can create better movies with a phone than Tarantino will ever make. And some have been released already.
Also Tarantino saying that, he who learned cinema by renting movies is just pure nonsense 😂 shows how unhinged he is… zero respect
Dunkirk may have been Nolan's masterwork, but Oppenheimer deserves attention for being a surprisingly arresting. I agree wth Deakins, who has a real sense for the flexibility for filmmaking. But I also agree with Nolan, who feels it's important to keep the options for film as open as possible. That includes everything from 70mm to digital.
What did you like about Dunkirk ?
Dunkirk is in his bottom 3 films man
oh come on dunkirk was even worse. oppenheimer is way better than dunkirk and oppenhiemr is a bad movie
the dark knight is nolans masterwork. get real. thats a truly amazing movie. how can you have a villain and gritty world that actually scared you in a pg 13 movie? by making an amazing movie thats how
@@JackJackKcajify I hated Nolan's Batman movies. Burton all the way!
Very well put together video. Great job!
Cinema is more about the theatrical experience, stories, the craft of moviemaking and the marketing than it’s about the medium.
the craft of the moviemaking literally involves the medium
@@user-wr5bz1wq2v yes it does. What’s your point? My dinner can involve steak, but my dinner party is about more than steak… and I can have a dinner party without steak… or even without firing up my bbq.. but it doesn’t make it any less of a dinner party.
The craft of moviemaking involves a lot of things. It is not just the medium. This is not a “hot take”.
As someone who dj’d for many years with vinyl… vinyl does not OWN the clubbing experience… and film does not own the theatrical experience.
I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't neglect the importance about the medium, along with everything you said
I love that you mentioned the sound issues created by shooting on film, especially IMAX film. As films get more and more complex, the work of sound engineers on set and in prost production gets more and more difficult and you can actually sometimes tell how "placed in" the dialogue feels in Oppenheimer, its not a downside of course but if you work in sound, you can tell if you listen closely that they either had to use a different camera for the "guide track" or didn't have one at all.
Love the videos, man. Keep it up!!!
again - amazing video, great research & love the way you narrate! I am definitely staying here for more😉
The cinematography in this film is beyond incredible, must experience this in IMAX, the atomic particle scenes and the sequence of the Trinity Test were simply splendid in IMAX. Nolan is truly a cinematic genius.
Why? Does it change the story? No! I hate going to the cinema. Give me digital streaming on my laptop any day!
Using Imax = Genius.
Certified over-exaggerating nerd moment.
It all ends up being bullshit when it's also released in DVD but for some reason we can't have it on streaming platforms. Lol.
Oppenheimer budget was 100 million only.
It's just an artistic choice. BUT I CAN NEVER FORGET THE FILM PROJECTION OF OPPENHEIMER, IT IS MAGICAL.
Oppenheimer needs to win the best cinematography for Oscars next year.
i approve
I'm positive that Dune 2 will look way better with some actual good looking shots and not just "shot on IMAX".
@@gurratell7326 Dune 2 isn't coming out this year
They won!
its a shame there are only a few IMAX cinemas showing the film version. I was lucky to see Oppenheimer at the Manchester Printworks IMAX screen & it does have a mellow quality that suits story telling. i have used 70mm = 120 size film for studio still photography in the past & it can be manipulated in processing to give subtle effects.
Much respect for showing all the brands some love.
High resolution = Better films?
It's important all the little details that go into the story telling. Who cares if it's water colors or acrylics, use the tools to tell the story how you want to. Film does a great job with highlights, digital is great with shadows. Every form has its own benefits.
At the end of the day a good film's a good film, it's the characters and scenarios we connect with, not which film stock or digital sensor was used to tell it
Yeah that's why I can't stand Tarantino saying he won't watch a film due to childish details like being projected digitally
3:57: Blackmagic makes 12K Digital camera's, RED makes 8K, i'm not sure where the "modest 6K" comes from, but 6k was the maximum maybe 5 years ago by now.
He's talking about the big movie cameras like ARRI Alexa's and others not the smaller ones I think 🤷🏾♂️
That’s not how cameras work. No digital camera with a color sensor has the actual resolution it says it has. And the Blackmagic 12K doesn’t even come close to reaching 12K in real world conditions.
ARRI still shot in 4k and most of the winning awards films was shot on this camera.
this was a beautiful video great job!
David Lynch on why he does not like film - "It scratches, it breaks, its dirty, and no two prints are the same. It a nightmare."
It’s not like that anymore. I mean yes it still gets broken and dirty if not handled well but print film is much more durable now than back in Lynch’s day and because they don’t need to make so many print quality control is much tighter. I’ve seen five different prints of Oppenheimer, and they all looked the same except for the difference that comes from watching it in different formats. The two IMAX prints and the two 70mm prints look exactly the same to each other.
And digital projection turns out to be inconsistent too. From user error to aging projectors. In my city with three cinemas and 300K people only about a third actually match each other and can represent a movie correctly. And I personally preferred a beat up 35mm print over the defects these projectors show after only a decade of use.
I think especially for 16mm film, it looks most like we remember moments from our past. Also, high end film (Portra, Ektar, Vision 3) has a very good dynamic range (about 14 stops; some digital cams have more, such as the alexa with about 17-18 stops) which comes somewhat close to the dynamic range of human eye vision (18-20 stops).
And really movies for me should rather look like memories, since you can never physically be in the action and the storytelling is compressed in 99.9% of films, which naturally resembles more the nature of remembering rather than experiencing. So (16mm) in my opinion, film delivers the most memory-accurate picture possible. When going to LF film such as 35mm, 65mm or IMAX, it becomes somewhat indistinguishable from digital but gains the resolution advantage. Also especially but not only when doing stills, I have the feeling that due to the imperfect nature of film it allows for much more mistakes on the photographer's side.
However even though being more film-biased, I really admire a 74 year old Roger Deakins who has spent most of his life shooting on film adapting so quickly and determined to the new technology of digital systems. Not many old people that I know of are like that.
Why Oppenheimer and finally Christopher Nolan won academy awards ???? Becoz he made a movie about USA and its scientist.
THATS what I'm talking about.
Oppenheimer was one of the top 3 films i've seen this year (others being Barbie and Puss In Boots 2)
Puss in Boots 2 was surprisingly great, the villain is one of the best.
OK, NOW THIS IS EPIC
That soundman joke killed all most chocked
This is the greatest RUclips channel
Because seeing particles in the film has more personality than the digital film.
You sound like someone who would use a shift stick
@@FingerTightRacing8What?
@@gaylord_focker mr. Gay, Im just saying that cause that’s what people who drive stick say, they only drive stick and they say it gives the car personality, same thing with guys who hate electric cars actually
You can’t even see grain in imax….
@ruttedrumble3332 not trying to confirm the other guys response, but having seen Oppenheimer in true IMAX 70mm film at tge AMC Lincoln Square, you could see the grain, even with the large format IMAX sequences.
I don't know if it actually gives the film more personality, but it was a little distracting at times, especially the little knicks, scratches and other imperfections.
Absolutely love this video!! I hope to shoot on 65mm one day
Nolan is all about how best I can perfect the cinema exploring all the possibilities of Physics in cinema making, and How hard twist I can direct a story
he is a revolution 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
I love your Channel because most channels that talk about movies are always so negative all the time. But you focus on the good and quality which is worth the subscribing and adding joy to my entrainment.
I love your videos bud 😍
🤯🤯🤯🤯 amazing vídeo and editing, in turn. There is also Roger Deakins. Mito
Thank you 🙌
Now this is the video I was wanting in a while . You tube algorithm is getting better baby
VERY WELL RESEARCHED AND NICE EDITING AND VOICE OVER, GOOD TO SEE FILMAKER ENTHUSISTS TO SHOW THEIR ART THAT IS COMMON WITH CINEPHILES. LIKE PHYSICYSTS BRAGGING ABOUT NEWTON OAYING RESPECTS TO THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO A COMMON INTEREST FOR SCIENCE, WE SHOULD HAVE MORE LIKE THIS CHANNEL FOR CINEPHILES
such a greaat video! really love it
Lot of information in the video 🥰
Analogue vs Digital filmmaking.
It's the director's choice to film analogue or digital. But we audience have to preserve the technology for future generations to experience Cinema by encouraging Analogue films too😊
As our TVs get bigger and better, the transfers from higher-resolution film will be able to keep up.
Eyyyy new fantastic video!! Great man!!
And yoooo je bent gewoon Nederlands man 💪🏻 ik DM je ook gewoon in het Engels 🤣🤣
haha legend
Thank you for the great video. I think Graig Fraser found a happy medium between digital and film with Dune and The Batman - shoot in digital, transfer to film, then scan back to digital. It keeps the flexibility of the digital workflow while giving the end product that softer feel of film.
In terms of the viewing experience, for me there's no going back after seeing something on IMAX 70mm. 1.43:1 IMAX with Laser is also excellent, but having seen Dune Part 1 in Laser and Part 2 in IMAX 70mm, I find the film projection to be livelier.
very interesting....i think that even tho its a bit contradictory, i agree with both takes but i definitely think the most important part is was Roger Deakins said abt the importance of the person using the equipment rather than the equipment by itself.
I'm not a filmmaker, more of a photographer, but I get the obsession with analog film because i primarily shoot with manual lenses on my cameras. They add character to photos in a world where everything is super sharp and crystal clear. I also have a manual transmission car so I get the "use it or lose it" thing. Manual transmission cars are pretty obsolete in this day and age but there's something that feels good about shifting through the gears and knowing you're in complete control of your car
again - amazing video, great research & love the way you narrate! I am definitely staying here for more
Wouldve been nice if the movie wasnt out of focus constantly
Was it a stylistic or creative choice?
@@dr.emilschaffhausen4683 a weird one if so
4:41 holy crap, is that Solomun Richards?
There’s a small irony about Nolan liking film. The Dark Knight trilogy 4k set is filled with DNR. While mostly light it does ruin Batman Begins on the 4k so much that the included 1080p blu ray is a better watch. It’s still the best that the movies have looked (besides Batman Begins) but it could have been better even ignoring Nolan’s choice of using an Interpositive for all the films instead of the negative when possible
Any professional film camera is noisy regardless of the film size
I recently went to the cinema to watch the new Wim Wenders movie: Perfect Days.
There is no way on earth that I would endure that slob at home, but at the cinema it was a different experience. I ended up really liking the movie and the fact that it was at the cinema definitely added to the experience.
EXPERIENCE. That's the crucial word in my opinion. It's like going to a favorite restaurant or going to an ammusement park. It's very fun and enjoyable only if you do it rarely.
The vast majority of movies I watch are at home, on my 1080p 15 inch laptop with Bluetooth headphones, very far from the 70mm imax experience, but that's the way I prefer to regularly consume media. I skip around, speed up, slow down, rewatch parts I liked.
Holly sh...utter.. That soundtrack starting at 08:15 ! Eargasm.
In my personal oponion, with these day's technology and how movies are generally consumed, not using digital and only insisting on film gives me the vibe of hipster or elitism.
This video deserves a million views ❤[best story telling and editing in this video] 📷
watching Oppenheimer in cinema (not even IMAX) was amazing. I was in awe of the movie and I watched it twice, it was that amazing. Just the visuals with the sound and the story all comes together into a piece of art. I'm really sad I couldn't see it in IMAX format and will never get a chance to tho
I was really hyped to watch this film and wanted to watch it on film projected onto a huge screen. I travelled to another city to watch it on film and then watched it a little later digitally projected in my hometown. To say i watched the same movie would be a lie. The exposure on film and the colours were totally different. The film version had more depth, more light range and more details as well as character with the imperfections. The digital release had different colours, a lot less depth and struggled with the projection of these fast particles scenes at the start, that were made in camera. It just looked out of focus even in 4K on a smaller screen.
Can someone please tell my the name of the music in 9:33 ? Amazing video btw, thank you Du Cinema for this! Love it
It's the trailer music! From the first Oppenheimer trailer
2:44 is this the reason why nolan films have notoriously bizarre audio mixing?
Being around all those nuclear explosions has had a detrimental effect on his hearing
For me... it MATTERS! ❤
I watched Oppenheimer in 70mm imax when I saw it a second time. It is neat to watch it in this format because of the analog irregularities in the film.
With the film projection, the white spaces flickered though and was really distracting to me. I enjoyed the digital format better for the smoother display.
I just got Oppenheimer on 4k. That is one of the most immaculate looking movies. Just incredible.
The last 3 minutes of the video shows exactly why we need 16mm
It is interesting that in like 50 years when 16k is the norm, people could still enjoy films like this at max quality.
when it comes to sound plus image, Hateful Eight was THE BEST experience I've ever had. that movie is not best in everything, but certainly looks and feels divine.
5:26 this reminded me of how marvel literally flew Tom Holland and all the crew over to Venice, and they stayed there for 2 weeks or so, but instead of filming their scenes from the movie in the ACTUAL city of Venice they just made it all in CGI. Like the street, the canal, everything. Like you're there already! Why not just film it?!?!
one of the most interesting comments I've seen in the "film vs. digital" argument is that movies made with digital are so colorful, perfectly focused, and even pristine looking that it seems fake, whereas film is much more natural looking and therefor looks more real and for some, can be more immersive and believable.
not just digital, but also I would add the pandemic helped push that habit of being at home as well as the conveyance of being at home. Still nothing beats the cinema, I am sure that Oppenheimer pales in comparison watered down to 4k. Love your channel, thank you!
I found the timing of the streaming platform ad very funny
2:58 “they had to record dialogue on a different camera”… that’s not how sound recording works in film production. No cinema film camera records audio. And when they do record audio they use an audio recorder. Perhaps they filmed those “audio-prioritized” scenes with a camera (alongside an audio recorder) just to help with some aspect of syncing or editing or who knows what (assuming the quote from this RUclips video is true. But it just isn’t true that a camera was used to record audio.
4:55 "Nolan refuses from using CGI and green screens". Holy shit, that detonation scene!
So Nolan did explode a nuclear bomb to keep movie more realistic?
No
The cut to “the soundman” at 2:50 literally made me laugh out loud. That was hilarious.
if it was possible to order a 70mm projector joourself I would have done it
18K is a over estimate of the resolving capability of 1570 film. It's probably closer to 12K max.
Nice video. With the rise of VR headsets like Apple Vision where you can display huge screens from the comfort of your home, cinema will lose more track.
Ryan gosling is… literally me
My iPhone is fine for taking snapshots; for taking photographs I’ll continue using the 35mm Nikon F3 I’ve trusted for 40 years.
I like the quote that digital is a larger palette. Restrictions breed creativity, but if you already have the creativity needed, more options can help you get it out. That doesn't make you a better director for using film or digital, it's a just preference. Like 8 bit games vs 3d modeled.
honestly one of the reasons i dont really go to the cinemas is due to there being no reason unless it is physical but all the ones in my area only do digital so it just ends up with me waiting a couple of weeks for the release on streraming platforms
s
If Digital is cheaper than Film, why did all the tent pole movies shot on Digital cost twice as much as Oppenhiemer? Oppenheimer was over 100K and yet was half the cost of the other summer movies all shot Digital.
Robert Downjey Jr took a pay cut of six million US$ instead of his is usual 26 million US$. He wanted to star in a movie that will beat the record for most Oscars. That's why. The movie is so high quality it's other wordly that the actors decide to take pay cuts.
The debate is as good as IC engine cars Vs Electric cars
Electric is good but we still love our Engine roars and gear shifts
No wonder audio in Nolan films is so awful.
I love Deakins perspective. Dude is legend.
I mean there's almost no point in watching this video for all those people who have not seen 70mm IMAX.
People dont know what it is until they've seen it with their own eyes. Without seeing it, there is no way for people to believe that its better. It's higher quality. Yes its better quality but when I walked into that 70mm IMAX for the first time, I had no idea it was going to look 3D without glasses. I had no idea it was VR without goggles. I thought "ehh it's just a bigger theatre and probably marginally better". I was so wrong.
Sound man🤣🎧
You can't even notice the difference after you go past 4k
While I think digital is more efficient, I will agree that digital if not treated right can bring out a very clinical grey mesh look for a film, which has been a problem for marvel movies recently. Film always looks a little more authentic in my opinion and side note I love how film has imperfections like grain and how light sources like windows are always over exposed like our eyes would do if we aren’t looking at it head on.
Nolans and especially Tarantinos hate of digital and CG is really pretensions. Sure greenscreens and CG can be overused and done in really bad ways, but it's just tools that can be used in so many ways, and there clearly have been movies done absolutely right with them.
So I personally way rather listen to Deakins, that guy actually knows what he's talking about while also being quite humble about it. I mean the guy is a GREAT cinematographer/DoP/photographer that have shot some of the most good looking movies of all time, while the other two guys are just some directors stuck in nostalgia.
I think Film only makes sense when using IMAX. Because its able to give you something that digital doesn't. When it comes to 35 - if you want you can make digital look exactly the same in post.
I started my career as a photographer shooting film on old mechanical cameras and I was very skeptical when the first professional grade digital cameras were made available. The low megapixels count (around 3 mp at the time) just seemed to be too few to do anything useful besides things like photojournalism. I remember there was this story going around that a digital camera would have to pack like 50 megapixels to beat a 35 mm slide film, which was a much higher grade of film than the regular negative (C-41 process). Years went by and it turns out history proved that the story wasn't exactly accurate.
Today we have, thanks to digital, access to a MUCH higher colour depth and exposure latitude just to get started with. This alone already brings the material we shoot today much closer to the reality of our eyes, if this is the argument in favour of film. It also allows a greater creative liberty, by allowing the raw material to be interpreted countless times without being modified itself (non-destructive editing).
Don't get me wrong, I love the look of film stock and I still shoot on it from time to time just for the pleasure of developing my own stills. I am so fond of it that today I only shoot in a camera system that can reproduce very closely the look of classical film stocks. Even the digital noise looks more like the film grain, which is WAY more pleasant to the eyes than those horrible crisscrossed or mosaic patterns from earlier digital cameras.
That said, I think it's way too easy for Nolan to stick to stock (pun not intended :)) and go out saying that this is "preservation". The guy who just made Kodak come up with a 70 mm film of the highest grade ever, using cutting-edge chemical technology, never seen before in the industry can have the world at his feet. This is the antipode of the young independent filmmaker who can barely afford basic equipment, having to resort to "guerrilla filmmaking", with no shitloads of money thrown at his face. And most of them fail to enter festivals and contests worldwide, despite the best efforts of all the (usually very small) crew. Maybe Mr. Nolan could step down a bit and get back to the real world, where not everyone is filthy rich like him and his like. While I very much respect his skills as an accomplished director, advocating for the use of stock film using a multimillion dollar production, with all kinds of superlatives doesn’t seem to be very encouraging for generations to come of filmmakers. Instead, it looks like he wants to show off a rich boy’s toy that very few can afford.
Hmmm the great 'Film VS Digital' debate... something which is just, can we all agree, overblown! It really is just... what are you more comfortable with... you can make amazing results with both, and get very similar results! Hell, there's someone in the Blender artspace who made a working 'FILM' CGI camera (Make Your Renders Unnecessarily Complicated by sirrandalot) that emulates film to a T as it runs through lenses, filters, has an appature and focal distance... AND WORKS, giving off results that look very indisiquisable from most film cameras (exept for the fact all the enviorments are fake). It even has correct bohek.
Again, its not about the medium these people use, but more just prefference, and what the project calls for. I like poliords/film for photography as not knowing what result I might get is exhilarating. But I also do use a DSLR as quite a few projects require me to KNOW exactly how the photo I just snapped looks due to tme constraints! As long as you're not constraining yourself to one medium and expirement, do what makes you happy!
All the drawbacks of analog film is not worth it. It doesn’t matter how a movie was shot With what camera or whatever equipment. A well made movie is beyond all the equipment and yeah in the future we will have 16k sensors, even an 8k image will give you that larger than life feeling when projected on large screens.
Yeah the only benefit analog IMAX have over digital is it's resolution, apart from that I'd go for something shot on Arri Alexa 35/LF/65 every day. Though I am looking forward to 8K projectors in the cinema and TVs at home, and for IMAX it will probably have a slight benefit going up to 16K. But having that gate weave and flicker from even an IMAX analog projector, no thank you!
People stay at home because they don’t want to get ripped off when buying sweets at the cinema counter.
yo i used the elevator background music that you used in one of my videos lol!
Obligatory videos about imax format start popping up whenever a Nolan film releases
Christopher Nolan is a wonderful film maker. Truly one of the greats. I will watch anything he makes. If he made a Cornflakes commercial, I'd watch that.
It's about resolution.. if amateur film makers had an 18k camera resolution option with real film they'd probably use it.. But the only thing that doesn't make it look an chappy Hi8 or Cine is digital.
There is something about digital: during the pandemic courts stopped all jury proceedings in criminal court because juries like therapists notice something different missing in digital formats. I love shooting on film: there is a physicality that is lost with green screens and heavy post production movies. The point about cost and the iPhone makes a lot of sense for the newcomer - great - but once established why would great filmmakers use the cheaper medium. I bet analog is better in the movie theater. My bet is digital is about the same home or movie.....G