Ooooh, Burned by Chris Nolan

[Tom Lowe]

I haven't seen the BD version of "Dark Knight" to know what the exact quote was that Nolan used. But I do know the guy has a total hard-on for film. Instead of bringing around a D5 tape for screening, he would bring picture and mag track, which is getting harder and harder to find now-a-days. I love the guys films but to be so close minded about a digital technology is just stupid. I would much rather see a D5 or HDCAM SR tape instead of a work picture with all those splices in it. For people that have never worked with a work picture print, they splice all the scenes together and you can see the splicing tape between scenes and usually the print is a bit dirty.

Well to each his own. I'm not going to diss the guy because he loves film so much. More power to him. He's one of the few talented young directors around, so I give him the benefit of the doubt for sure.

He's also got the juice not to have to worry about format. He could probably shoot his next film entirely on 15-perf IMAX if he chooses.

 

[hunterrichards]

A trick with film is that it will always beat digital in resolution, all you have to do is use a larger negative!

 

[Andrew Walker]

Well to each his own. I'm not going to diss the guy because he loves film so much. More power to him. He's one of the few talented young directors around, so I give him the benefit of the doubt for sure.

He's also got the juice not to have to worry about format. He could probably shoot his next film entirely on 15-perf IMAX if he chooses.

I'm not trying to diss the guy at all as far as his filmmaking talents go. I think film can look very good if its done right. But to not use tools that make the filmmaking process more streamline seems a little counter productive. But if an all film environment is what he needs then by all means don't deprive him of his film.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

I'm not trying to diss the guy at all as far as his filmmaking talents go. I think film can look very good if its done right. But to not use tools that make the filmmaking process more streamline seems a little counter productive. But if an all film environment is what he needs then by all means don't deprive him of his film.

It's only counterproductive to those who never worked in that environment.

It's not like Dark Knight doesn't have any digital effects or used digital tools. He didn't insist everything be done optically.

 

[James T Mather]

I'm sorry to say guys that, right now, film offers the best image capture possible in terms of all the factors that make up image quality. Digital is catching up, sure, but right now film has the edge.

To the budget conscious, digital has a number of advantages over film. These are not however things that keep Chris Nolan's producer up at night.

 

[Andrew Walker]

It's only counterproductive to those who never worked in that environment.

It's not like Dark Knight doesn't have any digital effects or used digital tools. He didn't insist everything be done optically.

I say its counterproductive because I have worked in that environment. I run screenings all the time. A D5 or HDCAM SR tape is much easier to run than picture and track. Plus it looks better.

 

[Michael Bravin]

Sorry to say I thought collateral looked awful - cheap nasty porno pics - I think it would have looked a ton better on film IMVHO (plus nothing in the shooting style dictated that video contributed anything specific to the process)

Same thoughts for Miami Vice.

Jim
Respectfully when interviewed about the choice of the HD for Collateral, Mann said that the deeper depth of field with 2/3" and sensitivity in the dark helped him capture the skyline in the background of many shots, in focus and lit practically. When testing these shots with film they were unable to include the LA skyline and buildings looking the way they wished in the distance, a key to his visual style in this picture. Collateral and Miami Vice don't look the way they do by some accident or lack of craftsmanship. They look like the way Michael Mann wanted them to, intentionally and with style. Some appreciate his visual style others do not.

Regards

Michael Bravin
Chief Technology Officer
Band Pro Film & Digital

 

[Stacey Spears]

Here is the quote http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/DarkKnightScreen.php?u=155

 

[Brian Langeman]

Thanks for posting that. It's funny how worked up some people are getting over this. I don't blame them though. It's not their fault. Nolan was misquoted in the first post of this thread.

He only says that there are no digital cameras that exist right now that surpass the resolution of film. And I would have to say he's 100% correct. Nothing right now compares to IMAX. The new offerings from RED might compete with it soon. But they aren't out yet.

 

[Craig Ryan]

He only says that there are no digital cameras that exist right now that surpass the resolution of film. And I would have to say he's 100% correct. Nothing right now compares to IMAX. The new offerings from RED might compete with it soon. But they aren't out yet.

Exactly...case closed in my book.

 

[James T Mather]

Jim
Respectfully when interviewed about the choice of the HD for Collateral, Mann said that the deeper depth of field with 2/3" and sensitivity in the dark helped him capture the skyline in the background of many shots, in focus and lit practically. When testing these shots with film they were unable to include the LA skyline and buildings looking the way they wished in the distance, a key to his visual style in this picture. Collateral and Miami Vice don't look the way they do by some accident or lack of craftsmanship. They look like the way Michael Mann wanted them to, intentionally and with style. Some appreciate his visual style others do not.

Regrettably I am not amongst the appreciators - however I wish him the best but personally lament the decline in visual standards. Plus whatever of Collateral's narrative claustrophobic merits, I don't consider the cinema version of "Miami Vice" to be good on any level - visually or otherwise.

If washed-out high-gain images work for people then I say best of luck with that - By this definition any episode of "Cops" works as cinematography IMHO. Ps - I don't hold either of the cinematographers responsible - I feel pretty sure it was circumstance of shooting - It seems Paul Cameron was less than enamored of the format whereas Dion Beebe liked it.

Further it seems Paul Cameron left the production via the euphemism "creative differences" which means he was fired or walked off - Given the circumstances of shooting it sounds like, as a cinematographer he was being pushed into a box where he felt like he couldn't do good work: "Mann was also insistent about the kind of lighting he wanted for the taxi interior, which Cameron describes as “no light, really. Michael wanted it to feel like ambient light with no specific source. That, coupled with the challenge of filming in a real cab that had little or no room to place any kind of lights, made it incredibly challenging to design an effective plan.”

As a working stiff cameraman I read the phrase "incredibly challenging" in this context as code meaning "a pain in the ass" as I have been in many situations where the Director (who generally hasn't a clue about lighting techniques nor, oftentimes, does he/she care) has boxed the DP in to a point where they feel that doing good work is impossible - as in: The cameraman feels that the work he is doing is not a true reflection of his aesthetic or abilities. The above situation exactly encompasses this feeling.


To each his own. Personally I'm with Paul Cameron on this - who I consider a super talented DP. But whatever blows your dress up.

The article below details the visual choices/battles that went into Collateral -
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug04/collateral/page1.html

 

[Thomas Mathai]

I say its counterproductive because I have worked in that environment. I run screenings all the time. A D5 or HDCAM SR tape is much easier to run than picture and track. Plus it looks better.

I work in that environment too. I have had film fall off a spool and unravelled in a mess. I've had the cut fingers while winding and spools telescoping while trying to load a stubborn 65mm magazine in a changing bag.

Have you had a D5 or HDCAM tape get damaged in a deck? What would happen next? You can't just wind it back onto the tape and put it back in the deck. I seen that happen to tapes.

It's always based on our experiences too. That's why there are so many varied opinions about film and digital.

 

[Priyesh P.]

Have you had a D5 or HDCAM tape get damaged in a deck? What would happen next? You can't just wind it back onto the tape and put it back in the deck. I seen that happen to tapes.

Why tape? Everything and everybody is going towards data-centric. Your statement is a bit off anyway since Mr. Walker seemingly is talking about a preview screening, not archive reels, so if a tape gets jammed it may be a little hazzle for the operator but no big deal.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Never say never


617

 

[Thomas Mathai]

Why tape? Everything and everybody is going towards data-centric. Your statement is a bit off anyway since Mr. Walker seemingly is talking about a preview screening, not archive reels, so if a tape gets jammed it may be a little hazzle for the operator but no big deal.

Tape's no big deal as long as someone made 2 copies for the screening.

Film, tape and data can all fail whenever. It's how well you can recover from it that matters.

Well to recap, he was talking about the film environment being counterproductive. I'm just saying that depends on the person's experience in that environment.

 

[Andrew Walker]

I work in that environment too. I have had film fall off a spool and unravelled in a mess. I've had the cut fingers while winding and spools telescoping while trying to load a stubborn 65mm magazine in a changing bag.

Have you had a D5 or HDCAM tape get damaged in a deck? What would happen next? You can't just wind it back onto the tape and put it back in the deck. I seen that happen to tapes.

It's always based on our experiences too. That's why there are so many varied opinions about film and digital.

Most shows that I've worked with bring two copies of their film on tape, just incase something happens. And yes I have had a tape jam in the deck. But you can usually get it out if you know how the deck works and where it usually gets caught. Its never stopped one of my shows. Also I've never seen a D5 or and HDCAM/HDCAM SR unspool.

I've seen film do all kinds of crazy stuff while running it at theaters, at studios not so much as we run one reel at a time and do change-overs.

Why tape? Everything and everybody is going towards data-centric. Your statement is a bit off anyway since Mr. Walker seemingly is talking about a preview screening, not archive reels, so if a tape gets jammed it may be a little hazzle for the operator but no big deal.

A new show has started to do their previews at the studio off their Avid project file that they bring in. Looks really nice and they can playback with 6 channels of audio, maybe 8 if they wanted.

Tape's no big deal as long as someone made 2 copies for the screening.

Film, tape and data can all fail whenever. It's how well you can recover from it that matters.

Well to recap, he was talking about the film environment being counterproductive. I'm just saying that depends on the person's experience in that environment.

I guess it kind of depends on how your setup is what I should have said. Because people can work fast in an all film environment. I've seen people work faster in a digital environment as far as getting elements ready for viewing. But in my experience digital is way easier to deal with in a preview setting.