Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Ooooh, Burned by Chris Nolan

Greg Ephraim

Greg Ephraim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
los angeles, ca
Website
www.moviesthatmakeyoudance.com
Was just watching the Dark Knight on BD-Live with Chris Nolan chatting live with the movie, someone asked if he has ever considered the thought of using RED now that the resolution has surpassed film, to his response:
Digital Cinema will never be able to surpass the resolution of film
...or something along those line, ha
anywho, I know Pfister loves film, no problem with that, just thought it was interesting that RED made its way onto a public forum with the director
 
I had a long conversation with Pfister a few months ago about this... he shoots with what looks best to him, period. Right now, for what he wants to do, he thinks film looks best. Simple as that!

Lucas
 
My guess is that once Epic 645 and 617 are out and produce huge fantastic 13+ stop images, most directors will opt for that over IMAX simply becasue of the small form factor. IMAX cameras are just too large and cumbersome.
 
edited : because Nolan was totally misquoted - he did not say that digital never won`t reach film but that it does not reach it now.
 
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.
 
I notice Nolan's response is more of a correction than a rejection. The question was based on a faulty premise (digital is higher resolution than film) so Nolan corrected it (no it's not).

Although I think he is probably mistaken -- digital cinema can eventually surpass the effective resolution of film, since film can only be scanned so high before grain makes it pointless. But it could still be argued that, as of now, it has not surpassed the potential/effective resolution of film. Particularly since we're talking about a man that's shot, cut, and finished in IMAX.

Point is Nolan seems more to have dodged the question than answered in the negative. Let's talk again when 9K is a reality.
 
James T Mather said:
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.
Click to expand...

I had this issues when I saw trailers of the movie. But when I watched the film itself it was a matter of minutes until the story "had me".
 
Sure but by that logic the pictures "don't matter" - "if the story is good enough then you can shoot on a mobile phone" - this premise is, to some extent, true: narrative involvement can overpower aesthetic shortcomings. However the contention was more to do with the visual quality of the film which I thought looked pretty nasty and cheap.

And the Narrative grip of Miami Vice was so slight/nonexistent that, combined with spongey youtube quality visuals, the whole experience left me wanting my two hours/money/sanity back.

Personally, I'm not interested in paying to see low quality pics in a cinema because it saves the production a buck or two. Producers love digital - because it's cheap. But it costs the same to see The Dark Knight shot partially in IMAX as it does to see a film shot on a 2/3 inch chip. I'd rather see the former given a choice (Narrative concerns aside).
 
luki said:
I had a long conversation with Pfister a few months ago about this... he shoots with what looks best to him, period. Right now, for what he wants to do, he thinks film looks best. Simple as that!

Lucas
Click to expand...

I wonder what he thinks of the 35mm parts on the Blu Ray. Does not look like film, does it? (Overprocessed hard digital look with halos galore.)
 
miha said:
I wonder what he thinks of the 35mm parts on the Blu Ray. Does not look like film, does it? (Overprocessed hard digital look with halos galore.)
Click to expand...


YES I totally agree. Did you see the shots posted on the avs forums? I was pretty shocked to see the amount of processing given to the 35mm stuff...

My guess is that WB is going to come out with a special edition/remastered eventually. I mean, for such a huge movie, it's almost a given.
 
Let's get the EXACT quote if we are to have a conversation about it.
 
DorkmanScott said:
I notice Nolan's response is more of a correction than a rejection. The question was based on a faulty premise (digital is higher resolution than film) so Nolan corrected it (no it's not).

Although I think he is probably mistaken -- digital cinema can eventually surpass the effective resolution of film, since film can only be scanned so high before grain makes it pointless. But it could still be argued that, as of now, it has not surpassed the potential/effective resolution of film. Particularly since we're talking about a man that's shot, cut, and finished in IMAX.

Point is Nolan seems more to have dodged the question than answered in the negative. Let's talk again when 9K is a reality.
Click to expand...

You can scan a 35mm negative at any available resolution you want. It will be interesting when we start comparing 9k digital shots against an 8k scan.

It really seems to be a battle between creativity and financial means lately.
 
David Wyatt said:
...Apart from the parts that were shot on 35mm of course, they looked great :wink:
Click to expand...

Sure (the only scenes I recall looking okay from what I can remember of the film is a scene in the Jazz club which looked fine)

Wow...Narrative aside? I can't agree
Click to expand...
You have misquoted and, by extension, misunderstood what I said - I said Narrative CONCERNS aside not Narrative aside - By which I meant 'story not withstanding' ie - Uptake medium regardless of story.
 
Tom said:
Let's get the EXACT quote if we are to have a conversation about it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The rockstars can shoot whatever they want, the working class shoot whatever is dictated by the deliverables. Personally I think Nolan would have had a harder time convincing WB to shoot the DARK KNIGHT on the RED than he did selling the IMAX concept.
 
Joyfool said:
Wow...Narrative aside? I can't agree. You can put whip cream on a turd - doesn't change it...it's still a turd!

1. Story
2. Sound
3. Picture

in that order.
Click to expand...

Im not sure if I agree with THAT 100%.

Maybe..... 1)Story 2)DIALOGUE 3) Picture....

But I'm young enough to remember going with my brothers to see Chaplin SILENT films in our local museum back in the day.

Story...Picture...Sound(track)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top