Germy1979 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I read he shot D.K.R. over 70% on IMAX 65mm... This guy is completely against digital.. I read an article on his argument to the Academy on the switch from celluloid to digital. "Nothing has the range of film, the resolution, or the look.". I have to say I disagree on everything except the look... I just watch these trailers one by one come out, and his old school mentality becomes more and more respectable to me. It's really inspiring. Harder work, and a much higher budget than what I could ever get to shoot a film. But damn, what a dream come true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moebius22 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 He's at the top of the food chain. He can afford to have that point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Hollywood has been resisting the switch to Digital Cameras for years now as it keeps 'the old school' all in jobs. Hollywood is heavily Unionised. I have worked in LA. Alot of jobs on set vanish with a Digital Camera ! plus all the Labs in Hollywood rely on the work to keep them going. George Lucas made the switch with Sony to Digital on the Star Wars prequels and he was seen as a 'maverick odd ball' for doing so. Lucas has held seminars at Skywalker Ranch to help pursuade Directors to swtich over to Digital and he has had hardly anyone turn up for them ...... Slowly Hollywood is embracing the Red Camera as it is American so they are championing the home grown despite all its reliability issues compared to the Sony F35 and Arri Alexa that are much more reliable. Shooting on IMAX is a real luxury in these days , it's so expensive only the top selling Fanchises can even consider it. It is a similar mentalilty to shooting at 4k digital , as it gives the Director the latitude to reframe a shot in post without a noticable resolution loss. All Cinemas digitally project at 2k resolution and alot of cinemas are only just switching over to digital and ripping out their old 35mm projectors. It will be another 5 years until 4k projection at Cinemas takes off as normal . Imax is another marketing tool for Hollywood as they can get extra bums on seats to see films with this premium format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 I agree. Film's toast in probably 5 years. It's the grandeur that gets you when you think about it. When I was a kid, I wanted to sit behind that big ass Panavision camera. Alas, technology just gets better every year. They'll eventually make a 65mm digital sensor with a 12 core processor behind it, and Dyson will make the cooling unit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexander Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I agree with nolan when It comes to 65mm 70mm Imax film but 35mm film is already beaten by alexa and sony f and also red. The only argument pro 35mm film is that filming on it realy is more of an art then flat digital is. Because it makes u think more about the look before actually shooting the scene. But it seems as if all the older directors prefer digital. Do not know wich one it was but one said that he did not wont to die in front of the cutting bench. thats why he is shooting digital... migt have been Scorsese. But back to nolan I loved his early films where his brother was involved writting them. But Inception in wich he was NOT involved sucked big time!! I really think that that its not him but his brother Jonathan Nolan who is the genius behind a Nolan movie. Also thats why I think Dark Knight Rises will be good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filipeG Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I read IMAX has "only" 16.000 lines of resolution. Where the hell digital comes near that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexander Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 filipeG Who said that digital is as good as IMAX ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonjak2 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 [quote name='alexander' timestamp='1342820683' post='14211'] I agree with nolan when It comes to 65mm 70mm Imax film but 35mm film is already beaten by alexa and sony f and also red. The only argument pro 35mm film is that filming on it realy is more of an art then flat digital is. Because it makes u think more about the look before actually shooting the scene. But it seems as if all the older directors prefer digital. Do not know wich one it was but one said that he did not wont to die in front of the cutting bench. thats why he is shooting digital... migt have been Scorsese. [/quote] Film is already beaten by Alexa, Sony F and RED? Really? How exactly? You mean when you look at the spec sheet? Honestly this modern 'specs based' attitude is scary. Tell me one digitally shot film that looks as good as Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, The Tree Of Life?. The image already hit it's peak artistically back in the 70's. What digital film has 'beaten' the look of these since? When i look at digitally shot films in the cinema i feel depressed. Most of them look videoy, lifeless, sterile to me. Prometheus looked awful i thought, i mean compare it to blade runner or alien and it just isn't remotely close. Too much resolution! The sets start to look like sets, made out of cardboard. I just recently went to a screening of digitally shot short films (including one of my own) and they just looked empty. The motion in particular just doesn't feel cinematic. Everything felt too real, the sense and feel of the cinematic dissappears. This is of course based on aesthetic taste but this 'beaten' point is simply rubbish to me. People shoot on 35mm film because it has a beautiful quality to it that digital currently can't create, not because 'old' people stick to it for some stubborn reason. When a digital film comes out that looks as good as the best of 35mm, well then we can say digital has 'matched' the look of 35mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filipeG Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 [quote name='alexander' timestamp='1342865661' post='14225'] filipeG Who said that digital is as good as IMAX ??? [/quote] You said that film has already beaten by Alexa and Sony... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 There are film "characteristics"... But actually these are more "movie" characteristics in my book, not the acquisition factor. 24 frame rate, 48 shutter, decent dynamic range, etc. Film has the sort of disconnection trait that I like. Everything is evolving, i understand film is on its way out like reel to reel recording. But i listen to the music that has hit the radio now in the climax of digital recording, and it's created a bunch of laziness! You can be a tone deaf bull frog belching into the microphone and they will tune your vocal into Celine Dion. Point is, the art of it seems to be getting cared for less and less as time goes by and this is where digital deprecciates to me. I think for the majority of a flick, digital will do just fine. "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" was shot on an Alexa, and i didn't ponder on it. But there are scenes that pop up in my head immediately when i think of film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted July 21, 2012 Administrators Share Posted July 21, 2012 Digital HAS beaten film. I am pretty sure 5K or Super Hi Vision would look more detailed than the best S35mm film scan on IMAX. Would you notice even more resolution from 65mm on IMAX? I haven't yet. For sure digital has better sensitivity to light with less noise. With the Sony F65 it also has a wider colour gamut and better dynamic range. Case closed! Germy1979 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 Thou hast spoken!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 Are we beating a dead horse here or something man? Digital is badass. I'm sure it mathematically beats the brakes off of film with a spec sheet pimp slap. & i like the Hawaii video on the F65. It looks really sharp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 ....... just for giggles..... here is an IMax single frame of Kodak Film next to a GH2 so you can see the size of one frame next to the GH2 Sensor [img]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/blackmore1/IMG_1508.jpg[/img] and here is IMax frame ontop of GH2 - it covers the entire lens mount and then some ! [img]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/blackmore1/IMG_1509.jpg[/img] here is GH2 - IMax single Frame, 70mm frames , 35mm frames and 16mm frames just for comparison [img]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/blackmore1/IMG_1514.jpg[/img] GH2 sensor is closest to 35mm frame in size . Having shot film for 15 years - last job I did on film was 2004 - it's been all digial since then - I can't say I miss it! Digital is more convenient to use! and alot cheaper ! I used to have to insure the negative as it went to the lab incase the courier distroyed it or lost it and the whole job was lost! $$$$$ Andrew Reid 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 [quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1342881664' post='14245'] ....... just for giggles..... here is an IMax single frame of Kodak Film next to a GH2 so you can see the size of one frame next to the GH2 Sensor [img]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/blackmore1/IMG_1508.jpg[/img] and here is IMax frame ontop of GH2 - it covers the entire lens mount and then some ! [img]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/blackmore1/IMG_1509.jpg[/img] here is GH2 - IMax single Frame, 70mm frames , 35mm frames and 16mm frames just for comparison [img]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/blackmore1/IMG_1514.jpg[/img] GH2 sensor is closest to 35mm frame in size . Having shot film for 15 years - last job I did on film was 2004 - it's been all digial since then - I can't say I miss it! Digital is more convenient to use! and alot cheaper ! I used to have to insure the negative as it went to the lab incase the courier distroyed it or lost it and the whole job was lost! $$$$$ [/quote] No doubt digital is easier. People like money. So the idea of printing dailies everyday sucks. I can't afford film anyway so the only reason i started this thread was because i like the "LOOK" of film and respect Nolan's point of view on it. I can see a difference in the way it looks and so can a lot of other people that aren't crazy. They can afford it though. I'm not a snob on acquisition. I'm sure i'll be using my gh2 for a while. Case appealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 IMax does look great - if we could all afford it I'm sure we would all use it , lets be honest!! It is the Ultimate to shoot on !! best get saving up - all those IMax cameras will be on Ebay in the next 10 years !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted July 21, 2012 Administrators Share Posted July 21, 2012 Great images there Andy. Didn't realise IMAX film was so insanely large and that it runs sideways through the gate? I thought 65/70mm was the largest it came. [quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1342881595' post='14244'] Are we beating a dead horse here or something man? Digital is badass. I'm sure it mathematically beats the brakes off of film with a spec sheet pimp slap. & i like the Hawaii video on the F65. It looks really sharp. [/quote] Where is this F65 Hawaii video? I want to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted July 21, 2012 Administrators Share Posted July 21, 2012 [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/500ac56b6b1b1_1280pxIMAX_camera_1.jpg[/img] IMAX camera - Makes so much noise that dialogue has to be dubbed when shooting with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy lee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 they took 70mm film turned it on its side and called it IMax ! just like they took 35mm film turned it on its side and caleed it Vista Vision ! 'they' being the boffins in Hollywood.... now what I would give to get hold a of a Vista Vision Camera!!........there are not that many left.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted July 21, 2012 Administrators Share Posted July 21, 2012 Wait a few years and medium format cameras will be shooting video. IMax camera for the masses. In terms of sensor size the 5D Mark III is Vista Vision, i.e. 35mm turned on its side. Sort of! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.