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.
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 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.
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?
The human brain is VERY perceptive of things that are "off". Like when people make these humanoid robots these days in Japan, and they are downright creepy. The brain is a massive computer with a massive database of faces and knows what "right" is. That's why digital effects have to be very well done, the brain can detect when they are fake, maybe not on a conscious level, but subconsciously it just feels fake.
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 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.
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.
@henryatkinson But isn't that even more expensive than to shot on film? That way we are only going to see the Nolans in the cinemas from now on.. Thanks very much..
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.
@@jiajunxiao 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.
@@arnthorsnaer Seeing as you too were once a DJ you should know too well the difference between vinyl and their digital versions (CDs, mp3, flac et al). Computers are incapable of storing analogue waveforms, the way data is stored and by virtue the way it is processed makes it literally impossible. While sampling has come a long way since the 80's and 90's when I was DJ'ing, it still isn't comparable to true analogue audio. It's why valve amps are still so popular amongst purists, and why vinyl is still king. Vinyl may not be as popular anymore in clubs, but you have to ask yourself why, and when you realise that people prefer bringing a laptop bag and data storage vs a crate or two of vinyl which weighs about 10x as much, and all the additional effects and mods that can be performed on a digital source vs an analogue source, the quality of the audio has taken a back seat over convenience, price, bells and whistles and automated beat matching, and difficulty of use. There's a reason why people who are great DJ's on a trio of 1200's can walk over to a CDJ setup and spin up a set without issue, but those who started on CDJ have a hard time dropping a set on 1200's, and that's why clubs prefer CD setups because any man and his dog can use them.
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.
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
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.
@@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
@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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?!?!
"larger than life, analog experiences" that is definitely one of the things cinema offers us. definitely. but to me far more important is the SHARED aspect of going to The Movies with a bunch of people. friends, acquaintances, strangers. sometimes someone acts lame and even spoils the experience. sometimes someone says something so funny during previews the theater can't stop laughing. it's up to chance, really. and it's shared. together. we don't isolate in our homes, we go OUT, too.
In the movie 1917 they could've still shot it on film because they didn't actually do long takes and they just used hidden cuts as explained in Steve Ramsden's video.
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 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
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.
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.
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
Brilliant video, I like both the perspective of Nolan & Tarantino, vs. Deakins, as someone said below, there should be no hard rules in art. As Deakins said, they are just tools.
The digital vs. analog question was first discussed in music regarding synthesizers. I still love the analog sound. Imaging is different. If digital imaging is good enough for Deakins, it's good enough for me. JT
this video is misleadingly titled, I was expecting a deep dive into the cinematography of Oppenheimer, instead of a video of why Nolan likes analog film.
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.
Deakins gets it. Good essay. - A handful of directors no longer shoot with many budgetary limitations and sadly you'll find them insisting what they can now afford to do is the baseline upon which to classify art and proper filmmaking. Luckily for them they got to that point by being great storytellers. However, their earliest excellent work as greenhorn, student or amateur usually contradicts their new insistence on format, equipment and expenses. There are different kinds of films, movies, cinema, presentation, consumption etc. of which some were amazing for achievement under limitations and some were merely mediocre despite huge budgets. A good story can often be told well in the most limited formats and I often think guys like Scorsese, QT and Nolan could use a little reminder of that now and then. I'd pay to see a new work by them made on VHS and if it's done well enough, it may even be forgotten what format it was seen in. Growing up, I watched some classic movies on a 13" B&W TV set. Great movies were usually still great movies on that device.
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😊
The reason not that many people shoot film is not because they think it is worse or that they don't want to but because it costs a LOT. That goes for the in-camera effects as well. And it's not like you can't emulate film.
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!
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
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 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.
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.
Some day we will achieve Digital Resolution better than 18k. IMAX Theaters are just overall better experiences fancier seats better Sound Setup Bigger Screen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Need somebody to do a "why Oppenheimer didn't even get nominated for best special effects" and detail what a colossal blow to practical effects, and boost to CGI, the movie's climax ended up being.
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.
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!
There's pros and cons for both - ultimately if you have the money and the ego to say film is better then you will shoot on film... but the reality is, all films end up digitised!!! A lot of cinemas nowadays are actually digital cinemas because it's cheaper to run and maintain. The film is then going to end up on dvd, tv, and streaming services. So why spend all that money to film in in 16k imax for a handful of cinemas and an extremely small amount of cinema goers that are willing to pay the much higher fees. There's a reason why only a handful of directors insist on using film. There's also the question about the type of movie that you are making - if it's going to be something that has all in camera effects then fine... but if you are going to have to colour code it, remove aspects from scenes, add in effects etc - then you have to digitise the film and then convert it back to film, which is time consuming and another expense. People shot on film because they had no other choice...film has limitations... granted it does have rawness to it and it's own unique look - but for the vast majority of people they want a good looking film with a great story and they are not really bothered about the film grain. around 10-15 years ago at university i studied film art and we were one of a very few courses in the UK that still used film...although this was for only one assignment and i think it was for 100ft of film -- learning about lighting, the lenses, the camera, planning the shots etc were fantastic skills to learn BUT it was all for a dying art form. I love the look of film and working with it is more physical and exciting because when everything comes together it's an amazing feeling. I loved editing - the physically hold the film in your hands, slicing and splicing it, running it through the steenbeck - it was a magical experience. We were the last year to use film before it all became digital. I even did a course in a makeshift TV studio using the cameras there - but now of course the cameras are often unmanned and pre programmed (especially in the news studio). Digital is cheaper... it has less restriction... it's faster and efficient. Arguably it is so much better than film -- the issue is in the process... film makers have become sloppy. Many no longer carefully plan shot and set them up because if it goes wrong they can just film it again - but sometimes that means you lose that initial spark or that natural response from the actor. If you don't get the lighting quite right someone will fix it later. Sometimes shots are rushed. Worse is when they heavily rely on CGI because it's easier that having to spend months building a set and planning the shots - you can just film anywhere with a green screen and fix it afterwards. The only time i would say film is better is when you are filming highly detailed shots specifically intended for the imax screen and doesnt require sound - so things like when they filmed the titanic or filming shots of space. Other than that theres really no need. Opennheimer absolutely could have been shot on 35mm film if he really insisted on using film - he would have got the same effect and it would have been a lot cheaper and not as noisy plus longer shots. For imax theatres they could have enlarged to 70mm and the film wouldnt have been affected. Although he absolutely could have shot in digital and then transferred to film and the vast majority of people would not have even known.
Honestly, I'm starting to prefer watching things at home now just because cinema post-covid, people absolutely suck! The past couple of times I've sat in a theater, people would talk through the movie like they were sitting at cafe or something. It kills the vibe and the magic when people lose that etiquette. Feels bad man.
Il admit, most of my life as an adult I used to download movies and swop with buddies, I think we all did. I did that until the day I randomly found interstellar on a buddies hardrive and it was that day that I realized WHY we have cinema. Since then I have always bought my movies (Apple) or gone to the movies. Some movies are for cinema, some are fine at home. Iv always said, if I become wealthy, Id rent out a local IMAX to watch interstellar the way it was intended. Thankfully in September, I will!
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.
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
theres no denying that feeling that comes across when you see the trailer in dark knight flip... you know its real, its obviously different. Idont mind digital it makes it affordable for us to get into filming but practical effect will always be better imo.
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.
This discussion misses or confuses perhaps the most important point; resolution. If digital offers less, then it's a poorer choice. Close behind, is the range of colours, then contrast, etc. Digital needs to be better across the board...
Let's remember the Scene of RDJ with the reflecting Ultrabounces in his Glasses, Out of Sharp Scenes and the sheer amount of standard portraits with Rembrandt lighting before we hand out Awards for Best Cinematography.
I wonder if Nolan could spot the difference of digital vs film if you would shoot the same shot, add grain and all that stuff in post & show him side by side.
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.
Because some of the big name actors took pay cuts and also because there was a lot less post work compared to stuff like a $300 million budget Marvel movie. If you shot Oppenheimer in the exact same way, but on digital cameras, the cost would have been lower.
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.
Inception. Nah, 20 years from now people will be saying 40k resolution is "poor quality" just to sound cool or have a marketing gimmick. Good artists master their craft and medium to produce awesome work. No excuses.
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.
