Christopher Nolan prefers film to digital, shoots with one camera, and doesn’t believe in 3-D.
Christopher Nolan 3D, IMAX, and CGI Interview
Excerpts from the same interview.
Side by Side Official Trailer (2012) on Vimeo
Side by Side - The Science, Art, and Impact of Digital Cinema. A documentary produced by Keanu Reeves. Side By Side
People can still make films on film, but they're probably going to have to digitize them then and then use that to distribute them. Really, the concept of sending tins around all parts of the country is so laughably antiquated it's ridiculous.
Yeah distribution is actually much easier and economical with digital. But what people like Nolan are insisting is not having the option to shoot film, which is being forced by studios and not giving cinemas to play 35mm films, which of course again all makes business sense to studios.
I like film too.
I like digital as well.
Anyone concerned about digital Dynamic Range should take a really good look at the RED camera tech and how far it's come in just a few years.
Within the next 5 years or sooner it will surpass the dynamic range film offers. They've also made a big investment in projection technology. Very soon they will be shipping Laser light based projectors. Much brighter and lasting much longer than traditional bulbs.
I found the article a bit sensationalist as well, but it does have a lot of valid points.
The bit of Toy Story 2 being deleted sounds like an incredible story of I.T. incompetence
or massive exaggeration.
That it was stored on a single drive with no form of tape backup or redundancy on a single linux server at a company like PIXAR smells fishy.
The post production facility I manage has a redundant mirrored, server storage which is backed up
every night to tape. Those tapes are rotated every other week and stored off site.
We're nowhere near the size of Pixar, but I feel pretty safe about any data loss.
Last edited by Borjis; Apr 13, 2012 at 7:50 PM.
As someone who's being forced to convert or shut down a 70 year old Drive-In it's a moot point. We have no choice. I can also attest to the fact that NONE of the Studios are supporting any repertory screenings of film. We showed Barbarella, Forbidden Planet - here at The Starlight - and the Shining - at the Plaza - for the last time on 35mm from a Studio's collection.
The prints are gone.
“The Shining” at the Plaza Theatre, the Last of the 35mm Public Screenings | IdyllopusPress Presents
Had I known what was going to happen I would have "lost" FP and Barb.
We still don't know how the new deal is going to work with the widespread conversions or how the Studios are going to administer it for shows out of the norm, i.e. screening old movies. As of now there is a deadline of September to have deals and possibly conversions done. There is a good deal of resistance to that so we won't have to convert during high season and so we wait until the deep Winter for it.
I will, eventually watch my friends loose The Plaza this year. The oldest Movie Theatre in Atlanta will go under because of this change and the inability to get repertory titles.
Frankly the march of technology is not so important that we loose ALL avenues of projecting film. There is a Cinemascope version of How The West Was Won being screened in LA this weekend. It is as important to be able to see that version as it is to be able to watch it in my home.
I also have a fear of there being ONLY digital versions of anything. There are cave drawings that have lasted 10s of thousands of years - yet one EMP and an entire generation of photography, illustration, literature, animation, etc. would vanish.
I know in my own life a total digital meltdown would wipe out the better part of the last 15 years of my work.
We will go digital here and remain open, hopefully for another 70 years. I will layoff the 3 projectionists that work for me and they will need to find a new craft. It sucks - but we didn't get asked who cared.
Last edited by Laffo; Apr 13, 2012 at 8:01 PM.
sorry to hear about that.
I do miss the drive-in experience.
It's still here to have.
Digital is close but not yet at films level.
I would keep film around as a back-up though and not just to please us diehards
I too felt the article undemined itself by being sensationalist.
The toy story 2 incident is either highly exagerated, or made up.
If it did happen it says far more about the person on the delete key than it does about digital as a storage medium.
I am atraditionalist in many ways. I 'like' the idea of celuloid as do many others, but it can become an exercise in nostalga.
As it stands today, the majority of movie going public have no idea how the movie they are watching was shot. They dont care, and never notice how it is projected.
For me, film is a wonderful acquisition format. Beyond that in terms of finished product for the public viewing, I will take digital projection every time. People get caught up ith the whole 'film has more this and that...'
The originals might, but the prints that are distributed to cinemas are poor by comparison.
The option to shoot film will soon be only available to the highest budgets, and I do agree that we may see a deterioration in the quality of work produced (some would argue we already are). This to me is far more concerning.
In 5 years, the top level digital equipment wil be producing images to same level as celuloid. In 10 we will have that equipment in the hands on indies.
Film will exist for some time to come. Hell I still have super 8 in my fridge...
Pixar studio stories - The movie vanishes (full) - YouTube
If anyone is skeptical about the Pixar story, the incident was addressed in the Blu-ray special features. Check the above clip where they explain it.
Digital films can look good, no question about that. But it's not the same as film. Film has its own aesthetic.
I have a feeling Humans would survive 24 months without electricity - and EMPs - don't need to be a nuclear weapon and wouldn't be worldwide. But let's make sure that all the art and film that is only digital is lost after that.
Good thing all the cinema, illustration and photography from before WW1 and WW2 and anything in central Japan from the end of the war wasn't left to that attitude.
Last edited by Laffo; Apr 14, 2012 at 8:51 PM.
Last edited by Laffo; Apr 14, 2012 at 8:52 PM.
It's one of the reasons I hate the overabundance of digital cameras that people are taking all of their family photos with now. In 50 years, will those pictures even be available? Whereas, I have photos and negatives my grandparents shot back in the '40's.
Well, you're right about that. Don't leave "art" in my hands.
To me most of that stuff isn't worth the canvas it's painted on.
I'm doing my part. I own 110 reels of 16mm film.
Little anecdote here: Back in '79 or '80 I bought a Super 8 two reel magnetic sound version of Superman: The Movie. 40 minutes of sheer eye candy. No VHS OR DVD has ever looked as sweet. There IS no comparison.
this video back in 2006), I doubt any of Hitchcock's films would work if they had been shot on digital.
To me, the argument of digital vs. film is completely pointless. I see the decision between film and digital no different from deciding on a film stock. Depending on what kind of story you're telling should be the deciding factor on if you want to shoot on film or digital. Is it cheaper to shoot on digital? Yes. But also shooting on unused film stock left over from a film production for almost half the price. The story is what makes the film. And depending on what its shot on can help enhance or dilute the experience of the film. 28 Days Later was shot on a MiniDV prosumer camera. One of the perks was allowing to quickly set up shots on London streets and allowing for a less shooting time on location in those streets, cutting down on time that they had to hold up traffic for those in London. But, one of the things about using that format was that it added a sense of realism that seemed almost documentary-like, thus enhancing the story and the realism. However, when it comes to film, Vertigo wouldn't be the same if Hitchcock had the same technology we have now available to him back then.
But most importantly, the Pixar story, though showing the horrific event of almost losing a film, is a cake walk in comparison to something else I myself have read. Back in the 1950s, they started to utilize video. When it came to the show of I Love Lucy, the producer refused to shoot it on video and chose to shoot it on film while all other producers competing against him chose to film on video. Look at I Love Lucy now. Its still being able to view as the first day it was broadcasted because it was shot on film. The other shows that the producer was competing are not on the air because the video they were lost due to various circumstances all relating to video (such as being accidentally recorded over, being placed near equipment that produced a magnetic field that wiped them out and others. Even the first few episodes of Doctor Who were thought to be lost because they shot on video (recently, they were recovered by NASA and the BBC because they discovered broadcast signals that had made it to space, so they were able to recover those episodes that had been thought to be lost).
That's why I believe that storing copies of the actual films on 35mm is important. Thousands of formats have come and gone while film has managed to survive for almost a century of use. That's saying a lot.
Excellent thoughts on this, thanks.