The Dark Knight Rises 6 Minutes of TDKR footage attached to Mission Impossible 4!

[Rocketman]

So what you're saying is you'd rather engage in confirmation bias than actually look into what the man himself has said on the subject.

Newsflash: Wally isn't the barometer for film making. I couldn't care less how he or any other person feels about specific shooting styles, as they are not god and as such their own experiences have little to do with defining the tech on its own merits.

So I'm supposed to care about what Roger Deakins says, but you don't have to care about what Wally Pfister says? Seems like you don't want to "actually look into what the man himself has said on the subject."

Your issue with subjectivity and freedom of choice is puzzling.

Um, I'm not arguing with you.
I'm going by what an award-winning photographer said. I'm not a photographer. I just recognize what a good image is as opposed to something inferior to it. I love movies, and the technical geek in me wants to see it in the highest resolution possible. Sorry, sir.

Also, I couldn't care less how you feel about specific shooting styles. See how that works?

 

[Rocketman]

You're absolutely spot on. Digital is for amateurs, whilst film is for professionals.

Not necessarily amateurs vs. professionals - it's more along the lines of who's willing to put forth that extra amount of work. It's just the harder way to do things. Most filmmakers don't find the extra work necessary enough.

And hell, if it's The Smurfs movie, or Superbad, do we really need it on real film?

This is, ironically, my same argument with Blu-Ray. Do I really need to experience Alvin and the Chipmunks on Blu-Ray as opposed to DVD? Must I be forced to purchase The Hangover on Blu-Ray?

I own a Blu-Ray player only for the movies that really matter. This includes Nolan, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Scorsese, and Terrence Malick.

 

[KRIM]

So I'm supposed to care about what Roger Deakins says, but you don't have to care about what Wally Pfister says? Seems like you don't want to "actually look into what the man himself has said on the subject."

Considering I don't particularly hold anyone's opinions in absolute high regard, you've greatly misinterpreted me. You cited one cinematographer's opinion. I cited another with an opposing viewpoint. I wasn't backing anyone. It was only highlighting your bias for the format, when you'd easily dismiss the opinion of someone who has more experience and greater prestige in the film community.

Um, I'm not arguing with you.
I'm going by what an award-winning photographer said. I'm not a photographer. I just recognize what a good image is as opposed to something inferior to it. I love movies, and the technical geek in me wants to see it in the highest resolution possible. Sorry, sir.

No one is going to deny 70mm is the superior image. But the fact is most movies aren't even shot in such a large format, so clarity is less of an issue when applied to the "average" Hollywood movie. Fincher's flicks are up there with the best of them and easily outdo many movies shot on film. It's not just the medium, but the artist and technique behind it.

 

[Rocketman]

No one is going to deny 70mm is the superior image. But the fact is most movies aren't even shot in such a large format, so clarity is less of an issue when applied to the "average" Hollywood movie. Fincher's flicks are up there with the best of them and easily outdo many movies shot on film. It's not just the medium, but the artist and technique behind it.

Agreed. Now let me buy you a virtual beer.

I am, however, saddened that more films aren't shot on 70mm. Fincher using film in this format would be something to behold. Especially Dragon Tattoo, which is looking to be a technical masterpiece in directing.

 

[KRIM]

Agreed. Now let me buy you a virtual beer.

I am, however, saddened that more films aren't shot on 70mm. Fincher using film in this format would be something to behold. Especially Dragon Tattoo, which is looking to be a technical masterpiece in directing.

While it would be spectacular to watch, cost benefits may not be enough to justify it. There are not many movies that necessarily "need" it. It's not so much a case of sticking with what's good enough, but the visual enhancements could prove to be of little added value with all things considered.

Baraka is one of the most gorgeous cinematic pieces to ever be filmed. 70mm is in full production there and undoubtedly THE poster child for what the format can bring. Simultaneously I can't say this would have the same elevated status for any movie, or in fact, 90% of Hollywood productions.

 

[Jokers_Wild]

For those upset that they don't have an IMAX close, really the prologue is just a bonus anyway. Nolan didn't have to release this early. It's actually a really cool thing on his part, because how many other directors have done something similar recently?

 

[Wedge A.]

You're absolutely spot on. Digital is for amateurs, whilst film is for professionals.

It's like fast food vs. a meal at a five star restaurant.

Have you ever used film? It's a tremendous pain in the ass.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Maybe that's the point. Just piss everyone off.

Now we're demanding it. And we can't have it. That has to send a powerful blow to them. Digital IMAXes will have empty seats, and then they'll know why.

Really, the fact is, there should be a real 70mm IMAX theater within an hour of everyone in the country. There should be one in every city. This will teach everyone a lesson. And it will make people realize that <b> putting on cheap glasses and seeing a cartoon dragon flying toward your face is not the best experience

 

[Tacit Ronin]

You're absolutely spot on. Digital is for amateurs, whilst film is for professionals.

It's like fast food vs. a meal at a five star restaurant.

Roger Deakins is an amateur. David Fincher and Danny Boyle and Michael Mann are amateurs.

 

[Octoberist]

I think theres enough room for film and digital lovers here.

 

[Conebone69]

Where does it list the official IMAX theaters that are playing it?

 

[redfirebird2008]

Pfister has gone on record saying that they tried a few scenes of Inception using digital, and they had to reshoot all of it with real film because it looked like crap. This isn't me saying that, that's Oscar winner Wally Pfister.

To be fair, if Fincher can make his digital movies look like film then maybe it's a commentary on Pfister's own inability to adapt to the technology?

 

[Octoberist]

With Fincher, it's gotten to the point where his current films look in-between film and digital. while it doesn't look as rich a real film, it's pretty darn close.

 

[Octoberist]

It just looks fake in my opinion. It's like those Chips Ahoy cookies. They look like real cookies, but they're not, and they taste like crap compared to REAL homemade chocolate chip cookies.

No I understand. like rice krispie treats home
made vs store bought.

With digtal it's the grain and the resolution plus how colors look.

Usually I think Digital (including Red Epic) doesn't absorb the colors as well as film. In fact, in the latest Hobbit video blog, the set designer admitted that they had to spice up the colors of the set so that the Red Epdic can capture them. So on set, everything looks over saturated in color to compensate the loss when it's being filmed.

 

[Octoberist]

But my biggest fear isn't film vs digital; it's 24 FPS vs 48/60.

Peter Jackson is filming the Hobbit in 48 and I hope to God it doesn't look like a soap opera/camcorder/ or that smooth vision crap on HD TVs.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

No I understand. like rice krispie treats home
made vs store bought.

With digtal it's the grain and the resolution plus how colors look.

Usually I think Digital (including Red Epic) doesn't absorb the colors as well as film. In fact, in the latest Hobbit video blog, the set designer admitted that they had to spice up the colors of the set so that the Red Epdic can capture them. So on set, everything looks over saturated in color to compensate the loss when it's being filmed.

Set designer did that because of 3D, not the Red epic.

 

[KRIM]

But my biggest fear isn't film vs digital; it's 24 FPS vs 48/60.

Peter Jackson is filming the Hobbit in 48 and I hope to God it doesn't look like a soap opera/camcorder/ or that smooth vision crap on HD TVs.

That's exactly how it'll look. However, it's only a measure of smoothness in movement, so it has nothing to do with the quality in product. 24 FPS is a byproduct of the industry not getting off their asses and improving upon limitations that were forced by the medium ages ago (i.e. it was never a choice). It's about time something was done about it.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Many films were already starting to look like video games with shiny CGI everywhere, going to higher FPS will close the gap between the two even more than exists at the moment.

tl;dr I don't like it.

 

[Octoberist]

That's exactly how it'll look. However, it's only a measure of smoothness in movement, so it has nothing to do with the quality in product. 24 FPS is a byproduct of the industry not getting off their asses and improving upon limitations that were forced by the medium ages ago (i.e. it was never a choice). It's about time something was done about it.

Im not against a higher frame rate as long as it looks good. But I find it weird when people bash 24 when it's been around since..forever. I for one am not a fan of how BBC television looks with their frame rates. Heo about yourself?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

That's exactly how it'll look. However, it's only a measure of smoothness in movement, so it has nothing to do with the quality in product. 24 FPS is a byproduct of the industry not getting off their asses and improving upon limitations that were forced by the medium ages ago (i.e. it was never a choice). It's about time something was done about it.

Plus, a soap opera looks the way it does not because of a higher frame rate, but rather because of its very soft, dull lighting. Hobbit will look fine even with the increased frame rate as it will surely have cinematic lighting.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

My birthday is on the 14th of December so I'm considering the trailer and prologue a late birthday present

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Many films were already starting to look like video games with shiny CGI everywhere, going to higher FPS will close the gap between the two even more than exists at the moment.

tl;dr I don't like it.

The 80's also had a terrible look that involved smoke and harsh lighting. Every generation has its trends. Only the best films rise above it.

 

[Goku Goes Crazy]

My birthday is on the 14th of December so I'm considering the trailer and prologue a late birthday present

The trailer might actually leak online that day(It's going to leak a couple of days early most likely), so you might get it as an on time Birthday present!

 

[KRIM]

Im not against a higher frame rate as long as it looks good. But I find it weird when people bash 24 when it's been around since..forever. I for one am not a fan of how BBC television looks with their frame rates. Heo about yourself?

I don't think it is so much a bashing of 24 as it is promoting technical innovations within the medium. I can understand being faithful to what is known as the "cinematic effect" (of 24), but there is no real advantage to it. As I said it was a limitation at first, and has only stayed that way because no one ever bothered to change it. Color has improved, resolution has improved, sound has improved, but movement... completely stagnant since practically film was invented.

In a modern age of epic films that often involve large scale action, 24 undermines all of it. At least in comparison to what 48 and 60 bring. Because of how it easily simulates movement in our world, the possibilities of immersion are tenfold. Imagine what that can do with the right hands. As Jackson put it, it effectively removes the border of the screen and allows the viewer to look through the film's windows, as opposed to looking at it.

With the production values that come with Hollywood, it won't be long until the association with soap operas and home videos become a thing of the past.

 

[Char]

Nothing will be leaked! Don't you guys remember the TDK prologue in 07, with I AM LEGEND!?