The Dark Knight Rises Discussing the Third Movie and 3D

[keith_v]

Nolan's hesitant on going for an inferior technology, but I feel his apprehension would not matter for long. Digital cameras, which are necessary for 3D, are fast approaching the clarity and resolution of even IMAX cameras. While experimental, it's gotten to the point where it will be usable sooner rather than later. Considering he was the first to try and implement new technology to a studio film, this would be an opportunity to do the same for the sequel.

You get your large-scale canvas, and you don't sacrifice image quality. With the sharp detail, the 3D would actually prove to be more impressive than that of Avatar. Everyone gets what they want.

No. I'm sorry, but you're not even close to the truth. Digital cameras are about 2 decades behind film. Don't believe me? Watch Baraka on Bluray on an HDTV. It makes even Up look like a grainy mess. I've read comments people made about Baraka where they were convinced that it was all CG or that green screens were used because the picture was so impossibly clear (even though the movie was shot around 1989).

It will be many years before digital cameras can out-do large scale film (65mm or larger).(Even in photography, the world's greatest digital cameral is always going to be playing catch up to a big piece of film, simply because film has nearly no limit to it's quailty and never needs to compress)

We aren't even close to the peak picture quality film has to offer. Even Bluray still needs to compress films shot on 65mm or larger. Its a shame that directors choose to use 35mm film or just go digital, despite the fact that cameras that film with 65mm are now a reasonable size to film with.

 

[Crook]

No. I'm sorry, but you're not even close to the truth. Digital cameras are about 2 decades behind film. Don't believe me? Watch Baraka on Bluray on an HDTV. It makes even Up look like a grainy mess. I've read comments people made about Baraka where they were convinced that it was all CG or that green screens were used because the picture was so impossibly clear (even though the movie was shot around 1989).

It will be many years before digital cameras can out-do large scale film (65mm or larger).(Even in photography, the world's greatest digital cameral is always going to be playing catch up to a big piece of film, simply because film has nearly no limit to it's quailty and never needs to compress)

The evolution of the film format has slowed down. I really don't think it's going to progress at such a steady rate that it'll keep surpassing digital capabilities. It may have been way ahead of digital a decade ago, but even in the past 5 years, digital has caught up quite a lot. Sooner or later the two will be nearly identical, if not, favoring digital. We all know it's replaced everything else.

We aren't even close to the peak picture quality film has to offer. Even Bluray still needs to compress films shot on 65mm or larger. Its a shame that directors choose to use 35mm film or just go digital, despite the fact that cameras that film with 65mm are now a reasonable size to film with.

65mm and larger is plenty. Whether we've reached the 'technical' peak of film has become irrelevant. As you said, transferred to digital, it's practically limitless in the pixels it can provide. I think we're at the point where anything bigger has become superfluous in determining image quality. Detail can only get so much better before it starts leveling out to a relative constant.

 

[weezerspider]

Well, aren't you just a little closed-minded. And unfunny.

As I said before, I'm pretty damned sure that Nolan will either step in and say, "My movie will not be 3D," or, "If my movie is 3D, I'm going to oversee the process."

I never said he wouldn't do that.^ In fact, I said he would. That doesn't mean the conversion won't suck.

 

[weezerspider]

^I don't think it's that simple. Movie + 3D conversion does not equal automatic garbage. If it did, why would Cameron bother to convert Titanic into 3D?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Thats why he would bother
And just because James Cameron does it, it doesn't mean its a good idea.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

I never said he wouldn't do that.^ In fact, I said he would. That doesn't mean the conversion won't suck.

I never said it won't, but to assume that it's going to and not even give it a chance is just ignorant. Seriously, it's Christopher ****ing Nolan we're dealing with here. He's put enough effort into this to make millions of grown men stop making homosexual cowboy jokes about Heath Ledger, and to start acting gay for him. I think he can make a 3D conversion.

 

[weezerspider]

I never said it won't, but to assume that it's going to and not even give it a chance is just ignorant. Seriously, it's Christopher ****ing Nolan we're dealing with here. He's put enough effort into this to make millions of grown men stop making homosexual cowboy jokes about Heath Ledger, and to start acting gay for him. I think he can make a 3D conversion.

Blindly assuming one director can make everything work is just as ignorant. I've heard the same thing about many fan-boy favorites. I love Nolan, but I would bet against him if he allows 3D conversion.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

Blindly assuming one director can make everything work is just as ignorant. I've heard the same thing about many fan-boy favorites. I love Nolan, but I would bet against him if he allows 3D conversion.

You have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

 

[weezerspider]

You have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

I'll quote you "Its Christopher ****ing Nolan" That alone shows your ignorance. Just because its Nolan doesn't mean it will work.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

I'll quote you "Its Christopher ****ing Nolan" That alone shows your ignorance. Just because its Nolan doesn't mean it will work.

Allow me to repeat myself:

You have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

I think it was pretty clear that I was exaggerating when I followed, "It's Christopher ****ing Nolan", up with, "He's put enough effort into this to make millions of grown men stop making homosexual cowboy jokes about Heath Ledger, and to start acting gay for him."

My point was, and still is, give it a chance before you cast it off as garbage. Keep in mind I also said, "I never said it won't". Got it this time?

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Cinematographer Wally Pfister Talks About Shooting 'Batman 3' in 3-D
by Todd Gilchrist Apr 20th 2010 // 1:15PM

On Friday, April 16, the Dallas Film Society presented their coveted Star Award to Wally Pfister for his accomplishments in the world of cinematography, which includes a longtime partnership with Christopher Nolan on such films as Memento, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight. Earlier in the day, Cinematical sat down with Pfister to discuss his career, during which time he offered a few insights about the future of the Batman movie franchise, including whether the film might succumb to being shot in 3-D.

Pfister is of a like mind with Nolan about the merits of 3-D (check back for a full interview soon, in which he details their mutual disinterest), which the duo declined to use for their upcoming film Inception. But the acclaimed, award-winning director of photography said that neither he nor Nolan has ruled out the possibility of shooting it using the format. "What Chris and I have talked about is doing something cool and something interesting," Pfister said. "[Director] Brad Bird was [saying] 'you've got to shoot the whole thing in IMAX!' I was like, yeah, I've talked to Chris about that."

Pfister acknowledged that the technology required to shoot Batman 3 in IMAX would likely be cumbersome, since he and Nolan used it for several sequences in The Dark Knight, but isn't sure that 3-D photography will even be an issue by the time they start shooting. "I did it for one shot of The Dark Knight because he said, you have to say you did it, and literally I had this strapped to my shoulder and I was carrying it. But I think Chris is game for doing something interesting like that, Lord knows that the 3-D fad might pass by the time that summer comes around."

Pfister also said that regardless in how many dimensions they end up shooting the Caped Crusader's exploits, he knows that some decisions have already been made about the film's photography. "But I know one thing about the film that Chris is adamant about is that he wants to shoot on film," Pfister said. "He doesn't want to shoot on video, and I'm the same way."

http://www.cinematical.com/2010/04/20/wally-pfister-talks-about-shooting-batman-3-in-3-d/

 

[Boom]

Shot fully in IMAX = Win.

 

[batman44]

If they shoot in full Imax...

 

[Doctor Jones]

Thank. GOD!!!

Fully shot in IMAX huh? I can dig that. Now like Nolan said, the budget would have to be alot more but I'm sure WB is willing to cough up the dough. But it will be a pain in the ass to shoot everything. They need to figure out a way to use smaller IMAX camera if possible which probably won't be realized for a while.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Update: Cain Rodriguez sent me the following summary of Pfister's comments from Dallas. Very interesting stuff...

-- Pfister, just like Nolan, does not like digital cameras: "The image quality of film" exceeds that of the high end digital cameras like "the Genesis camera and the Red camera." He said that he and "Chris [Nolan] are 'devotees' of film."

-- Because of his and Nolan's feelings toward Digital Cinema, Pfister does not want to shoot in 3D. He actually had some pretty harsh things to say about the format, he says that "it's great for like amusement park rides like the 'Honey I Shrunk The Kids' ride at Disneyland." He said that 3D is not realistic and "it's a distraction. Can you imagine Memento in 3D? With Joey Pantoliano's glasses sticking out 'a few feet' with his hair all the way back there?"

--Pfister said that he met with Brad Bird a few days ago and that Bird told him that his teenage sons thought that the IMAX used in The Dark Knight was more realistic than the 3D in these new movies.

--He loves the clarity and latitude that shooting in 65 mm and in IMAX gives him. He can "underexpose by as many as 5 F-stops and overexpose by two. The digital cameras can't do that."

--His heroes include: Gordon Willis, Stanley Kubrick, Roger Deakins, and some French cinematographer whose name is escaping me. He also mentioned loving the cinematography in Terrence Malick's films.

--Tips for shooting digitally: "If you really have to shoot daylight [exteriors, you have to] use as [much] soft light as possible. Shoot at magic hour: Dawn and Dusk. Stop shooting in the afternoon."

--Although he loves the image and large frame provided by IMAX in The Dark Knight, he would much "prefer [everything] to be in 2.35:1"

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44739

 

[Steyin]

I trust in Pfister.

 

[hegele]

Pfister knows whats up. 3D is garbage and the only reason studios and money grubbing filmmakers like Cameron are telling people its the future is because audiences are gullible enough to shell out the extra cash for it.

 

[dark_b]

the whole movie(2 hours and 30 min) will not be shot in full IMAX resolution. just so that we are clear.

 

[redhawk23]

Pfister proving once again that he is awesome.

seriously though does EVERY 3rd movie in the world have to be in 3-D? its kind of rediculous

 

[Mr. Earle]

So if people like 3D, or are convinced by Cameron that 3D is cool, why dont Nolan and Pfeister want to please them and give them what they want? Is it because someone else did it first?

 

[redhawk23]

the whole movie(2 hours and 30 min) will not be shot in full IMAX resolution. just so that we are clear.

you are most definitely correct on that, but its very possible that at least a larger number of scenes will. but doing the whole film is just not realistic at this time i don't think

do you think theres any possibility of the rest being done on 65 mm? from what i hear nolan had success with filming on that format for parts of inception.

 

[dark_b]

So if people like 3D, or are convinced by Cameron that 3D is cool, why dont Nolan and Pfeister want to please them and give them what they want? Is it because someone else did it first?

i think its important that every director does something new.i think that way they all can learn from each other and at the same time inspire all the other directors.

what if everyone would only have vanilla ice cream? there needs to be some tutti frutti and some chocolate. t:

Cameron was trying something new with 3D. it looks like Pfeister and Nolan want to go on the same path but with IMAX. very interesting

 

[redhawk23]

So if people like 3D, or are convinced by Cameron that 3D is cool, why dont Nolan and Pfeister want to please them and give them what they want? Is it because someone else did it first?

because not everything in the world is motivate purely by money

 

[Mr. Earle]

I agree, and like everyone learned from Nolan and is using IMAX, Nolan could shoot in 3D and not snub it because someone else did it first.

 

[Figs]

If this is all official and set in stone, no 3D and the entire film shot in Imax that is absolutely awesome!

 

[Nirvana]

Well, I'm glad Pfister is smart enough to realize that 3D is a fad.