I really, really appreciate Nolan and Pfister's approach regarding Film vs. HD Video. The only filmmaker I've conciously been aware of using HD video in a unique way is Michael Mann, and I appreciate his approach as well, as he seems to have created a look and feel that he wants for the films he's shot in that format. Wally has said that he can Chris are on the same page that they're making films, and that means that they want to remain true to the medium, so digital video is off limits in thier book.
Back to HD Video though.. Out of Mann's films.. Collateral is where it made the most sense to me, as the benefits it creates during nighttime shooting with enormous depth of field and high resolution were vastly needed for a film set at night for 90% or so of the screentime. Mann created a pretty unique aesthetic with that medium, and I loved it. He likes to use some of the graininess of film to capture a mood, and managed to replicate a look that had a film like quality due to his 'intentional imperfections'.
TDK, particularly in the cityscapes shot on Imax seemed to capture as rich of night landscape as anything I've seen on digital video.. that's a bit surprising and a testament to Wally for sure, as that has to be much harder on film. Chris always seems to want very clear cinematography, and not create a mood out of the medium, which is the exact opposite of what Mann does, and that's not a complaint or saying one is better than the other. I would love to see Chris and Wally continue to push the medium by venturing into video, but only if it creates something that benefits the film they're trying to make. I guess my point in bringing this up is that like Mann, Nolan is 100% about serving the story through every filmmaking choice he makes. He might consider video to achieve an aesthetic for a movie that traditional film can't give him, but it seems that would have to be a last resort.
So what do you guys think? Would you be ok with these two filmmakers utilizing HD video or do you want them to stick to film? Can you see a situation where they'd ever abandon film for video? I say no, they never will.
Back to HD Video though.. Out of Mann's films.. Collateral is where it made the most sense to me, as the benefits it creates during nighttime shooting with enormous depth of field and high resolution were vastly needed for a film set at night for 90% or so of the screentime. Mann created a pretty unique aesthetic with that medium, and I loved it. He likes to use some of the graininess of film to capture a mood, and managed to replicate a look that had a film like quality due to his 'intentional imperfections'.
TDK, particularly in the cityscapes shot on Imax seemed to capture as rich of night landscape as anything I've seen on digital video.. that's a bit surprising and a testament to Wally for sure, as that has to be much harder on film. Chris always seems to want very clear cinematography, and not create a mood out of the medium, which is the exact opposite of what Mann does, and that's not a complaint or saying one is better than the other. I would love to see Chris and Wally continue to push the medium by venturing into video, but only if it creates something that benefits the film they're trying to make. I guess my point in bringing this up is that like Mann, Nolan is 100% about serving the story through every filmmaking choice he makes. He might consider video to achieve an aesthetic for a movie that traditional film can't give him, but it seems that would have to be a last resort.
So what do you guys think? Would you be ok with these two filmmakers utilizing HD video or do you want them to stick to film? Can you see a situation where they'd ever abandon film for video? I say no, they never will.
)