Nomis wrote:I'll never forget that test shot of Wally holding an IMAX camera on his shoulder only to fall over, from then on never to attempt handheld IMAX again lol.
Bless HvH for doing the things he has done with IMAX
DUTCH FUCKING MUSCLES BABY! Hoyte "Dutch CineMuscle" van Hoytema
As for ADR, it's more about the performances than the sound. They definitely can make it sound like it was recorded on set/location. There are quite a lot of IMAX shot scenes in Dunkirk where they managed to do that. It helps when they had to shoot scenes in the cockpits, because either the mouths of the actors were covered or the camera was outside of the cockpit. I mean, the reason why the first Wormhole sequence in Interstellar was shot in both 35mm and IMAX was because Nolan wanted to record the dialogue on set because he didn't want the IMAX-noise and other issues to overshadow the takes and thus so the performances of the actors. It was only when they found out they could record the actors' dialogue from inside the helmets that they opted to go with a lot more IMAX than was the initial plan. Hence why there's much more IMAX later in the film. Like I said, same goes for the Air-sequences in Dunkirk.
Lets not forget,
if the Alex/Tommy scene on the train wasn't shot on 65mm we probably wouldn't have got that Tommy close-up as the last shot of the film. Which I think is perfect and now having seen it, unmissable to the film.
Yeah it sucks a bit that Nolan probably never will have a 100% IMAX shot film but Dunkirk is the closest we'll ever get to that and it's pretty fucking perfect.
imo: I know it restricts the possibilities of the IMAX camera a lot more but why not close it off hermetically (as if shooting underwater) whilst shooting dialogue. I think that should make the camera a whole lot more quiet, although probably never as silent as a regular 65mm camera. Just a thought.
I still cannot believe they had 5 IMAX cameras ready on set and apparently IMAX built a new camera for them (so it is possible - they should make more).
But yeah it doesn't help that the camera is noisy and only shoots for 2 minutes. I have so many questions on how they managed to shoot in the air with this thing. I wish I could get to meet/contact Hoyte
Please don't start this okungnyo...
It definetly didn't hurt the film at all. The 5.1 mix is very immersive already. Atmos would've been nice but it's not a must.
Plus, 70mm IMAX > Atmos any day.
I only experienced Atmos twice: IT and Blade Runner 2049
I expected a huge difference and such an upgrade from 5.1/7.1 to Atmos but it was so subtle especially for BR2049 that I'm that crazy about it any more.
I didn't mean 'hurt' in like a huge big way that ruined the film or anything.
IMAX cameras are heavy and hard to maneuver, so it makes me wonder how more intimate, improvised, and spontaneous the camerawork would have been had they used lighter, regular 65 mm cameras.
Also, like Nomis said, we would not have gotten that haunting last shot of Tommy looking up on the train if the whole thing had been shot by IMAX cameras.
So that makes me wonder, what other on-the-moment shots like that did we miss out on, if it hadn't been for the IMAX cameras' flaw of being unable to shoot more than three minutes at a time?
Also, the shifting aspect ratio which I didn't really mind before, but thanks to MuffinMcFluffin constantly ranting about it , I do now find it slightly (just slightly) distracting.
And this is just speculation, but his insistence that as much of the film as possible be kept on the original-resolution IMAX negative (as opposed to going through a digital intermediary like with The Dark Knight Rises or Interstellar) meant that shots that could have used minor VFX touch-ups didn't: (nitpicky, I admit, yes) things like bullets leaving puffs of air but no visible bullet holes, the beach being completely empty in the background when we are on the mole with Commander Bolton, and so on.
To me, the greatness of IMAX makes me forget about everything else
All Nolan films were finished on film - no digital intermediates. Same techniques were used. The VFX shots are printed as negative film then cut with the rest of film. But yes, it seems like he wanted to reduce the amount of touched up shots to have a true photochemical finish.
okungnyo wrote:Also, the shifting aspect ratio which I didn't really mind before, but thanks to MuffinMcFluffin constantly ranting about it , I do now find it slightly (just slightly) distracting.
Remember, I only have a gripe about it when I'm not watching it in 70mm IMAX. My 2.20:1 version is coming along nicely. Same with a 2.40:1 TDKR version (I had one before but it was center-cropped, now I'm re-framing every single shot). TDK and Interstellar may have to wait, because this takes way too much out of me to do.
This is not the best example out there, but a nice one still. Here's the difference between center-cropping and custom-cropping, how I can put exactly what I want into the shot.