Has anyone ever claimed that The Batman and Blade Runner 2049, who were shot on digital and non-IMAX film cameras, look worse than Interstellar and Oppenheimer?
I've never made that claim, but I will now if you like (that's based on seeing none of them on the big screen and not having seen OP at all yet.)
I don't know if it is because I am color-blind or not, but I've pretty much always been able to pass taste-tests regarding film and digital. I do think DIs do a lot to water down the differences, but that is hardly to film's advantage. 2K scans of 35mm seemed to oftentimes eliminate the very values of originating on film, and so resulting vfx comps often looked like CG or digital even though they had 35 as a basis -- look at the hangar shot with prof and wolfie in the first X-MEN ... that had a nice 35mm plate of the actors and film of the miniature, but looks as CG as the weakest stuff in the show.
Hoyte having such an engineering brain (Chris`s own words) is the main reason on why i see him working with Chris until the end of their careers, also they seem to have such similar sensibilities, when Chris tells the story of showing Wages of fear before shooting Dunkirk, and the crew seeming really angry at him for having them watch it, Hoyte was THE only one who was totally with it and smiling as Chris recalls, i mean Hoyte even gets to work with other directors from time to time, i think this just works too well.
PD: the colaborator im actually interested to see if she returns is Ruth de Jong, that team deakins podcast was something alright, she seemed to have a very stressful time on Oppenheimer, she even recalls breaking up in tears on set in front of Chris because they had issues with a set, and issues finding certain locations, they pulled through in the end but i wouldnt blame her if she didnt want to work with Chris again, it seemed like absolute mayhem lol
I too wonder if she's gonna come back on his next film. To be fair, I think it was as she explained it something out anyone's control but it definitely was stressful to deal with. But Imagine working with a director like Chris, who cut the shooting schedule from 90 or so days to 59 to increase the budget for your department. That's incredible.
I was hesitant to jump into this discussion, knowing who started it.
For me, film as a capture medium should remain in use and almost all movies shot on film look so much better than digital today. Why? Both film and digital can produce incredible images but digital feels to safe. The cameras are getting better and more sensitive to light and DPs are kind of getting lazy and started to under light shots.
Film is expensive and it feels more important so you know everyone is pushing to get the best out of every setup.
Deakins is Deakins. His photography is just stunning no matter what medium he uses. I think he is the best and I try to learn from him as much as I can on how to get digital to look as good as film without trying to emulate it by adding fake grain and other unnecessary ad-ons that soften the image just to try and emulate film.
Look at his recent work, 1917 or The Empire of Light. Stunning visuals.
Hoyte van Hoytema is another master who I'm trying to figure out how he lit most of the scenes in Oppenheimer. The contrast, brightness, and colors are always right. Compared to Fraser who is great but, his photography is a hit or miss for me.
And the thing about IMAX, and some people suddenly criticizing Nolan's use of it. It's not just about the number of Ks, which is important when you're trying to fill the biggest screens. All the benefits of film emulsion. The colors, the highlight roll off, the organic grain that makes up the image. He shoots with lenses that were made for medium format still cameras. Those lenses produce incredible images.
1. Dunkirk
2. The Dark Knight Rises
3. The Dark Knight
4. Interstellar
5. Tenet
6. The Prestige
7. Inception
8. Oppenheimer
9. Memento
10. Insomnia
11. Batman Begins
Why is Oppenheimer that low?
I think that since a lot of the film ultimately consists of men in small rooms talking to each other, there is a lot less room for the film to truly shine cinematography wise especially compared to his more epic and ambitious genre works. There are some really fantastic moments such as the Trinity test or even the rain drops in the puddle shots but compared to the number of incredible shots in a tenet or Dunkirk, I can’t put Oppenheimer over them
As for why I don’t think Fraser would work well with Nolan, it’s mostly because of how digital his aesthetic is. Films like The Creator, The Batman and Dune all showcase to me that above the fact he shot them digitally, his aesthetic works suitably for a digital texture. Not to say he can’t adapt to Nolan’s style but I think I prefer seeing Fraser progress his own artistry than trying to adapt to someone else’s at this stage.
Hoyte having such an engineering brain (Chris`s own words) is the main reason on why i see him working with Chris until the end of their careers, also they seem to have such similar sensibilities, when Chris tells the story of showing Wages of fear before shooting Dunkirk, and the crew seeming really angry at him for having them watch it, Hoyte was THE only one who was totally with it and smiling as Chris recalls, i mean Hoyte even gets to work with other directors from time to time, i think this just works too well.
PD: the colaborator im actually interested to see if she returns is Ruth de Jong, that team deakins podcast was something alright, she seemed to have a very stressful time on Oppenheimer, she even recalls breaking up in tears on set in front of Chris because they had issues with a set, and issues finding certain locations, they pulled through in the end but i wouldnt blame her if she didnt want to work with Chris again, it seemed like absolute mayhem lol
Realistically I could see Nolan being his own DP before I see him working with a current cinematographer outside of Hoyte
Nolan's IMAX fetish greatly reduces the number of cinematographers he can work with to only Hoyte, basically. I would like to see him get out of his comfort zone and work with Emmanuel Lubezki (Birdman, The Revenant), Greig Fraser (The Batman, Dune), Roger Deakins (Blader Runner 2049, No Country For Old Men), Rodrigo Prieto (Barbie, The Wolf of Wall Street). Hoyte has now shot 4 Nolan films back to back in a span of 10 years. I don't see how this collaboration has any juice gas left in the tank.
Directors often love working numerous times with the same cinematographer. 4 collaborations with the same DP is fairly standard for a lot of directors. Michael Ballhaus shot 7 films with Scorsese. Elswit shot 6 films with PTA and the only reason they stopped is because PTA is just shooting his films by himself or with his crew now.
Hoyte having such an engineering brain (Chris`s own words) is the main reason on why i see him working with Chris until the end of their careers, also they seem to have such similar sensibilities, when Chris tells the story of showing Wages of fear before shooting Dunkirk, and the crew seeming really angry at him for having them watch it, Hoyte was THE only one who was totally with it and smiling as Chris recalls, i mean Hoyte even gets to work with other directors from time to time, i think this just works too well.
PD: the colaborator im actually interested to see if she returns is Ruth de Jong, that team deakins podcast was something alright, she seemed to have a very stressful time on Oppenheimer, she even recalls breaking up in tears on set in front of Chris because they had issues with a set, and issues finding certain locations, they pulled through in the end but i wouldnt blame her if she didnt want to work with Chris again, it seemed like absolute mayhem lol
Realistically I could see Nolan being his own DP before I see him working with a current cinematographer outside of Hoyte
Later on in his career when he's working on budgets of a few mil, I could defo see him being his own DP and mixing the score himself as well.
His being his own DP could happen sooner if IMAX actually makes good on their word and somehow defies the laws of the universe by developing a revolutionary next-gen IMAX film camera that's lightweight, doesn't sound like a buzzsaw, and can record more than what was it six minutes? of footage at a time. But that ain't happenin', so...
So yeah, the partnership with Mr. van Hoytema is going to last a decade more, at least. I mean, we gotta remember why he was hired in the first place. His resume was impressive, I'm sure, but Mr. Nolan probably chose him mainly for his C H O N K, i.e. his physical ability to shoulder the giant IMAX camera for hours at a time and wield it like a handheld. Your average cinematographer with a normal build would literally be unable to do the job in that respect, Mr. Nolan himself included.
I mean, we gotta remember why he was hired in the first place. His resume was impressive, I'm sure, but Mr. Nolan probably chose him mainly for his C H O N K, i.e. his physical ability to shoulder the giant IMAX camera for hours at a time and wield it like a handheld. Your average cinematographer with a normal build would literally be unable to do the job in that respect, Mr. Nolan himself included.
Never think a determined director will agree with your ideas of what is possible. On 2001, Kubrick handheld the big 65mm camera while walking down the ramp on the TMA-1 moon set. And Kubrick was a pretty slight man, and only about 5'7" (he also shot the slow-motion bone in the sky footage himself during the film's one 'real' daytime exterior shoot that wasn't a 2nd unit thing, which seriously worried Arthur C. Clarke, as the bones were sometimes coming down very close to the director's head.)
How would Nolan know that Hoyte would be able or ever consider shoulder mounting an IMAX camera? He definitely hired him for his work and his work alone. The other advantage came later with experimentations on Interstellar.
Also, Nolan isn't a small guy either so he also could put that camera on his shoulder. Another fun fact is, the 5-perf 65mm is actually heavier than the IMAX cameras. Hoyte doesn't think it's that heavy or cumbersome. It is compared to a tiny 35mm camera or digital camera but it is manageable.
