"The so-called digital revolution is great. If you have no money and you want to shoot it on your Canon 5D -- fantastic. If that's the only way you can make the movie, great. But if we're putting movies up on a screen this size … we need to deliver the best image quality there. And there's nothing better than film."
Wally Phisster wrote:But they won't shoot the entire film for IMAX, he said, citing cost and the inability to capture sound as just two of the impediments.
Wally Phisster wrote:But they won't shoot the entire film for IMAX, he said, citing cost and the inability to capture sound as just two of the impediments.
Anyone know what he's talking about?
#You can't capture clear dialog while using IMAX because the camera's are so loud and only have three minute loading maximum, so shooting dialog scenes are very difficult, hence the ratio shifting in The Dark Knight.
The so-called digital revolution is great. If you have no money and you want to shoot it on your Canon 5D -- fantastic. If that's the only way you can make the movie, great. But if we're putting movies up on a screen this size … we need to deliver the best image quality there.[/b] And there's nothing better than film.
Eh. I'd gamble that 99% of the population wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the image capture quality of the Arri ALEXA, vs. S35mm. I mean, Deakin's thinks it's even better then capturing on S35mm. Anamorphic, he's right, but the ALEXA still looks damn good and I'm willing to bet that, still, 99% of the population wouldn't be able to tell the difference when used by a good DP.
Point being, the digital revolution is happening and clumping camera's such as the ALEXA, EPIC, F35, and even further F65 (which will beat the pants off S35mm) together with DSLR's, is naive. But, Wally has changed his stance slightly since this interview.