Cillian talked about them projecting certain images over backgrounds and capturing them in camera.
But this brings us to the CGI vs. VFX distinction. I think the VFX work is mostly cleaning up and compositing different elements that were captured in camera. So no 3D modeling or full CG elements were used.
For example, in Tenet, the airplane crash is of course practical but they needed to remove the cameras from some of the angles and some cables and other elements in the shot and they added more fire and added CGI trees.
I hope this is the case. I asked, because I just watch this Youtube video from some VFX artist, and he think there is no way this to be true, but I don't think he clearly distinct CGI from VFX. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdhAnbP ... el=Impulse
Is this "zero cgi shots" absolutely true? As I know, DNEG are involved in this movie on some way. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure If there is a perfect movie for Nolan to shoot entirely in camera with practical effects and real sets, this is it.
As others say, it's primarily semantics over what's "CGI" and what's "VFX." Within the industry, there's no meaningful divide between them; they're all tools inside a computer.
However, I'm betting everything (or almost everything) in Oppenheimer has some basis in a photographed reality then used digital tools to stitch them together in a compelling way, and I can understand why Nolan sees that as a meaningful distinction from fully-rendered digital imagery.
I faltered. I was weak. I watched it all lmao. But I have a question:
From interviews and trailers, it makes it seem like Nolan was singularly enthralled by the "possibility of igniting the atmosphere" and made that a key point in all the trailers despite it being worried about for a very short time before being dismissed... this trailer shows the start of Oppenheimer's line with context "we had a moment where [...] the chain reaction [...] might never stop".
Bit of a relief, I thought they were holding onto it despite it apparently being a small concern in the end.
Fair enough, now that I've seen it once, I'm probably going to see it a bunch more times, teasing out every detail, haha.
Yeah, I mean, it was thought about semi-seriously in 1942 but it was quickly debunked. By the time Trinity rolled around, it was passed around as a kind of dark joke, but it wasn't a serious concern. Interestingly, as a minor point, Nolan gets the specifics of how they thought the atmosphere would be ignited wrong. It wasn't that they thought the nuclear chain reaction from the bomb would spread to the atmosphere, but that the intense heat from the bomb would cause nitrogen atoms in the air to start fusing, and that the heat released from those fusion reactions would allow other nitrogen atoms to fuse, and so on. That's something that's easily debunkable once you realize that, say, asteroids and volcanoes have released comparable energy without setting the atmosphere on fire (and even if the properties of nitrogen would have to be totally different, like if they were much easier to fuse, it couldn't happen).
Ok, I keep giving the benefit of the doubt -- clearly the chain reaction couldn't continue the same way when it literally runs out of fuel (fissionable material). BUT, referring to the heat causing Nitrogen atoms to fuse, causing others to fuse... that sounds like they're describing an entirely different, hypothetical, chain reaction. Which isn't the original chain reaction. But it sounds chain-y!
Regardless, I feel like this clip was a bombshell compared to all the trailers and must have been very fun for you or anyone who is familiar with the history!!
Edit: the Gateway timeout is so aggravating. The site isn't even under much load, or ANY, I've gotten that error with 2 users on the site. 50-80% of the time a page won't load, but simply retrying right after and it could load just fine. It's ridiculous.
Plus, the bombs never actually ran out of fuel. In Little Boy, for example, only 1.38% of the uranium split and released its energy, with the rest being scattered when the bomb blew apart. But yeah, the focus on the fears of igniting the atmosphere definitely seems to be exaggerated in the film.
100% agree on this trailer. I think this has given a better idea of what the film's actually going to be like compared to all the other ones in terms of the tone, the score, the plot, and of course how faithful (or unfaithful) the film will be to the true story.
Fair enough, now that I've seen it once, I'm probably going to see it a bunch more times, teasing out every detail, haha.
Yeah, I mean, it was thought about semi-seriously in 1942 but it was quickly debunked. By the time Trinity rolled around, it was passed around as a kind of dark joke, but it wasn't a serious concern. Interestingly, as a minor point, Nolan gets the specifics of how they thought the atmosphere would be ignited wrong. It wasn't that they thought the nuclear chain reaction from the bomb would spread to the atmosphere, but that the intense heat from the bomb would cause nitrogen atoms in the air to start fusing, and that the heat released from those fusion reactions would allow other nitrogen atoms to fuse, and so on. That's something that's easily debunkable once you realize that, say, asteroids and volcanoes have released comparable energy without setting the atmosphere on fire (and even if the properties of nitrogen would have to be totally different, like if they were much easier to fuse, it couldn't happen).
Ok, I keep giving the benefit of the doubt -- clearly the chain reaction couldn't continue the same way when it literally runs out of fuel (fissionable material). BUT, referring to the heat causing Nitrogen atoms to fuse, causing others to fuse... that sounds like they're describing an entirely different, hypothetical, chain reaction. Which isn't the original chain reaction. But it sounds chain-y!
Regardless, I feel like this clip was a bombshell compared to all the trailers and must have been very fun for you or anyone who is familiar with the history!!
Edit: the Gateway timeout is so aggravating. The site isn't even under much load, or ANY, I've gotten that error with 2 users on the site. 50-80% of the time a page won't load, but simply retrying right after and it could load just fine. It's ridiculous.
Plus, the bombs never actually ran out of fuel. In Little Boy, for example, only 1.38% of the uranium split and released its energy, with the rest being scattered when the bomb blew apart. But yeah, the focus on the fears of igniting the atmosphere definitely seems to be exaggerated in the film.
100% agree on this trailer. I think this has given a better idea of what the film's actually going to be like compared to all the other ones in terms of the tone, the score, the plot, and of course how faithful (or unfaithful) the film will be to the true story.
Waaaaaitaminute
How could they be sure that they would only achieve such a low yield?? If they were wrong, wouldn't a larger blast yield have made everyone's positions, even in the bunkers, quite dangerous places to be?
Hey. So I have a couple options for this film. My local theater is doing normal 70mm. I can see that sooner. But also I am going down to Michigan for WWE Summerslam (August 5) and can catch a 3pm IMAX 70mm showing at the Michigan Science Center before going to the event straight after. Thing is, that's a dome theater. Is that even real IMAX and the full thing. Is a dome theater even worth it. I have not experienced True IMAX. So do I see this in Domed IMAX 70mm at Michigan Science Center before WWE or 70mm at local?
Ok, I keep giving the benefit of the doubt -- clearly the chain reaction couldn't continue the same way when it literally runs out of fuel (fissionable material). BUT, referring to the heat causing Nitrogen atoms to fuse, causing others to fuse... that sounds like they're describing an entirely different, hypothetical, chain reaction. Which isn't the original chain reaction. But it sounds chain-y!
Regardless, I feel like this clip was a bombshell compared to all the trailers and must have been very fun for you or anyone who is familiar with the history!!
Edit: the Gateway timeout is so aggravating. The site isn't even under much load, or ANY, I've gotten that error with 2 users on the site. 50-80% of the time a page won't load, but simply retrying right after and it could load just fine. It's ridiculous.
Plus, the bombs never actually ran out of fuel. In Little Boy, for example, only 1.38% of the uranium split and released its energy, with the rest being scattered when the bomb blew apart. But yeah, the focus on the fears of igniting the atmosphere definitely seems to be exaggerated in the film.
100% agree on this trailer. I think this has given a better idea of what the film's actually going to be like compared to all the other ones in terms of the tone, the score, the plot, and of course how faithful (or unfaithful) the film will be to the true story.
Waaaaaitaminute
How could they be sure that they would only achieve such a low yield?? If they were wrong, wouldn't a larger blast yield have made everyone's positions, even in the bunkers, quite dangerous places to be?
I don't know the answer to this specifically, but I imagine you can calculate how many generations of neutrons you get in your chain reaction before the energy release blows your bomb apart, and thus be pretty confident that it'll be below a certain yield. That being said, I do know there was enough uncertainty in how efficient the bomb would be that, before the Trinity test, many of the top scientists placed bets on what they thought the yield might be, ranging from Norman Ramsey's zero tons of TNT equivalent, Oppenheimer's 300 tons (a fizzle, basically), all the way to Edward Teller betting 45 kilotons. In the end, estimates for the yield of the Trinity test seem to vary, but I've seen 18.6 and 21 kilotons as common values for it, which was actually much higher than most scientists were predicting.
Just to make sure I'm not spouting nonsense, I checked to see if Alex Wellerstein wrote anything on this topic, and indeed he did: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/com ... omic_bomb/. He notes that the common prediction for Trinity's yield was around 4 or 5 kilotons, so Trinity was actually four or five times more powerful than what most were expecting.
