Interstellar

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,904
44,747
136
Ns1 said:
making film on film is now reserved for the richest of the richest. 10-15 years ago it was completely the other way around.
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to see what director does this next. Probably Tarantino.

I never thought I'd again be having actual discussions about booth design to accommodate film projection side by side with digital.
 
destrekor

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Ns1 said:
making film on film is now reserved for the richest of the richest. 10-15 years ago it was completely the other way around.
Click to expand...

While it's comparatively rare in the industry today, it really isn't excessively uncommon.

Notable film diehards:
JJ Abrams
Alfonso Cuaron
Christopher Nolan
Quentin Tarantino


Martin Scorsese tends to prefer film first, but almost always converts to digital and does prefer digital for things like aerial scenes.

The entire Breaking Bad series was shot on film. This I did not know. I never watched it in a way to drink in the details, I basically used Netflix for the entire series.

Walking Dead is shot on Super 16, specifically.

Here's a curated selection of films shot on Kodak-brand film. For motion pictures, there isn't much else available, and most preferred the various Kodak stock anyway.

KeithTalent said:
Hateful Eight is going to be shot in 70MM! http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Quen...Eight-Widest-70mm-Release-20-Years-67031.html

:awe:

KT
Click to expand...

While that's a big step, do note that it is NOT the 70/15 used for Imax.

15-perf 70mm is horizontal fed, which is a massive frame.
"70mm" almost always refers to 70/5, and 5-perf is vertical fed like the 35mm film we know in the motion picture industry.

It's still a big frame compared to 35mm, I just felt that should be clarified. :)

Many high-quality pictures were shot in 70mm, and I wish the cost of film didn't make it as rare.
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
destrekor said:
While it's comparatively rare in the industry today, it really isn't excessively uncommon.

Notable film diehards:
JJ Abrams
Alfonso Cuaron
Christopher Nolan
Quentin Tarantino
Click to expand...

4 directors in a sea of directors is pretty uncommon (speaking strictly go-forward, not historical). Seems like everyone is moving onto RED cameras these days (not that they had much of a choice)

With movie budgets being what they are, unless you're one of those 4 directors or have a ton of cash/clout on hand shooting on film is probably a no-go. What studio/producer wants to drop 10% of a budget on prints?
 
Last edited:
destrekor

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Ns1 said:
4 directors in a sea of directors is pretty uncommon (speaking strictly go-forward, not historical). Seems like everyone is moving onto RED cameras these days (not that they had much of a choice)

With movie budgets being what they are, unless you're one of those 4 directors or have a ton of cash/clout on hand shooting on film is probably a no-go. What studio/producer wants to drop 10% of a budget on prints?
Click to expand...

You can cross-reference some of the movies on the Kodak list, and perhaps see if more directors swear by film.

Movies like Silver Linings Playbook and Argo and Don Jon have been shot on film. Searching for the stats of directors and their choice of digital or film capture is difficult.

I simply listed the big name directors that I know for sure swear by film.

A little additional searching:
Zack Snyder
Darren Aronofsky -- I should have known this. Oddly, he stuck to 16mm for a long time. Noah was his first 35mm. Nuts!
Paul Thomas Anderson
Doug Liman

If I kept searching, I'd find more who prefer film for all but the special moments.
Avengers was shot mostly on film, but had digital so that cameras could be easily placed in areas where the bulk was impossible to deal with, or they risked getting destroyed.

The artists of the medium prefer film.
The directors who simply want to make movies and, well, probably aren't winning awards... they've gone full digital.

Many more use both, or switch depending on the film, the style they want to evoke, or switch it up throughout the movie for creative purposes (fairly common, actually).
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
destrekor said:
You can cross-reference some of the movies on the Kodak list, and perhaps see if more directors swear by film.

Movies like Silver Linings Playbook and Argo and Don Jon have been shot on film. Searching for the stats of directors and their choice of digital or film capture is difficult.

I simply listed the big name directors that I know for sure swear by film.

A little additional searching:
Zack Snyder
Darren Aronofsky -- I should have known this. Oddly, he stuck to 16mm for a long time. Noah was his first 35mm. Nuts!
Paul Thomas Anderson
Doug Liman

If I kept searching, I'd find more who prefer film for all but the special moments.
Avengers was shot mostly on film, but had digital so that cameras could be easily placed in areas where the bulk was impossible to deal with, or they risked getting destroyed.

The artists of the medium prefer film.
The directors who simply want to make movies and, well, probably aren't winning awards... they've gone full digital.

Many more use both, or switch depending on the film, the style they want to evoke, or switch it up throughout the movie for creative purposes (fairly common, actually).
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing their preferences, I'm arguing what a studio is willing to pay for =P Plus, I would imagine given Kodak's current situation, film stock is going to be limited and just because you have a preference for film doesn't mean you'll get it.

The company once famous for “Kodak moments” will make about 450M linear feet of film — about 1/28 its output in 2006 as Hollywood has shifted to digital recording and projection.
Click to expand...

how much content is 450 million feet of film?
 
Last edited:
destrekor

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Ns1 said:
I'm not arguing their preferences, I'm arguing what a studio is willing to pay for =P Plus, I would imagine given Kodak's current situation, film stock is going to be limited and just because you have a preference for film doesn't mean you'll get it.



how much content is 450 million feet of film?
Click to expand...

Don't remind me - it took a massive effort of film-loving directors and dedicated contracts to get Kodak, who is strapped for cash and desperately wants to close facilities that aren't making it much money, to guarantee film availability for the foreseeable future.

Another thing though: many movies can be SHOT in film with what they produce, but film delivered to theaters as film prints has been and will continue to shrink.
Which I am bummed about, but most 35mm theaters weren't impressive. It COULD be, but not from the massive theater chains.

As long as the movie is shot in film, that provides room to make a more beautiful image in digital or whatever they do from there. If shot on digital, it's crippled from the beginning.

Alas, my preferences won't matter 10-20 years from now, but who knows...
 
Fritzo

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
Thebobo said:
Looks corny. So we have interstellar space travel (how?) and they are still using desktop PCs? I want to see a realistic movie where we go land on another planet and start a civilization. I don't need to see monsters, chase scenes or Michael Daddy Caine playing the same freaking role in every movie he does!

Eh I'll go see it.
Click to expand...

What's cool is the physics in this movie are based on REAL physics, and the things shown may be possible if we are able to discover things like exotic matter or harness zero point energy.
 
D

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
What is so special about this movie? Why all the hype? Because of the director?
 
NikolaeVarius

NikolaeVarius

Lifer
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Fritzo said:
What's cool is the physics in this movie are based on REAL physics, and the things shown may be possible if we are able to discover things like exotic matter or harness zero point energy.
Click to expand...

Yeah. No.

Wormhole physics isn't "real" physics, because we don't even know if they exist. Harnessing zero point energy is impossible. Exotic matter is at best speculation and at worst, wishfulness.

Kev said:
Nolan hasn't made a bad movie yet. I wouldn't worry about a few clickbait articles from noname websites.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the Dark Knight Rises?
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Last edited:
Grooveriding

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,329
126
Incredible movie. I hope he finally gets the Oscar he's been robbed of several times over. I still shake my head at the facebook movie getting the Oscar over Inception, what a fucking joke that win was. Someone got paid off to make that happen.
 
S

saratoga172

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2009
1,564
1
81
Saw it on Wednesday in 70mm. Movie was freaking awesome. Loved it. Great pace, terrific acting, scenes were good and overall very good movie.
 
KeithTalent

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
Just redeemed points to get an IMAX ticket for 11:50 AM tomorrow. First IMAX flick since Prometheus.

KT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom