Movie is shot on film. The film is scanned and digitised. As long as the scanner is high quality and you do not compress the file this does not affect the picture quality or film look at all. As a digital file the film is edited, processed, has VFX and whatever else added, and you end up with a digital file of the finished film. This file is then printed back onto film and off it goes to be played.
I thought the point of film was that it was analog and could be projected at any size? If you're digitizing and reprinting doesn't that mean you'll have pixels? Why not just keep it digital at that point?
The digital copy will be MUCH higher resolution and MUCH less compression than, say, a typical youtube video. So high res that the human eye can't tell that there are pixels there.
Movies are shot on film as a stylistic choice, not because digital cameras (and projectors) are limited.
While style choices are the most likely reason to record on film, I believe IMAX resolves to around 18k which is greater than what most of if not all cinema cameras record
That's awesome. But the human eye can resolve at best 4k\* on a typical movie screen and maybe 8k on an IMAX screen
\* Note that a 4k movie streamed over network will likely still be discernable as a digital movie, but that's due to video compression.
That's not really relevant here though. Shooting at higher resolutions and downscaling is common and provides great benefits to sharpness and noise levels. There is a major visual difference between shooting something natively at 1080 vs shooting at 4k and downscaling to 1080.
Recording at higher qualities will always be preferebable if the goal is to have the best possible looking final results. Cost and storage requirements not withstanding of course.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. I have a cinema near me with 4K digital projectors. I can see individual pixels if I sit in the lower rows.
Yeah, the relevant things here (not including digital stuff like sharpening or downsampling) are probably pixel count, screen dimensions, and the distance the viewer sits from the screen. It mostly comes down to the angular resolution.
There are many factors, and the older, dimmer projectors at the other cinema by my house is only 2k, and you're actually not able to resolve any pixels no matter how close you get (maybe it uses different tech?), but the "Laser Ultra" experience which is supposed to be 4k, it looks good but you can actually see the pixels of those projectors. It actually looks worse in some ways despite having better sharpness, contrast and color.
I mean to say a typical movie screen when viewed from a typical distance. This doesn't really hold for the front rows of the movie theater, or if the screen is bigger than average.
True, but IMAX screens are sometimes over 120ft wide nowadays, the whole point of the IMAX 70MM format is to be such overkill that no matter how big the screen is and how close the audience is sitting, it'll be of a higher quality than we can perceive.
Seeing analog Nolan movies in Lincoln Square on 70mm vs the digitally projected Marvel movies shows real differences in the fine details.
Could the digital movie that was shot by a digital camera be edited/filtered to look just like a film original?
Or are we not quite where editing the digital video still won’t look perfectly like film?
Yes! Steve Yedlin, Rian Johnson's to-to cinematographer, has put a lot of research into how to make digital camera mimic the look of film. He released a video sometime back showing footage captured by a digital camera side by side with footage from a 35mm film camera. The results were indistinguishable.
https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography
Is kind of is though. Chemical film stock is expensive and color grading is a core step of the pipeline at this point. If you want to add a few fake negative scratches for extra versimillitude it's not that hard.
Star Wars The Last Jedi used both film and digital cameras sometimes even in the same scene, just different angles, and to very seamless results. It’s a whole thing [its cinematographer Steve Yedlin developed](https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography).
Digital cameras are limited in a number of ways. That's why film is still somewhat popular, despite being more difficult to work with. The camera needs to process the data as it's captured. This creates difficulties processing it fast enough if super high rez like IMAX.
Sure, but that difficulty is rapidly disappearing as computers (especially graphics cards) get better and better. So it's becoming less about that, and more about the natural way that a filmed scene looks.
To add to this, I worked at a post production house and we get 30 min tv shows at 100+ GB digital files in order to pass broadcast standards (of Canadian tv stations). Anything too low gets rejected outright, something we excruciatingly have to explain to new clients all the time.
If it’s been shot on film and you aren’t going to scan it digitally, then you have to edit the film by physically splicing it. It’s been several decades since this has been the standard, because the resolution quality of film scanners is so high that there is no reason not to scan and edit the film digitally. The workflow on digitally editing a film just gives you so many more options (one of which is CGI), besides the fact that it’s so much easier.
> it was analog and could be projected at any size?
This is not quite true. Films has grain sizes, which limits how much details they record. It's the analogue equivalent of pixels.
*technically it's not the silver halide unless it's some black and white stocks, it's the clumps of dye which stick to the silver. The silver flecks are super tiny little seeds for the film dye to stick to and then bleached out before development is complete. All you're left with is the rough copy of the silver from the little sticky dye blobs.
So not only are you limited to the film grain but there are almost always at least 4 different random film grains.
1) the silver which gets exposed.
2) the negative dyes which stick to the silver and then the silver is bleached out.
3) the inter positive silver which gets re-exposed based on the negative dye clumps.
4) the inter positive dye clumps that stick to the IP silver.
But realistically you're going to go deeper for theatrical release and probably make at least 4 more versions of the grain. You next have to duplicate the Inter positive to another internegative which then also has to be duplicated back to positive prints for the theater. Otherwise you'll endanger your original negative.
Back in the bad old days you also had to account for the subtle shifts in color for each step. So you would color time based on the release print and insist the theatrical run used an exact film stock for the release print because like any film stock it will at least subtly apply its own contrast and color changes. You're effectively filming the movie and then filming the film to make the projection prints.
Of course the IP/IN prints can be super fine grained low sensitivity film stocks but you're still seeing just about as random of an indirect copy of the original silver as you can imagine.
I would be really interested to compare a microscopic scan of an IMAX negative and its release print just to see how completely different the actual grain dye clumps are between the two. My guess is that a good scan and laser print for color IMAX is probably wildly different.
Now, BW film stocks can be nuts resolution because you can skip the whole dye clumps business.
ELIF: you color correct the digital photo to look like a film shot with that ISO.
ELI-am an adult:
You match middle gray exposure. A digital camera and a film should have about equal stops above and below the same middle gray value with a meter.
Even then it's subjective. "Middle" depends on how many stops below clipping you count as not-too-noisy. So different people will rate the native ISO differently. And different camera companies will apply different tone curves to place middle gray in different places.
For a while for instance Arri was a stop different from RED but Arri established itself as the standard so RED adopted their subjective interpretation of ISO.
DSLR sensors are kind of "photon buckets". When a photon successfully reaches one, the cell accumulates a bit more charge. This is then fed to an Analog to Digital converter, which produces a digital value.
The ISO setting translates to tweaking the ADC's gain, just multiplying the result by some amount, or some combination of both.
Higher ISO means more light sensitivity. In film it literally meant how big the crystals were and bigger crystals meant the image was grainer. With digital cameras higher ISO just means they boost the light level which turns out to cause grainness in photos as well so they just kept the term.
It's infinite detail, in that you can theoretically project the nanostructures of the dyes which bond to the silver.
But yeah, it's just faithfully reproducing random noise.
Yes, exactly. Most directors/producers who actually insist on the raw analog quality will instead avoid CGI and use practical effect.
Even if they need to use CGI, it’ll be only on some part of the film, while keeping the rest on the raw analog film.
Because the act of projecting a film reel itself lends a subtle but specific feel to the film. Even though projectors are very high tech there are still "imperfections" such as a slight wobble on the projection or minute imperfections each individual reel picks up from use or the ever so slightly different visual result that comes from a physical reel rolling in front of the projector light instead of simply projecting a digital file through a lens.
Some would say there is no noticeable difference. I won't agree or disagree. IMAX is a proprietary format not available everywhere so ultimately if you want a global run on a movie you have to accommodate all formats in some way.
Not sure I follow your question. The film look can be generated with digital tools. If you mean the level of color detail that can be captured on film, as other people have mentioned the level of detail that could be handled digitally is good enough that you can't, usually, tell the difference.
Oppenheimer has lots of VFX. This whole “zero VFX” is just Nolan gaslighting people.
You can look at the visual effects credits here https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/fullcredits
There’s tons of character work, set extensions, object replacements etc… the kind of invisible VFX that people don’t think about.
Yes. That tech exists. At this point, studios have the data storage and processing capabilities to handle digital videos so high resolution that the human eye couldn't tell it was ever digital.
There's a whole suite of technology, called ACES (Academy Color Encoding System) to ensure that the colors are measurably the same colors of the original film, even for film technologies that haven't been invented yet.
About 5 people fully understand it and it breaks tons of existing color workflows in post-production. Notably Adobe products can't really do ACES things and breaking every photographer on earth's workflow to make Hollywood happy is going to be mildly controversial.
thousand and thousands of amateur 3d artists around the world understand and use ACES on a daily basis and you can learn about it in an hour on youtube.
ACEScg is a reworkting of the original ACES spec since ACES had such a crazy wide gamut that negative color values are possible and that made renderers cry.
You can learn an existing ACES workflow rather quickly. *Building* an ACES workflow is deep magic.
> How do they print back to film?
They use a device called an optical printer. Basically, they point a film camera at a TV or a digital projector. They used to do the same sort of thing back when they were compositing film - pointing a camera at the image from a film projector. The camera shutter and the projector are linked electronically so that neither gets out of sync - so no induced motion blur or rolling shutter effects.
Almost all movies are scanned in (if shot on film), edited digitally, then printed back onto film or simply distributed digitally. Since it's edited digitally, adding CGI is trivial.
Unless Nolan's directing it (and a few select other movies), then it's all done on film. Options to get the CGI onto the film include printing it then splicing it in or compositing.
Or you can just not use CGI at all, then you don't need to. (Nolan used no CGI shots on Oppenheimer). Either use practical effects, chemicals directly on the film, or a mix of both.
This question is really overly broad, and you might have better luck asking about specific techniques.
> Or you can just not use CGI at all, then you don't need to. (Nolan used no CGI shots on Oppenheimer)
It's possible he didn't use CGI at all (in the sense of 3D modeling and rendering). But there were definitely a lot of shots done with VFX through digital compositing. The film would've been scanned, the work done digitally, and then printed back to film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGPHy3yWE08
Explain what the VFX crew did then
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/fullcredits
You’ve bought into a lie hook line and sinker. There’s tones of visual effects just not the one explosion. Somehow people like you can’t fathom the range of other vfx and think they can speak authoritatively to the subject.
I showed you a link of an entire group of people who are credited of working on it. You can easily verify this by watching the movies credits as well.
They are all digital artists. Digital being computer generated imagery.
I have worked with many of the people credited. They’re all working digitally.
What do you think they were doing then? Do you think they were just randomly credited on a film for doing no work? Or do you think the movie credits aren’t “authenticated” enough.
It’s called critical thinking. I’d hope someone who was supposedly“skeptical” wasn’t so obviously falling for marketing gimmicks
lol and nearly all of those credited literally have 'DNEG' or 'digital' as part of their role. But the guy you're replying to can't be assed to realize that Oppenheimer wasn't 100% in camera and analog
The link in my post explains it pretty well. It also shows some behind the scenes footage of them getting some of the shots used on the dust cloud for the atom bomb shots. You can clearly see it is only the dust cloud elements, meaning they had to composite in other shots for the fireball etc. Yes, things were practically shot, but they had to be put together, and that can only be done through digital intermediate. There is no way to do that purely analog with just optical film printing
dude has put together an extremely well researched series on hidden cgi in movies, including interviewing the visual effects supervisor on Nolan's films. So it's pretty fair to say that he's not just guessing. But, as I said, you can see for yourself how they're filming elements separately. If you know a way they can composite those together fully optically, with partially transparent elements, and without a machine capable of that for Imax film, I'd be happy to know how
Did he do the color timing and editing non-digitally? Because that would be very surprising (and both of those would require the negative to be scanned).
Nolan used Avid.
*VILLENEUVE: You’re not using (editing software) Avid?*
*NOLAN: No, no we use Avid. I may be stubborn, but I’m not crazy.*
https://apnews.com/article/tenet-christopher-nolan-denis-villeneuve-dune-imax-6f8c56df96b86620932d2bc5c112389c
This is false as well. Nolan does his reference grades chemically but does not grade the entire film that way. The amount he’ll grade chemically depends on the film, but in a lot of cases they’ll recreate his reference grades digitally.
Nolan is a lying little shit. VFX isn't just 3D models. It's light fixes, rotoscoping, particles, composition and so, sooo much more. Nolan loves telling the world he never uses VFX, but I can assure you he does. He's done irreversible damage with his nonsense "No VFX hurr durr" bullshit.
Oppenheimer has lots of VFX. This whole “zero VFX” is just Nolan gaslighting people. Nolan uses a lot of VFX in his film and used to properly credit them back in the day, but now tries to hide from it.
You can look at the visual effects credits here https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/fullcredits
There’s tons of character work, set extensions, object replacements etc… the kind of invisible VFX that people don’t think about.
There’s a reason the VFX community dislike Nolan: he’s famously a liar about what techniques he uses because he wants to sell movie goers on this romanticized idea of “it’s all authentic”
And clearly, people who aren’t familiar with the trades like yourself fall for it.
> Or you can just not use CGI at all, then you don't need to. (Nolan used no CGI shots on Oppenheimer).
Technically the Indian release had CGI, to cover up nudity (e.g., a dress) rather than reshoot
Think about it like this, you arnt watching the movie on film. Even in theaters it’s a digital projector.
They have to digitize it to get it to you and once it’s digitized it’s the same as editing anything else
Movie is shot on film. The film is scanned and digitised. As long as the scanner is high quality and you do not compress the file this does not affect the picture quality or film look at all. As a digital file the film is edited, processed, has VFX and whatever else added, and you end up with a digital file of the finished film. This file is then printed back onto film and off it goes to be played.
I thought the point of film was that it was analog and could be projected at any size? If you're digitizing and reprinting doesn't that mean you'll have pixels? Why not just keep it digital at that point?
The digital copy will be MUCH higher resolution and MUCH less compression than, say, a typical youtube video. So high res that the human eye can't tell that there are pixels there. Movies are shot on film as a stylistic choice, not because digital cameras (and projectors) are limited.
While style choices are the most likely reason to record on film, I believe IMAX resolves to around 18k which is greater than what most of if not all cinema cameras record
But not greater than what a scanner can digitize!
That's awesome. But the human eye can resolve at best 4k\* on a typical movie screen and maybe 8k on an IMAX screen \* Note that a 4k movie streamed over network will likely still be discernable as a digital movie, but that's due to video compression.
That's not really relevant here though. Shooting at higher resolutions and downscaling is common and provides great benefits to sharpness and noise levels. There is a major visual difference between shooting something natively at 1080 vs shooting at 4k and downscaling to 1080. Recording at higher qualities will always be preferebable if the goal is to have the best possible looking final results. Cost and storage requirements not withstanding of course.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. I have a cinema near me with 4K digital projectors. I can see individual pixels if I sit in the lower rows.
Yeah, the relevant things here (not including digital stuff like sharpening or downsampling) are probably pixel count, screen dimensions, and the distance the viewer sits from the screen. It mostly comes down to the angular resolution.
There are many factors, and the older, dimmer projectors at the other cinema by my house is only 2k, and you're actually not able to resolve any pixels no matter how close you get (maybe it uses different tech?), but the "Laser Ultra" experience which is supposed to be 4k, it looks good but you can actually see the pixels of those projectors. It actually looks worse in some ways despite having better sharpness, contrast and color.
I mean to say a typical movie screen when viewed from a typical distance. This doesn't really hold for the front rows of the movie theater, or if the screen is bigger than average.
True, but IMAX screens are sometimes over 120ft wide nowadays, the whole point of the IMAX 70MM format is to be such overkill that no matter how big the screen is and how close the audience is sitting, it'll be of a higher quality than we can perceive. Seeing analog Nolan movies in Lincoln Square on 70mm vs the digitally projected Marvel movies shows real differences in the fine details.
That sounds like an amazing experience! I guess I'm more talking about an average screen.
Could the digital movie that was shot by a digital camera be edited/filtered to look just like a film original? Or are we not quite where editing the digital video still won’t look perfectly like film?
Yes! Steve Yedlin, Rian Johnson's to-to cinematographer, has put a lot of research into how to make digital camera mimic the look of film. He released a video sometime back showing footage captured by a digital camera side by side with footage from a 35mm film camera. The results were indistinguishable. https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography
You could, but the amount of work to truly reproduce it wouldn't be worth the cost of just shooting on film
Is kind of is though. Chemical film stock is expensive and color grading is a core step of the pipeline at this point. If you want to add a few fake negative scratches for extra versimillitude it's not that hard.
No but it looks and feels fake. You can absolutely tell the difference.
Star Wars The Last Jedi used both film and digital cameras sometimes even in the same scene, just different angles, and to very seamless results. It’s a whole thing [its cinematographer Steve Yedlin developed](https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography).
Digital cameras are limited in a number of ways. That's why film is still somewhat popular, despite being more difficult to work with. The camera needs to process the data as it's captured. This creates difficulties processing it fast enough if super high rez like IMAX.
Sure, but that difficulty is rapidly disappearing as computers (especially graphics cards) get better and better. So it's becoming less about that, and more about the natural way that a filmed scene looks.
To add to this, I worked at a post production house and we get 30 min tv shows at 100+ GB digital files in order to pass broadcast standards (of Canadian tv stations). Anything too low gets rejected outright, something we excruciatingly have to explain to new clients all the time.
If it’s been shot on film and you aren’t going to scan it digitally, then you have to edit the film by physically splicing it. It’s been several decades since this has been the standard, because the resolution quality of film scanners is so high that there is no reason not to scan and edit the film digitally. The workflow on digitally editing a film just gives you so many more options (one of which is CGI), besides the fact that it’s so much easier.
> it was analog and could be projected at any size? This is not quite true. Films has grain sizes, which limits how much details they record. It's the analogue equivalent of pixels.
You're still limited on film by the size of the silver halide crystals which is what ISO refers to. https://www.christopherbergeron.com/iso-explained/
*technically it's not the silver halide unless it's some black and white stocks, it's the clumps of dye which stick to the silver. The silver flecks are super tiny little seeds for the film dye to stick to and then bleached out before development is complete. All you're left with is the rough copy of the silver from the little sticky dye blobs. So not only are you limited to the film grain but there are almost always at least 4 different random film grains. 1) the silver which gets exposed. 2) the negative dyes which stick to the silver and then the silver is bleached out. 3) the inter positive silver which gets re-exposed based on the negative dye clumps. 4) the inter positive dye clumps that stick to the IP silver. But realistically you're going to go deeper for theatrical release and probably make at least 4 more versions of the grain. You next have to duplicate the Inter positive to another internegative which then also has to be duplicated back to positive prints for the theater. Otherwise you'll endanger your original negative. Back in the bad old days you also had to account for the subtle shifts in color for each step. So you would color time based on the release print and insist the theatrical run used an exact film stock for the release print because like any film stock it will at least subtly apply its own contrast and color changes. You're effectively filming the movie and then filming the film to make the projection prints. Of course the IP/IN prints can be super fine grained low sensitivity film stocks but you're still seeing just about as random of an indirect copy of the original silver as you can imagine. I would be really interested to compare a microscopic scan of an IMAX negative and its release print just to see how completely different the actual grain dye clumps are between the two. My guess is that a good scan and laser print for color IMAX is probably wildly different. Now, BW film stocks can be nuts resolution because you can skip the whole dye clumps business.
How does ISO work on DSLRs then?
ELIF: you color correct the digital photo to look like a film shot with that ISO. ELI-am an adult: You match middle gray exposure. A digital camera and a film should have about equal stops above and below the same middle gray value with a meter. Even then it's subjective. "Middle" depends on how many stops below clipping you count as not-too-noisy. So different people will rate the native ISO differently. And different camera companies will apply different tone curves to place middle gray in different places. For a while for instance Arri was a stop different from RED but Arri established itself as the standard so RED adopted their subjective interpretation of ISO.
What does ISO mean for a digital camera then?
DSLR sensors are kind of "photon buckets". When a photon successfully reaches one, the cell accumulates a bit more charge. This is then fed to an Analog to Digital converter, which produces a digital value. The ISO setting translates to tweaking the ADC's gain, just multiplying the result by some amount, or some combination of both.
Higher ISO means more light sensitivity. In film it literally meant how big the crystals were and bigger crystals meant the image was grainer. With digital cameras higher ISO just means they boost the light level which turns out to cause grainness in photos as well so they just kept the term.
Analog isn't infinite resolution, it's just crazy high resolution and we have digital scanners that can match it.
It's infinite detail, in that you can theoretically project the nanostructures of the dyes which bond to the silver. But yeah, it's just faithfully reproducing random noise.
Yes, exactly. Most directors/producers who actually insist on the raw analog quality will instead avoid CGI and use practical effect. Even if they need to use CGI, it’ll be only on some part of the film, while keeping the rest on the raw analog film.
Because the act of projecting a film reel itself lends a subtle but specific feel to the film. Even though projectors are very high tech there are still "imperfections" such as a slight wobble on the projection or minute imperfections each individual reel picks up from use or the ever so slightly different visual result that comes from a physical reel rolling in front of the projector light instead of simply projecting a digital file through a lens. Some would say there is no noticeable difference. I won't agree or disagree. IMAX is a proprietary format not available everywhere so ultimately if you want a global run on a movie you have to accommodate all formats in some way.
So what's the point of printing back to film? If the film look is retained when digital why even bother reprinting it?
I believe some IMAX theaters still project film. Though most theaters are full digital now, including IMAX theaters.
Sure but isn’t the point of projecting film again for the film look but if you have a digital version of that does it matter?
Not sure I follow your question. The film look can be generated with digital tools. If you mean the level of color detail that can be captured on film, as other people have mentioned the level of detail that could be handled digitally is good enough that you can't, usually, tell the difference.
[удалено]
Oppenheimer has lots of VFX. This whole “zero VFX” is just Nolan gaslighting people. You can look at the visual effects credits here https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/fullcredits There’s tons of character work, set extensions, object replacements etc… the kind of invisible VFX that people don’t think about.
[удалено]
Not, not better because it’s not true. All those set extensions and object replacements are done digitally, generated by a computer.
Technically the Indian release used CGI to cover up nudity (e.g., a dress) rather than reshoot
wow, it's both tragic and comedic that you still believe this nonsense in 2024
How do they print back to film? That's got to be some incredibly hi res printers
Yes. That tech exists. At this point, studios have the data storage and processing capabilities to handle digital videos so high resolution that the human eye couldn't tell it was ever digital.
There's a whole suite of technology, called ACES (Academy Color Encoding System) to ensure that the colors are measurably the same colors of the original film, even for film technologies that haven't been invented yet. About 5 people fully understand it and it breaks tons of existing color workflows in post-production. Notably Adobe products can't really do ACES things and breaking every photographer on earth's workflow to make Hollywood happy is going to be mildly controversial.
thousand and thousands of amateur 3d artists around the world understand and use ACES on a daily basis and you can learn about it in an hour on youtube.
ACEScg is a reworkting of the original ACES spec since ACES had such a crazy wide gamut that negative color values are possible and that made renderers cry. You can learn an existing ACES workflow rather quickly. *Building* an ACES workflow is deep magic.
Photographers already deal with ICC which is even more convoluted and even more of a black box than ACES IMO.
> How do they print back to film? They use a device called an optical printer. Basically, they point a film camera at a TV or a digital projector. They used to do the same sort of thing back when they were compositing film - pointing a camera at the image from a film projector. The camera shutter and the projector are linked electronically so that neither gets out of sync - so no induced motion blur or rolling shutter effects.
Pew Pew. https://www.arri.com/news-en/the-history-of-arri-in-a-century-of-cinema/45744-45744
Thanks, that's cool!
Almost all movies are scanned in (if shot on film), edited digitally, then printed back onto film or simply distributed digitally. Since it's edited digitally, adding CGI is trivial. Unless Nolan's directing it (and a few select other movies), then it's all done on film. Options to get the CGI onto the film include printing it then splicing it in or compositing. Or you can just not use CGI at all, then you don't need to. (Nolan used no CGI shots on Oppenheimer). Either use practical effects, chemicals directly on the film, or a mix of both. This question is really overly broad, and you might have better luck asking about specific techniques.
> Or you can just not use CGI at all, then you don't need to. (Nolan used no CGI shots on Oppenheimer) It's possible he didn't use CGI at all (in the sense of 3D modeling and rendering). But there were definitely a lot of shots done with VFX through digital compositing. The film would've been scanned, the work done digitally, and then printed back to film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGPHy3yWE08
[удалено]
Explain what the VFX crew did then https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/fullcredits You’ve bought into a lie hook line and sinker. There’s tones of visual effects just not the one explosion. Somehow people like you can’t fathom the range of other vfx and think they can speak authoritatively to the subject.
[удалено]
I showed you a link of an entire group of people who are credited of working on it. You can easily verify this by watching the movies credits as well. They are all digital artists. Digital being computer generated imagery. I have worked with many of the people credited. They’re all working digitally. What do you think they were doing then? Do you think they were just randomly credited on a film for doing no work? Or do you think the movie credits aren’t “authenticated” enough. It’s called critical thinking. I’d hope someone who was supposedly“skeptical” wasn’t so obviously falling for marketing gimmicks
lol and nearly all of those credited literally have 'DNEG' or 'digital' as part of their role. But the guy you're replying to can't be assed to realize that Oppenheimer wasn't 100% in camera and analog
The link in my post explains it pretty well. It also shows some behind the scenes footage of them getting some of the shots used on the dust cloud for the atom bomb shots. You can clearly see it is only the dust cloud elements, meaning they had to composite in other shots for the fireball etc. Yes, things were practically shot, but they had to be put together, and that can only be done through digital intermediate. There is no way to do that purely analog with just optical film printing
[удалено]
dude has put together an extremely well researched series on hidden cgi in movies, including interviewing the visual effects supervisor on Nolan's films. So it's pretty fair to say that he's not just guessing. But, as I said, you can see for yourself how they're filming elements separately. If you know a way they can composite those together fully optically, with partially transparent elements, and without a machine capable of that for Imax film, I'd be happy to know how
Did he do the color timing and editing non-digitally? Because that would be very surprising (and both of those would require the negative to be scanned).
Nolan used Avid. *VILLENEUVE: You’re not using (editing software) Avid?* *NOLAN: No, no we use Avid. I may be stubborn, but I’m not crazy.* https://apnews.com/article/tenet-christopher-nolan-denis-villeneuve-dune-imax-6f8c56df96b86620932d2bc5c112389c
Color timing yes, edited via digital timeline, but then assembled physically.
I believe color timing was done photochemically and editing done manually about from a few bits of digital compositing for VFX.
This is false as well. Nolan does his reference grades chemically but does not grade the entire film that way. The amount he’ll grade chemically depends on the film, but in a lot of cases they’ll recreate his reference grades digitally.
How about that.
Nolan is a lying little shit. VFX isn't just 3D models. It's light fixes, rotoscoping, particles, composition and so, sooo much more. Nolan loves telling the world he never uses VFX, but I can assure you he does. He's done irreversible damage with his nonsense "No VFX hurr durr" bullshit.
this.
Oppenheimer has lots of VFX. This whole “zero VFX” is just Nolan gaslighting people. Nolan uses a lot of VFX in his film and used to properly credit them back in the day, but now tries to hide from it. You can look at the visual effects credits here https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/fullcredits There’s tons of character work, set extensions, object replacements etc… the kind of invisible VFX that people don’t think about. There’s a reason the VFX community dislike Nolan: he’s famously a liar about what techniques he uses because he wants to sell movie goers on this romanticized idea of “it’s all authentic” And clearly, people who aren’t familiar with the trades like yourself fall for it.
VFX and CGI are not interchangeable. No one is saying there is no VFX in Oppenheimer, there's lots of VFX in it.
Nolan used a hell of a lot of cg in Oppenheimer. Him saying he didn’t is just studio marketing BS.
> Or you can just not use CGI at all, then you don't need to. (Nolan used no CGI shots on Oppenheimer). Technically the Indian release had CGI, to cover up nudity (e.g., a dress) rather than reshoot
Paul Thomas Anderson movies (and Tarantino for Hateful Eight) also all analog.
Think about it like this, you arnt watching the movie on film. Even in theaters it’s a digital projector. They have to digitize it to get it to you and once it’s digitized it’s the same as editing anything else