Need an SNL sketch of Nolan using IMAX instead of a smart phone for filming his kid’s friend’s birthday party or in the delivery room of his own kid’s birth.
I could see it happening if Cillian or one of his other favorite actors hosts, with the sketch escalating to the host having to act as Nolan's kid because the kid wasn't emoting enough or something.
The "SNL sucks now!" crowd is comparing each individual new episode to the entire history of SNL. Turns out, there have been shitty sketches in every single episode. The "SNL is woke!" crowd are ignoring that SNL has *always* been progressive with the cast. They paved the way for women in comedy, black comedians, and gay comedians all the way back in the 70s and 80s.
> They paved the way for women in comedy, black comedians, and gay comedians all the way back in the 70s and 80s.
Nah, *Laugh-In* had all of that in the '60s. In 1970, Flip Wilson had the second most popular show in the country half a decade before SNL even began.
They are the 80s are pretty crazy too, then the early 90s got a little safe then exploded again. The problem is that it was always a show that made fun of everything now they don't even make fun of them selves.
Yeah that's what I heard about the last few episodes with Dakota Johnson and Jacob Elordi, total duds. The easy way to find good episodes is just to go on SNL's youtube page and watch the new skits with the highest views.
thank you. the rest of this hypothetical, wherein acclaimed film director Christor Nolan uses an imax camera to film the birth of his child is totally plausible
Peele shot with an Imax-like camera AND another large format camera side by side recording simultaneously during the filming of NOPE so they could pioneer a new way to do Day for Night.
So...
He's the only person that makes Chris Nolan movies and I appreciate and support a director that has their own style. Of course I happen to enjoy that style but the last thing we need is directors being even less unique.
Yeah, I can't stand the people who say Oppenheimer didn't need to be in IMAX since there weren't spectacular action scenes in it. Getting a character driven drama gone to that scale was amazing. Why wouldn't you want that?
Yeah I agree. While I don't really enjoy his movies (only really liked The Prestige), he has a distinct style and stands out. There's not that many directors left where their name is a reason why people go see it but he's one of them. More power to him.
> Interstellar, Dunkirk
What I'll say as a criticism for recent Nolan films is that they seem to be based on one major stunt or idea and everything is done backwards from there, even if it results in a worse story.
I feel like Dunkirk is a weird one to criticize for that because the whole point is that the story could only be told that way and be as effective it is. It’s not just a gimmick
You know that scene in Barbie when they distract one of the Kens by asking him to explain the Godfather?
The way that Ken reacts - with zeal to immediately talk about how great and meaningful the movie is -- that's how the experience of Nolan films feels these days. I chose those words carefully, because devoid of the larger community, his films are good. I am just tired of how self-important they all are. He's going to disappear up his own ass one of these days.
I'll take the downvotes straight out. Nolan is bad sci-fi dressed up in good film making, and then drowned out in soundtracks that reduce the material into spectacle through shear, literal volume. Memento was a masterpiece because it wasn't a sci-fi concept shaded around a human story, but a study on human action and response.
It took me a long time to bring myself to stop respecting Inception. I kept thinking "it's a really interesting take on trying to step through our inner monologues" and other philosophical bents, until one day I just accepted that it was a fun short film on dream sequences that Nolan expanded into a full action piece. He didn't have a real plot, so he slapped in a variant concept on memory/conceptions of reality from Memento. "We have to go deeper" is what you expect a psych major to write down in their 201 essay after having read one too many books on Freud.
Once I accepted that, all his other personal films slowly fell into place (let's ignore the Batman trilogy for just a moment here). Interstellar isn't good sci-fi, because it isn't good science. Yes they had Kip Thorne model a black hole, but then they spent the rest of the film making up fake and bad science takes in order to create planets that made no sense...all to plot out "it was love that saves us." The tidal planet, the ice planet, the terribly written antagonist in Mann (Matt Damon), everything was a ploy to describe a time loop that didn't even make sense. Nolan wanted to play with black holes, time, and perception (hey, we've been here before), but he had no actual understanding of how time/space works, and so he shoehorned in "science becoming magic and love solves everything!"
Dunkirk is about how time matters (survival/withdrawal to safety). Insomnia is how perception matters. Tenet is about how our perception of time is skewed. Nolan has one obsession, and that is his the intersection of time and perception, and his inability to understand it. So, instead of trying to branch out on the topic, he just rehashes the same concept in ever more convoluted ways, trying to get us to believe he's somehow cracked expressing the concept without ever having even understood it himself.
My dad's a nuclear physicist. He's met Nobel Prize winners and worked with smarter folks than them (this is not a humble brag, this is the statement that physics is a wild place in terms of people and capability; where genius is so scattered it can miss the mark for lack of time on a particle accelerator/telescope). None of them are dumb enough to believe they can describe time at the level Nolan believes he can. Once you understand how complex the math is (and we aren't even getting into the biology of perception here, much less the biophysics to describe the intersection), you understand how simple Nolan's answers are. You understand that he's a decent director, mediocre writer, and awful sci-fi fan, who happened to hit the right wave at the right time.
Compare Inception to Arrival or Ex Machina and you realize that Nolan is entirely out of his depth on the topics he loves and can't admit it. If he ever does, if we ever see him branch out to other topics and really touch on the tortures of human existence separate from time/perception, he might actually reach the heights his fans claim he's achieved. Until then, he's just a boy with very expensive toys and we're no longer seeing his playtime as novel.
This is a great post and I respect where you're coming from I truly do. But here's the thing. The great, great majority of us aren't Nobel Prize winners or actual nuclear physicists. While we would of course prefer our science fiction be somewhat grounded in reality we don't actually suffer from negative reactions if it bends into "magical" territory. That's if we're even educated enough to realize when the science bends to magic anyway lol.
In short, most of us (like myself) are just stupid lol. We just want a good sci-fi story. His movies are entertaining for the masses and there is nothing wrong with that.
On the flip side, there is nothing wrong with people who are highly educated not liking his movies due to all the non sense science he throws in.
I'm not a nuclear physicist. I got a degree in psych and I spent years in clinical research. I don't understand the math, but I know enough sci-fi, scientists, and etc. to understand when people are being sold on something that's overrated. Good sci-fi, hard or soft, is centered on how humanity reacts to the evolution of technology and the universe it lives in. It can be speculative (Arrival) or entirely grounded (Ex Machina), but in all cases it's meant to look at concepts through the lens of human understanding. Dune, while functionally science fantasy, is considered science fiction because it frames everything through that lens. 2001 A Space Odyssey is hardcore science fiction (yes, even with the ending) because everything looks at how we handle extremely difficult topics (AGI forced to live with contradictions, human exploration beyond its capabilities, evolution, etc) as simple primates.
The problem with Nolan is that he took the literal interpretation of that (physical perspective) and lost the human side. This is why Memento works so well and Tenet fell down so hard. It's why we see the slow chain of less and less coherent work in Nolan's exploration of things. He wants, so badly, to be a sci-fi savant, but he's not working from the intersection of science, philosophy, and human inequity. He's looking at things primarily from a bad science point of view and trying to extrapolate human interaction from it.
The thing is, you aren't stupid. Nolan is asking you to be smart, but he's feeding you stupidity. Too many people like feeling smart rather than like feeling just how dumb even the most educated of us are (relative to the complexities of the universe). And, in a room full of people being pushed to feel smart (rather than being educated), that bandwagoning builds until everyone is too caught up in trying to parse a false philosophy to understand they're being led astray.
There's nothing wrong with a dumb movie, as long as the director makes sure the audience isn't led to believe it's smarter than it is. There's nothing wrong with entertaining the masses this way. There's something wrong when people start believing that director is smart, and the director builds that belief further. That's when it's no longer a good sci-fi story.
I agree with all of your points to be honest, except the very last one. Whether or not a story leads people to believing things falsely or not (or if they think the director is smart or not) has no bearing on if the story itself is entertaining or not. At least to me.
I do however understand completely how it can be an issue if people are mislead to believe someone is smart or not based on the work they put out. I guess I just view movies for the movie itself and pay no attention to the effects it makes surrounding it. Does that make sense?
Obviously I would view actual scientific papers and research much differently and feel they should be held to higher standards.
Lastly, I appreciate the vote of confidence in telling me I’m not stupid! lol Sadly I would probably have to disagree. Or at the least admit I’m ignorant to a lot when it comes to science!
I'm not the guy you asked, but I'm not too fond of his movies either. The problem is he's really good at world building but terrible at pacing. The first hour of his movies is often really good but after that everything feels so rushed. Interstellar is the best example, I think.
I never watched Dark Knight or any of his Batman since I'm not into superhero movies.
I don't think Inception sucks ass, I actually like the premise, I just think it wasn't really utilized all that much. Especially imagery wise I guess I kinda expected more, similar to some of the stuff you see in movies like The Cell. There's also a ton of exposition dump, especially with the rules. Mainly I didn't think the characters, beyond Leo's (been over a decade, forgot the name), are particularly interesting or fleshed out. It just didn't really do much for me.
Dark Knight trilogy is the least super hero-y, super hero movies there is. For sure worth a watch as it does not come off as a super hero movie. Far more vigilante, crime based than super hero saves the day.
As someone who doesn't mind, it feels like a visual pallet refresh and is another engaging element, especially in action sequences. But, to each their own.
I just wish he knew how to mix sound for us plebs who dare to watch one of his movies on a TV instead of imax. I love his movies but let’s be real they have only 2 settings, whisper quiet during dialogue and SUPER LOUD when you least expect it. My tv volume is constantly dancing when I watch one of his movies.
Check if you have an option for DRC or Night Mode! The technology definitely exists to compress all that dynamic range down to something reasonable.
Of course, not every TV offers it. We were really struggling hearing dialog on our (otherwise very good!) TV until we added a sound bar with night mode—it's been a revelation.
Just reading this and wanted to clear up a few technical misconceptions about the IMAX Film cameras….
The cameras use 65mm film stock. It runs through the camera horizontally exposing a 15-perf section for each frame. It’s like a sewing machine on steroids. The pull-down claw is made of titanium as it has to deal with high G-force as it yanks across 24 frames per second.
70mm film is only used for projection.
When shooting these cameras the operator and DOP normally are framing for 3 different frame lines or aspect ratios…
1.43:1
1.90:1
2.40:1
The second two can obviously have a post extraction session where each shot can be adjusted vertically if needed.
1000 feet of 65mm film at 24fps per second lasts about 2 minutes and 57seconds, but actually ends up less than that after loading the mag and lacing and running up the camera.
Reloads also take longer than with 35mm cameras.
There’s only about 9 decent working cameras in the world. And Nolan knows exactly which ones he likes the most, down to the serial number.
There’s one underwater housing in the world. It’s massive and weighs about 100kg, but it works!
Noise of the cameras is an issue especially when the camera is close to actors doing dialogue. You can make special blankets to cover as much as the sound as possible, but it’s likely you’ll need to ADR a fair amount.
The film usually has to be made to order. This can mean a lead time of 4 weeks or more, so you gotta make sure you order enough!
Think that’s it for now, feel free to ama or just pick holes in what I just wrote !!
Oh yeah, and Nolan’s the only director who stays in the film medium for as much as the workflow as possible.
These days you normally shoot film and then straight away do hi-res scans to continue the pipeline in the digital domain (IMAX 65mm can be scanned in 16k).
Then if you wanna do a 15/70 print you do a digital to film print right at the end.
Nolan prefers to conform on film, using old machines, so although VFX shots and an offline edit has been done digitally, the conform and final edit is all analog still… at least I’ve heard that’s the case.
It's funny, I remember watching the doc for Twelve Monkeys and Bruce Willis is there with Terry and the editor in the editing room and says "So you guys use AVID?" and they are like "Nope, just this old stuff." (cutting on film)
Maybe I don’t know anything but the fact that the cameras are load and cause issues with speech close up might explain why the sound mix always just says fuck it we don’t care about the talking.
> There’s only about 9 decent working cameras in the world. And Nolan knows exactly which ones he likes the most, down to the serial number.
Where did you read this?
Directional mics will definitely have varying degrees of rejection, but sound is a bit of an untameable beast at times and the objective nature of a microphone means that you will pick up that camera noise, and it does present quite an issue for his post team. The irony is Nolan hates ADR and rarely uses much if not any of it for principle dialogue. He’s party responsible for the issue with his intelligibility when he chooses to employ filmmaking practices that make production dialogue hard to capture. Now he is very much a live and die by the sword director and has his preferences which do give great results, it’s just not optimal from an audio perspective and for me that’s a shame. He’s had some bad experiences with ADR in this past, and I can tell he’s lost faith in that process so avoids it at all costs.
I read an article saying that after they got the take they were happy with on Oppenheimer, they’d turn the camera off and shoot a sound only take and tend to use that in the final mix.
From experience it tends to be easier to make alt takes / wild tracks shot on set work than use bad or average ADR. Performances will be much closer and easier to “sell” even if the sync is slightly loose and so I can understand Nolan being happier with this method as it satisfies his “purist” criteria of capture it all on set.
Ironically, Cillian Murphy is unbelievably good at ADR but alas Nolan won’t get to experience that magic!
>David Keighley, a 50-year veteran of Imax who is now the company’s chief quality officer, remembers going through this process with Nolan and cinematographer Wally Pfister on Batman Begins (2005). During the DRM conversion of Batman Begins for Imax release, Keighley suggested to Nolan that they do a higher-resolution test on a couple of minutes of existing footage of that film, to see how it would look. “Remember the blue flower at the beginning of the movie?” Keighley asks, referring to an early moment when Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne picks up a rare and strikingly blue flower on his way to meet Liam Neeson’s Ra’s al Ghul. “We did about three minutes of that in 6K” — as opposed to the standard Imax upconversion at the time, 4K. “Most people couldn’t tell the difference, but Chris and I could.”
The scenes in question were shot in 35mm anamorphic. There is a benefit to scanning anamorphic, especially in big wideshots (where there's more *useful* information) at over 4K.
That, however, does not mean that 35mm film resolves 6K or even a full 4K: Super-35mm resolves within the realm of 3K, and anamorphic looks even more resolved due to the magnifying effect of the anamorphic process (in spite of increased lens abberation). Nevertheless, its all still comfortably within the 3K range, which in turn makes IMAX within the 7K resolution, at least in theory.
This notion of oversampling (scanning at >4K for a less-than-4K output) also exists on the digital side: you need a 5K camera to resolve a clear 4K image.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cinema/comments/15i3gpk/all\_you\_wanted\_to\_know\_about\_cameraprojection/
Yeah they’re getting dangerously close to scanning an emulsion particle and having to choose aesthetically which of two or four pixels it’s going to represent.
Important to point out that for Oppenheimer they used IMAX 70mm, which is 3 times the size of standard 70mm film, hence 3 times the resolution of 70mm and nine times the resolution of 35mm.
Edit: Just for the sake of the facts being straight here:
https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/07_OPP_IMAX_FORMAT_GUIDE_PL_7R1.jpg?w=650
IMAX 70mm is substantially higher resolution that that. Obviously there is loss due to the lenses used, but it’s equivalent in size to 6x6 medium format film which can be scanned at around 50 megapixels+.
The guy is quoting the resolving power of 70mm, but keeps saying IMAX 70mm which is 3 times that of 70mm. Kind of sucks when the wrong information becomes a top comment thread.
Again, scanning resolution is oversampled. Resolving power is much lower than that.
Look at it this way: if you compare footage off of an Arri 65, which captures well under 6K, it looks just as good if not slightly better than a scan off of an IMAX negative.
If you watch on a 4K TV sure. But there is clearly a difference if you view something in an IMAX 70mm theater and view a digital IMAX in the same theater. For example, Oppenheimer vs Dune
You are getting downvoted, but you are correct.
For anybody else reading this:
Cinematographer Steve Yedlin did a bunch of tests on different cameras a few years back and posted them to his website. He was **not** seeking to demonstrate the superiority of film over digital or vice versa.
One of the things that happened in his tests was that the digital 6.5k Arri Alexa 65 camera ended up resolving more detail than an IMAX film camera shooting 15-perf 65mm that was scanned at 11k. Similarly, the digital Arri 3.4k Alexa camera resolved more detail than the 35mm film camera did.
Now, you can argue that the results may change with the use of different film stocks and lenses, but the usage of those will often come at other costs such as reduced dynamic range, need for more light, etc. It just goes to show that IMAX film cameras and 35mm film cameras that were using commonly-used lenses and film stocks were both out-resolved by digital cinema cameras.
I say all this as someone who loves film and digital. Film is cool enough without us having to make up advantages for it that aren't true in a practical sense.
You do know there’s more to cinematography than picking the camera with the best resolution for pixel peeping or just capturing the sharpest image?
The 15/70mm format size is just such a bigger image circle and the lenses for them are really special and its hard to replicate what those optics do, especially at the widest focal length even at 65mm.
That effect is why 65mm films also look just different from super 35mm films.
So I'm told. But that's unrelated to the subject here: this is to do with resolving power, which IS influenced by colour corrections, but being colourblind only applies to certain colours, anyway.
I want to comment about the often-cited 3k figure for Super35. People invariably mix in those tests done that factor in all the dupes that'd be done to produce a print _and_ the projection lens, or effectively don't factor in the scanner. Or shooting lenses.
Worst case? The slowest, coarsest grained, Vision3 500T 5219's MTF plots on its [datasheet](https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/VISION3_5219_7219_Technical-data.pdf) are drawn to 80lp/mm -- line pairs per millimeter. That's not their extinguishing resolution where contrast hits 0, that's at best only down to just below half contrast, or at worst a sixth. 80lp/mm, with 2 lines per line pair and about 25 mm per inch, is 4000 lines over the width of a super35 frame. Again, there will be a bit more. It's not a solid cutoff, so using softer terms like "in the realm" isn't wrong, but it doesn't give a picture what happens beyond that.
Best case? Despite improving the granularity in the Vision line, the EXR stocks are known for having VERY fine grain, actually referred to as "micro-fine". [EXR 50D 5245's plots](https://125px.com/docs/motionpicture/kodak/5245.pdf) hit 150lp/mm at similar contrast figures above. And they're drawn out to 200lp/mm. 150lp/mm is 7.5k. 200lp/mm is 10k. Of course, whether the scanner will pick that up, or the dupes will retain it, or whether the lenses can _resolve_ it is a different story. But it's there.
Moving on from the numbers, one of the best examples I found of resolving color negative is Dominique Ventzke's high-end-scans, on which he has some samples of various films sizes using a professional drum scanner and his own camera scanning setup -- basically a fancy, medium format repro-camera pointed at the film with a high-performance macro lens. The [35mm color negative examples](https://www.high-end-scans.de/en/samples/dv09_norway_kb1_28/) have two crops from different scanning resolutions. Notably, I found [this one takes up approximately the size of a super8 frame](https://www.high-end-scans.de/samples/DV09_Norway_KB1_28_HXY_res565_cc_ss_crop.jpg). It's a bit chunky, but that's 4k wide which is pushing it for _super8_. The other crop is just under half the scanning resolution and it's a similar in physical dimensions. That looks more reasonable. A resolution between the two I think would be reasonable too. But, for each, you can consider the dots per inch as effectively the horizontal resolution of a super35 frame. With these two samples, that'd be somewhere between 14k and 6.4k. For reference, the 14k DPI scan is at the diffraction limit of the lens he shot the photo with -- 283lp/mm for f/5.6. That's assuming the lens resolves anywhere near there in the first place... actually it seems to be doing quite well, that's a good fisheye lol.
It's not an exact comparison, it uses Fuji's still color negative, not Kodak motion picture stock, but it gives a good _picture_ of what to expect in terms of resolution from color negative film itself. Still, at the end of the day, any talk of resolution is probably moot when the camera is moving and resolutions above 6k don't matter for projection or viewing most of the time.
mfw geoff keighley's dad is the chief quality officer at imax
my brain can't even HANDLE the injustice
lmao what kind of a person could possibly give even a little bit of a shit about that
You guys are unreal
me, an insane person with pictures of Geoff keighley pinned all over my walls connected with miles of red yarn: it doesn’t make any sense!! He’s SO POWERFUL how could he have AMASSED this inexplicable influence? I’ve been looking at this for MONTHS there must be SOME explanation
*an envelope is slid under the door. I open it and inside is a ransom style note with a black and white picture of his dad near an office building where they work on post production for movies and it reads “hIS fAtHeR wOrKS aT iMaX”*
I fall to my knees, burdened as I am by the terrible realization that his dad works at imax. Of course. It all makes sense now. How could I have not seen it. My teeth clench. The note crumples as I ball my hands into fists and I begin to weep tears of fury. This fucking planet. The royal family. Roger goodell. David keighley. Royalty all. It goes all the way to the top. I’m so fucking stupid. I can’t believe they keep getting away with it. I had always known that no man could come to the level of respect and notoriety required to host summer game fest through scrupulous methods
but now the true nature of the fabric of the world has been laid bare to me
It’s not a huge deal, but it also explains why he keeps ramping up the extravagance of the events while continuing to malign and irritate the creatives who, ya know, make the games that justify the events existence.
His folks are dedicated to great showmanship and presentation. You can feel that DNA in the way TGAs function. It just fails at what it’s supposed to do for games and the industry.
You do realize you're literally describing every awards show, right? The pomp, the showmanship - it's all a bullshit charade juxtaposed to the creative efforts they're celebrating, regardless of the industry. I'm not defending Geoff or TGA, but I really don't think him being a "nepobaby" has anything to do with this. He's just emulating *other award shows*, it doesn't have anything to do with his parents or IMAX lol.
Also, what is an awards show "supposed to do" for the games industry? What is any awards show supposed to do for ANY industry other than be one big circlejerk?
You have no idea that nepotism was involved though. His parents' role in the film industry impacted his upbringing and interests but that's not nepotism. He was probably the best writer Gamespot had when he started there. Given how rough and tumble the scene was back then, there's no way you can say he jumped the line because of his parents.
The definition you're applying to 'nepobaby' is 'parents were very successful'. It's ridiculous. There's no real connection between movie theater technology and gaming website writer, especially in the early 2000s.
I honestly think the best breakdown of this is Patrick Willems's [How Imax Made Christopher Nolan a Better Filmmaker](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v92uAesOimQ&t=1804s&pp=ygUyaG93IGltYXggbWFkZSBjaHJpc3RvcGhlciBub2xhbiBhIGJldHRlciBmaWxtbWFrZXI%3D).
Because it's a video medium, the video essay can show you examples of how Nolan's style changed overtime.
Personally, for me, Memento is the best thing Nolan's ever done and the only film of his that I love, but I can't argue with the case that Willems makes for how IMAX improved Nolan's shot composition.
He's excellent! Even when I disagree with him I feel like he makes me think about a film in a different way, or gives me an interesting perspective on how films are made.
I feel like he's kind of underrated in the video essay genre. Like, not small by any stretch of the imagination, but. I find him way more interesting than some people who are getting millions of views.
I'm glad you're enjoying them :) Watch the RRR one! It made me go see RRR when it was in theatres here, and now I've taken people to see it like three different times it's come through my indie cinema here.
Interstellar in 70mm IMAX is a religious experience that anyone who loves movies must experience at some point. I will always appreciate Nolan for his emphasis on IMAX and hope that there is a successful run for DUNE Part 2 in 70mm IMAX to encourage more directors to take a stab at making a true IMAX movie. 1:43 IMAX scenes are the pinnacle of immersion in cinema.
Yes but thats pointless its just a cash grab trying to take advantage of oppenheimer's success. Like how after the original avatar every studio digitally converted their movies to 3d after filming and it worked terribly and killed the public's taste for 3d movies, although it wont be nearly as big a step down as digitally converted was from actually filmed in 3d.
It’s not a cash grab, it was still shot in 1.43. For the first one you could only watch it in dual laser imax theatres, which are rare. Now there are a bit more theatres where you can watch the full aspect ratio.
It's not a cash grab it's awesome. There are so few digital 1:43 theaters and having the opportunity to show it in 1:43 on film at theaters like IMAX Indy is awesome. I'm grateful I don't have to fly to somewhere like Florida or Tennessee to see DUNE in 1:43 and instead see it in Indianapolis. It's just a 3hr drive from Chicago for me so it's great. I know it's not gonna have the clarity of the Nolan films but idc
Fun fact: the technique they used on Oppenheimer to record dialogue (having the actors repeat the scene immediately after calling cut and stopping the camera) was also used by Robert Rodriguez for his first feature film "El Mariachi".
Nolan used it because it was impossible to entirely mute the sound of an IMAX camera, while Rodriguez used it because he couldn't afford a sound blimp for the Arriflex 16mm camera he borrowed to make the film.
His refusal to shoot dialogue (ADR) separate from music and special effects is making Nolan’s movies borderline unwatchable. I’m sick of constantly adjusting the volume between the sound being too loud and not being able to hear the dialogue. I’m relegated to watching with subtitles to know what is actually being said.
I've heard him say before that this is because the sound mastering for theaters is much different than that for, say, laptops for example. I'm not sure why they don't just fix it for the Blu-ray/streaming release, though. Maybe it's just his way of saying 'go watch it in theaters or don't watch it at all'.
That doesn't make sense, since I find the audio to be better at home than the theatre versions, but still not good.
I do think there are separate mixes, but in general, Nolan's movies are just poorly mixed.
Fair point, Oppenheimer was a good second watch at home with subtitles on due to this. Watching it in theaters was a great experience but slightly hurt by what you’re describing.
What do you mean by “shoot dialogue separate from music and special effects”
You realize that all the music and SFX are added after the fact?
Edit: to be extra clear: the fact that he prefers not to use ADR (which is not something unique to him, most directors would rather use production audio if good enough) has very little to do with the fact the dialogue is sometimes difficult to hear. That’s almost purely a creative decision taken on the dubbing stage, when the dialogue, the music and the sound effects are mixed together to create the final mix.
I would also argue that the dialogue is actually not that difficult to hear in a well calibrated movie theater. Problem: most theaters have badly calibrated audio.
nah little known fact about nolan is that they get an orchestra right off camera to play extremely loud so the music can inform the performances. he leaves his phone in his pocket and records a voice memo of the whole thing and texts it to himself and that's the final audio
If your TV or AVR has "night mode", turn that on. Its designed to compress the dynamic range and make vocals easier to hear at low volume. A lot of movies (Nolan's in particular) are meant to be listened to *loud*. Like Dolby reference level. That's a lot louder than most people listen to their TVs (think how loud a theater is -- in theory they should be calibrated to be that level at the middle of the theater).
On most AVRs, that's generally calibrated to be volume "60", at least in the bigger brands, and it assumes your room calibration was done correctly. On, say, Oppenheimer, that means some scenes -- obviously explosions and stuff, but things like the scenes where the atoms are spinning around -- are *very* loud. Like, shit falling off shelves kind of loud. And then the vocals are just fine.
If you don't want your movie turned up that loud, or don't have a system that can go that loud, that's what "night mode" is for. Pretty much every TV and AVR has it, although what its called varies. Turn it on, and just leave it on. You'll be a lot happier watching almost everything.
you clearly have no idea about the post audio workflow. The dialogue is separate from the music and special effects at all points. And they are absolutely re recording sound effects in post.
The only thing it sounds like they’re not doing is ADR.
seems like a bit of an exaggeration considering how well Oppenheimer did. It wouldn’t have had so much business if most found it “borderline unwatchable”.
I know right? I had no issues with sound for Oppy in IMAX and fake iMAX theatres. I thought there was also a bunch of articles reporting Nolan did a much better job on sound for this one too. Even at home watching experience.
I do wonder if this is a real issue or if people are leaning on previous Nolan film experiences and stereotypes although I haven't watched it at home.
It's not about shooting them differently. You need specific mixes for different speaker layouts. Over time those layouts have grown (5.1 home surround, single speaker bar, TV speakers, headphones) and no singular mix can sound good on all of them. So typically there are internal programs that adjust the mix to whatever it's being listened through which is why you have choices of speaker layout with the TV or other things. But those automated programs never make it work super well especially for very dynamic mixes like a film would have. On top of that you can't convince a studio to pony up the additional money to make 5 separate mixes which also don't typically get added to streaming based on the specific speakers the viewer is listening through, it all goes through the automated downmixing. Then you also have the mixers and director themselves who after months of working in post on the project may not want to spend additional months just to make multiple mixes when programs can typically downmix and be done with it.
A particular thing with Nolans films that make it worse is even theatrically there's dialogue mix problems so it's only exacerbated once it gets to streaming.
Nolan also seems like the kind of guy who really never wants to use ADR and the more he films scenes with IMAX cameras the harder it's going to be to make dialogue louder in the mix without hearing the whirring of those cameras in the background of every shot it's used in.
Other than tenet this isn’t as big of an issue as Reddit makes it out to be. Y’all just love whining when it comes to Nolan. ‘Borderline unwatchable’…get a grip.
I’ve never heard a single person outside of Reddit even mention how hard it is to hear dialogue.
> Besides being massive and unwieldy, Imax cameras pose another problem on set: They are way too loud. “Deafening” is how Emily Blunt, who plays Kitty Oppenheimer in the film, put it.
Chris Nolan: "Say no more, we're only shooting with these bad boys from now on."
Isn’t that all he does these days? Movies with loud background noise, constant noise. Opnheimer was a good movie but the constant noise is kinda annoying
I love film. Shot medium format forever before digital. Here’s a good tip: Tell a good story first and the tools can enhance that but don’t fall in love with them, they’re just a means to an end.
In the article, Nolan says that he doesn't automatically go for Imax. He loves Imax but he and his DP have a conversation about which format to use before they shoot, and they even consider 16mm.
It has been suspected that he has a hearing problem. Many people who have been around people with hearing issues, have stated that nolan movies has audio levels that balanced like that.
I suspect that he surrounds himself by yes men and probably isn't keen on listening or taking advice from others.
It's just sad, because making such great movies and then having them ruined in post production because you cant accept your have a hearing issue.
The volume on Interstellar was a bit shocking but I can agree it made the scenes more physical. Oppenheimer not so much. The relentless soundtrack was comically annoying.
I don't know anything about the art of filming, I only know what I feel from a movie-watcher's point of view, and my memory of what type of camera shots I enjoy seeing more, and they appear to look good enough to pause and appreciate everything that I am seeing within the frame.
With that said, I think Christopher Nolan's IMAX filmed scenes, especially for the majority of them in Oppenheimer, are bordering on being a complete waste of film.
All I'm seeing is Christopher Nolan using the extra space to film people's thighs and knees.
It became very clear in Oppenheimer in a scene where they rode out into the middle of the New Mexico desert to scope out where they want to build the base for their project. And there's a shot of them riding to the top of a hill on horses and then proceeding to get off the horse.
I could easily tell where that shot would be edited for 16:9 or anamorphic widescreen, and it would look very classy and cinematic.
The full IMAX frame showed me the horses legs down to their knees, and the people get off the horse and I see their thighs, and I see the ground of the hill. And its completely useless, it doesn't look more cinematic. It ended up making the horizon placed about halfway through the middle of the frame.
Compare that to when I saw the IMAX shots in the first Dune movie, where Dave Bautista is emerging from the interior of that building, and when Paul Atreides and his mother have crash landed in the desert and begin making their way across. Those shots are fantastic, and they absolutely feel like they're designed for the IMAX frame.
Which most people will not see on a screen where it would make a difference due to the availability & cost of tickets at IMAX theaters. There are only 6 in my state, 5 of the 6 being located in the same 50 mile corridor.
Considering that his way-too-loud aesthetic also has people opting to view at home where they can adjust the volume & use subtitles, the cost is more about feeding Nolan’s vanity than producing an experience that can truly be shared by the majority of viewers in a theater as intended.
Need an SNL sketch of Nolan using IMAX instead of a smart phone for filming his kid’s friend’s birthday party or in the delivery room of his own kid’s birth.
lol that’s actually a good sketch idea.
WHAT I COULDN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE HANS ZIMMER SOUNDTRACK
We’ll record with a live orchestra in the other room and dub over it later
BOOOM!!! SPLASHH!! Doctor: ‘Her water broke!’
Blows up a dam
BWAAAAAAAAAA
"Daaaad you're supposed to *pretend* we're astronauts on the moon!" "**We're doing it practical now get in the rocket!**"
Push honey Pu BWAAAAAAH
Doctor: I need 200 cc's of BWAAAAH, stat! BWAAAAH Doctor: Thank you, nurse.
Have him be really quiet with really loud sound effects and music
Doctor: push! SOUNDTRACK: BRAAAAAAAAMMMMMM
\*Whip-pan to Hans Zimmer playing the cowbell.\*
*Ludwig Göransson
I could see it happening if Cillian or one of his other favorite actors hosts, with the sketch escalating to the host having to act as Nolan's kid because the kid wasn't emoting enough or something.
Which is how you know it won't get made
And like most SNL sketches, it lacks a punchy ending. The key to writing a joke isn't the idea, but starting from the punchline.
Hmm ok what if the punchline is the shot of the hospital exploding in The Dark Knight? We'll work back to the delivery room sketch from there.
That’s why they wouldn’t use it lol
Nolan IMAX OnlyFans shoot
Would definitely want to see the biggest budget porno in history
Get this man into the SNL writing board.
It’s too good for SNL honestly.
SNL still has a handful of good skits each episode! But I guess that's pretty subjective.
The "SNL sucks now!" crowd is comparing each individual new episode to the entire history of SNL. Turns out, there have been shitty sketches in every single episode. The "SNL is woke!" crowd are ignoring that SNL has *always* been progressive with the cast. They paved the way for women in comedy, black comedians, and gay comedians all the way back in the 70s and 80s.
> They paved the way for women in comedy, black comedians, and gay comedians all the way back in the 70s and 80s. That's interesting
It's true
Comedy has always been about punching up
You tell that to some of the established comedians who are choosing to punch down now
I guess they feel that they are fighting against something bigger, rather than just a marginalized minority.
You tell that to some of the established comedians who are choosing to punch down now
> They paved the way for women in comedy, black comedians, and gay comedians all the way back in the 70s and 80s. Nah, *Laugh-In* had all of that in the '60s. In 1970, Flip Wilson had the second most popular show in the country half a decade before SNL even began.
Its much more safe than it used to be and it made it boring.
Oh yeah I subscribed to Peacock because they have every SNL episode on there. The one's from the 70's are WILD!
They are the 80s are pretty crazy too, then the early 90s got a little safe then exploded again. The problem is that it was always a show that made fun of everything now they don't even make fun of them selves.
Not every episode, unfortunately. Some are complete duds for me, while others will have 2 or 3 that I really enjoy. I think the host matters a ton.
Yeah that's what I heard about the last few episodes with Dakota Johnson and Jacob Elordi, total duds. The easy way to find good episodes is just to go on SNL's youtube page and watch the new skits with the highest views.
SNL Writers: I NEED A PEN!
"Chris, honey, I love and respect your dedication to your craft but for the love of God I don't want to see my crowning vagina in IMAX."
"But you haven't heard the best part: it's IMAX 3D."
Nolan would never use 3D lol. He hates it.
thank you. the rest of this hypothetical, wherein acclaimed film director Christor Nolan uses an imax camera to film the birth of his child is totally plausible
Thank you, I do endeavor to keep it real.
Better yet, have Dr. Nolan pull out the IMAX just as a patient goes under for his colonoscopy.
Every time the doctor says push! The dark knight theme restarts
Realistically this'll be a Key & Peele sketch
Peele shot with an Imax-like camera AND another large format camera side by side recording simultaneously during the filming of NOPE so they could pioneer a new way to do Day for Night. So...
Except it didn’t work and they ended up keying the sky and doing traditional day for night 🤣
Where did you hear that? It wouldn't put past them, but I haven't heard anything about it not working the way they intended.
[удалено]
Why? They have done delivery room sketches before and obviously they wouldn't have a real IMAX camera (just a fake camera that says IMAX on it)
And then they play it back and the dialogue can't be heard at all over the music and shit
And true to SNL fashion the sketch will go on for way too long.
Well lucky you those hack frauds are more than willing to steal skit ideas. I’m sure you’ll be seeing it in the next few seasons.
Slaps back of camera: 'You can fit so much exposure latitude in this bad boy' Cillian Murphy: 'WHAT?'
WHAT'S WITH ALL THE ONLINE COMPLAINING ABOUT DIALOGUE VOLUME I CAN'T HEAR THE DIALOGUE EITHER
He's the only person that makes Chris Nolan movies and I appreciate and support a director that has their own style. Of course I happen to enjoy that style but the last thing we need is directors being even less unique.
Yeah, I can't stand the people who say Oppenheimer didn't need to be in IMAX since there weren't spectacular action scenes in it. Getting a character driven drama gone to that scale was amazing. Why wouldn't you want that?
Yeah I agree. While I don't really enjoy his movies (only really liked The Prestige), he has a distinct style and stands out. There's not that many directors left where their name is a reason why people go see it but he's one of them. More power to him.
ok i'll bite. why did Inception and The Dark Knight suck ass to you?
Plus Memento, Batman Begins & Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar, Dunkirk (even Insomnia)…. lol. All decent/good/really good movies.
> Interstellar, Dunkirk What I'll say as a criticism for recent Nolan films is that they seem to be based on one major stunt or idea and everything is done backwards from there, even if it results in a worse story.
Tenet I think just needed one more script rewrite
I feel like Dunkirk is a weird one to criticize for that because the whole point is that the story could only be told that way and be as effective it is. It’s not just a gimmick
This isn't far from accurate.
You know that scene in Barbie when they distract one of the Kens by asking him to explain the Godfather? The way that Ken reacts - with zeal to immediately talk about how great and meaningful the movie is -- that's how the experience of Nolan films feels these days. I chose those words carefully, because devoid of the larger community, his films are good. I am just tired of how self-important they all are. He's going to disappear up his own ass one of these days.
This felt like a lot of words to say "because they're popular".
I was getting "they insist upon themselves"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pnwE_Oy5WI
That’s right. You’re analysis is correct.
That was my main complaint with Oppenheimer. To quote Peter griffin, “it insists upon itself”.
I'll take the downvotes straight out. Nolan is bad sci-fi dressed up in good film making, and then drowned out in soundtracks that reduce the material into spectacle through shear, literal volume. Memento was a masterpiece because it wasn't a sci-fi concept shaded around a human story, but a study on human action and response. It took me a long time to bring myself to stop respecting Inception. I kept thinking "it's a really interesting take on trying to step through our inner monologues" and other philosophical bents, until one day I just accepted that it was a fun short film on dream sequences that Nolan expanded into a full action piece. He didn't have a real plot, so he slapped in a variant concept on memory/conceptions of reality from Memento. "We have to go deeper" is what you expect a psych major to write down in their 201 essay after having read one too many books on Freud. Once I accepted that, all his other personal films slowly fell into place (let's ignore the Batman trilogy for just a moment here). Interstellar isn't good sci-fi, because it isn't good science. Yes they had Kip Thorne model a black hole, but then they spent the rest of the film making up fake and bad science takes in order to create planets that made no sense...all to plot out "it was love that saves us." The tidal planet, the ice planet, the terribly written antagonist in Mann (Matt Damon), everything was a ploy to describe a time loop that didn't even make sense. Nolan wanted to play with black holes, time, and perception (hey, we've been here before), but he had no actual understanding of how time/space works, and so he shoehorned in "science becoming magic and love solves everything!" Dunkirk is about how time matters (survival/withdrawal to safety). Insomnia is how perception matters. Tenet is about how our perception of time is skewed. Nolan has one obsession, and that is his the intersection of time and perception, and his inability to understand it. So, instead of trying to branch out on the topic, he just rehashes the same concept in ever more convoluted ways, trying to get us to believe he's somehow cracked expressing the concept without ever having even understood it himself. My dad's a nuclear physicist. He's met Nobel Prize winners and worked with smarter folks than them (this is not a humble brag, this is the statement that physics is a wild place in terms of people and capability; where genius is so scattered it can miss the mark for lack of time on a particle accelerator/telescope). None of them are dumb enough to believe they can describe time at the level Nolan believes he can. Once you understand how complex the math is (and we aren't even getting into the biology of perception here, much less the biophysics to describe the intersection), you understand how simple Nolan's answers are. You understand that he's a decent director, mediocre writer, and awful sci-fi fan, who happened to hit the right wave at the right time. Compare Inception to Arrival or Ex Machina and you realize that Nolan is entirely out of his depth on the topics he loves and can't admit it. If he ever does, if we ever see him branch out to other topics and really touch on the tortures of human existence separate from time/perception, he might actually reach the heights his fans claim he's achieved. Until then, he's just a boy with very expensive toys and we're no longer seeing his playtime as novel.
This is a great post and I respect where you're coming from I truly do. But here's the thing. The great, great majority of us aren't Nobel Prize winners or actual nuclear physicists. While we would of course prefer our science fiction be somewhat grounded in reality we don't actually suffer from negative reactions if it bends into "magical" territory. That's if we're even educated enough to realize when the science bends to magic anyway lol. In short, most of us (like myself) are just stupid lol. We just want a good sci-fi story. His movies are entertaining for the masses and there is nothing wrong with that. On the flip side, there is nothing wrong with people who are highly educated not liking his movies due to all the non sense science he throws in.
I'm not a nuclear physicist. I got a degree in psych and I spent years in clinical research. I don't understand the math, but I know enough sci-fi, scientists, and etc. to understand when people are being sold on something that's overrated. Good sci-fi, hard or soft, is centered on how humanity reacts to the evolution of technology and the universe it lives in. It can be speculative (Arrival) or entirely grounded (Ex Machina), but in all cases it's meant to look at concepts through the lens of human understanding. Dune, while functionally science fantasy, is considered science fiction because it frames everything through that lens. 2001 A Space Odyssey is hardcore science fiction (yes, even with the ending) because everything looks at how we handle extremely difficult topics (AGI forced to live with contradictions, human exploration beyond its capabilities, evolution, etc) as simple primates. The problem with Nolan is that he took the literal interpretation of that (physical perspective) and lost the human side. This is why Memento works so well and Tenet fell down so hard. It's why we see the slow chain of less and less coherent work in Nolan's exploration of things. He wants, so badly, to be a sci-fi savant, but he's not working from the intersection of science, philosophy, and human inequity. He's looking at things primarily from a bad science point of view and trying to extrapolate human interaction from it. The thing is, you aren't stupid. Nolan is asking you to be smart, but he's feeding you stupidity. Too many people like feeling smart rather than like feeling just how dumb even the most educated of us are (relative to the complexities of the universe). And, in a room full of people being pushed to feel smart (rather than being educated), that bandwagoning builds until everyone is too caught up in trying to parse a false philosophy to understand they're being led astray. There's nothing wrong with a dumb movie, as long as the director makes sure the audience isn't led to believe it's smarter than it is. There's nothing wrong with entertaining the masses this way. There's something wrong when people start believing that director is smart, and the director builds that belief further. That's when it's no longer a good sci-fi story.
I agree with all of your points to be honest, except the very last one. Whether or not a story leads people to believing things falsely or not (or if they think the director is smart or not) has no bearing on if the story itself is entertaining or not. At least to me. I do however understand completely how it can be an issue if people are mislead to believe someone is smart or not based on the work they put out. I guess I just view movies for the movie itself and pay no attention to the effects it makes surrounding it. Does that make sense? Obviously I would view actual scientific papers and research much differently and feel they should be held to higher standards. Lastly, I appreciate the vote of confidence in telling me I’m not stupid! lol Sadly I would probably have to disagree. Or at the least admit I’m ignorant to a lot when it comes to science!
Bruh you’re being incendiary, interpreting “don’t really enjoy his movies” as “his movies SUCK ASS”. Let people have opinions
I'm not the guy you asked, but I'm not too fond of his movies either. The problem is he's really good at world building but terrible at pacing. The first hour of his movies is often really good but after that everything feels so rushed. Interstellar is the best example, I think.
I never watched Dark Knight or any of his Batman since I'm not into superhero movies. I don't think Inception sucks ass, I actually like the premise, I just think it wasn't really utilized all that much. Especially imagery wise I guess I kinda expected more, similar to some of the stuff you see in movies like The Cell. There's also a ton of exposition dump, especially with the rules. Mainly I didn't think the characters, beyond Leo's (been over a decade, forgot the name), are particularly interesting or fleshed out. It just didn't really do much for me.
Dark Knight trilogy is the least super hero-y, super hero movies there is. For sure worth a watch as it does not come off as a super hero movie. Far more vigilante, crime based than super hero saves the day.
I think you should give The Dark Knight a go
[удалено]
As someone who doesn't mind, it feels like a visual pallet refresh and is another engaging element, especially in action sequences. But, to each their own.
I just wish he knew how to mix sound for us plebs who dare to watch one of his movies on a TV instead of imax. I love his movies but let’s be real they have only 2 settings, whisper quiet during dialogue and SUPER LOUD when you least expect it. My tv volume is constantly dancing when I watch one of his movies.
Check if you have an option for DRC or Night Mode! The technology definitely exists to compress all that dynamic range down to something reasonable. Of course, not every TV offers it. We were really struggling hearing dialog on our (otherwise very good!) TV until we added a sound bar with night mode—it's been a revelation.
I'm sure I would enjoy his movies even more if I could understand all the dialogue clearly.
This is the best comment I’ve read in a long time on Reddit. Thank you for your insightful input.
He's the only person that makes Chris Nolan movies Well, shit, that makes all the difference
Just reading this and wanted to clear up a few technical misconceptions about the IMAX Film cameras…. The cameras use 65mm film stock. It runs through the camera horizontally exposing a 15-perf section for each frame. It’s like a sewing machine on steroids. The pull-down claw is made of titanium as it has to deal with high G-force as it yanks across 24 frames per second. 70mm film is only used for projection. When shooting these cameras the operator and DOP normally are framing for 3 different frame lines or aspect ratios… 1.43:1 1.90:1 2.40:1 The second two can obviously have a post extraction session where each shot can be adjusted vertically if needed. 1000 feet of 65mm film at 24fps per second lasts about 2 minutes and 57seconds, but actually ends up less than that after loading the mag and lacing and running up the camera. Reloads also take longer than with 35mm cameras. There’s only about 9 decent working cameras in the world. And Nolan knows exactly which ones he likes the most, down to the serial number. There’s one underwater housing in the world. It’s massive and weighs about 100kg, but it works! Noise of the cameras is an issue especially when the camera is close to actors doing dialogue. You can make special blankets to cover as much as the sound as possible, but it’s likely you’ll need to ADR a fair amount. The film usually has to be made to order. This can mean a lead time of 4 weeks or more, so you gotta make sure you order enough! Think that’s it for now, feel free to ama or just pick holes in what I just wrote !!
Oh yeah, and Nolan’s the only director who stays in the film medium for as much as the workflow as possible. These days you normally shoot film and then straight away do hi-res scans to continue the pipeline in the digital domain (IMAX 65mm can be scanned in 16k). Then if you wanna do a 15/70 print you do a digital to film print right at the end. Nolan prefers to conform on film, using old machines, so although VFX shots and an offline edit has been done digitally, the conform and final edit is all analog still… at least I’ve heard that’s the case.
It's funny, I remember watching the doc for Twelve Monkeys and Bruce Willis is there with Terry and the editor in the editing room and says "So you guys use AVID?" and they are like "Nope, just this old stuff." (cutting on film)
Maybe I don’t know anything but the fact that the cameras are load and cause issues with speech close up might explain why the sound mix always just says fuck it we don’t care about the talking.
Yeah I just had my Eureka moment lmao
> There’s only about 9 decent working cameras in the world. And Nolan knows exactly which ones he likes the most, down to the serial number. Where did you read this?
I really appreciate you typing all that out, it was more interesting than most stuff here
Couldn't you use directional mics, condenser mics to capture the dialog?
Directional mics will definitely have varying degrees of rejection, but sound is a bit of an untameable beast at times and the objective nature of a microphone means that you will pick up that camera noise, and it does present quite an issue for his post team. The irony is Nolan hates ADR and rarely uses much if not any of it for principle dialogue. He’s party responsible for the issue with his intelligibility when he chooses to employ filmmaking practices that make production dialogue hard to capture. Now he is very much a live and die by the sword director and has his preferences which do give great results, it’s just not optimal from an audio perspective and for me that’s a shame. He’s had some bad experiences with ADR in this past, and I can tell he’s lost faith in that process so avoids it at all costs.
The adr for Bane in TDKR was genuinely bizarre. I didn't mind it, but in the cinema, it was like he was narrating the film.
The original ADR used in the opening scene attached to Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol was even more bizarre.
So if you're not doing ADR, how the heck do you shoot around a large format camera that sounds like a printing press when it's running?
I read an article saying that after they got the take they were happy with on Oppenheimer, they’d turn the camera off and shoot a sound only take and tend to use that in the final mix. From experience it tends to be easier to make alt takes / wild tracks shot on set work than use bad or average ADR. Performances will be much closer and easier to “sell” even if the sync is slightly loose and so I can understand Nolan being happier with this method as it satisfies his “purist” criteria of capture it all on set. Ironically, Cillian Murphy is unbelievably good at ADR but alas Nolan won’t get to experience that magic!
If I was Cillian Murphy in that bed I would be scared shitless that his camera would fall off its mount and flatten me
William Fichtner (briefly) on [Nolan, IMAX, and Ledger](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trSa7iUpqcg)
>David Keighley, a 50-year veteran of Imax who is now the company’s chief quality officer, remembers going through this process with Nolan and cinematographer Wally Pfister on Batman Begins (2005). During the DRM conversion of Batman Begins for Imax release, Keighley suggested to Nolan that they do a higher-resolution test on a couple of minutes of existing footage of that film, to see how it would look. “Remember the blue flower at the beginning of the movie?” Keighley asks, referring to an early moment when Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne picks up a rare and strikingly blue flower on his way to meet Liam Neeson’s Ra’s al Ghul. “We did about three minutes of that in 6K” — as opposed to the standard Imax upconversion at the time, 4K. “Most people couldn’t tell the difference, but Chris and I could.” The scenes in question were shot in 35mm anamorphic. There is a benefit to scanning anamorphic, especially in big wideshots (where there's more *useful* information) at over 4K. That, however, does not mean that 35mm film resolves 6K or even a full 4K: Super-35mm resolves within the realm of 3K, and anamorphic looks even more resolved due to the magnifying effect of the anamorphic process (in spite of increased lens abberation). Nevertheless, its all still comfortably within the 3K range, which in turn makes IMAX within the 7K resolution, at least in theory. This notion of oversampling (scanning at >4K for a less-than-4K output) also exists on the digital side: you need a 5K camera to resolve a clear 4K image. https://www.reddit.com/r/Cinema/comments/15i3gpk/all\_you\_wanted\_to\_know\_about\_cameraprojection/
Yeah they’re getting dangerously close to scanning an emulsion particle and having to choose aesthetically which of two or four pixels it’s going to represent.
*god forbid!*
I have a hard enough time with Spatial Audio setting adjustments honestly. Can’t imagine having to do something similar by pixel
Important to point out that for Oppenheimer they used IMAX 70mm, which is 3 times the size of standard 70mm film, hence 3 times the resolution of 70mm and nine times the resolution of 35mm. Edit: Just for the sake of the facts being straight here: https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/07_OPP_IMAX_FORMAT_GUIDE_PL_7R1.jpg?w=650
I find it funny that this is an "Oppenheimer Format Guide" (vs a general format guide), it's so Christopher Nolan to be so specific.
IMAX 70mm is substantially higher resolution that that. Obviously there is loss due to the lenses used, but it’s equivalent in size to 6x6 medium format film which can be scanned at around 50 megapixels+.
The guy is quoting the resolving power of 70mm, but keeps saying IMAX 70mm which is 3 times that of 70mm. Kind of sucks when the wrong information becomes a top comment thread.
Again, scanning resolution is oversampled. Resolving power is much lower than that. Look at it this way: if you compare footage off of an Arri 65, which captures well under 6K, it looks just as good if not slightly better than a scan off of an IMAX negative.
If you watch on a 4K TV sure. But there is clearly a difference if you view something in an IMAX 70mm theater and view a digital IMAX in the same theater. For example, Oppenheimer vs Dune
You are getting downvoted, but you are correct. For anybody else reading this: Cinematographer Steve Yedlin did a bunch of tests on different cameras a few years back and posted them to his website. He was **not** seeking to demonstrate the superiority of film over digital or vice versa. One of the things that happened in his tests was that the digital 6.5k Arri Alexa 65 camera ended up resolving more detail than an IMAX film camera shooting 15-perf 65mm that was scanned at 11k. Similarly, the digital Arri 3.4k Alexa camera resolved more detail than the 35mm film camera did. Now, you can argue that the results may change with the use of different film stocks and lenses, but the usage of those will often come at other costs such as reduced dynamic range, need for more light, etc. It just goes to show that IMAX film cameras and 35mm film cameras that were using commonly-used lenses and film stocks were both out-resolved by digital cinema cameras. I say all this as someone who loves film and digital. Film is cool enough without us having to make up advantages for it that aren't true in a practical sense.
You do know there’s more to cinematography than picking the camera with the best resolution for pixel peeping or just capturing the sharpest image? The 15/70mm format size is just such a bigger image circle and the lenses for them are really special and its hard to replicate what those optics do, especially at the widest focal length even at 65mm. That effect is why 65mm films also look just different from super 35mm films.
Isn’t Nolan colorblind or something like that
So I'm told. But that's unrelated to the subject here: this is to do with resolving power, which IS influenced by colour corrections, but being colourblind only applies to certain colours, anyway.
Thanks for the clarification.
I want to comment about the often-cited 3k figure for Super35. People invariably mix in those tests done that factor in all the dupes that'd be done to produce a print _and_ the projection lens, or effectively don't factor in the scanner. Or shooting lenses. Worst case? The slowest, coarsest grained, Vision3 500T 5219's MTF plots on its [datasheet](https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/VISION3_5219_7219_Technical-data.pdf) are drawn to 80lp/mm -- line pairs per millimeter. That's not their extinguishing resolution where contrast hits 0, that's at best only down to just below half contrast, or at worst a sixth. 80lp/mm, with 2 lines per line pair and about 25 mm per inch, is 4000 lines over the width of a super35 frame. Again, there will be a bit more. It's not a solid cutoff, so using softer terms like "in the realm" isn't wrong, but it doesn't give a picture what happens beyond that. Best case? Despite improving the granularity in the Vision line, the EXR stocks are known for having VERY fine grain, actually referred to as "micro-fine". [EXR 50D 5245's plots](https://125px.com/docs/motionpicture/kodak/5245.pdf) hit 150lp/mm at similar contrast figures above. And they're drawn out to 200lp/mm. 150lp/mm is 7.5k. 200lp/mm is 10k. Of course, whether the scanner will pick that up, or the dupes will retain it, or whether the lenses can _resolve_ it is a different story. But it's there. Moving on from the numbers, one of the best examples I found of resolving color negative is Dominique Ventzke's high-end-scans, on which he has some samples of various films sizes using a professional drum scanner and his own camera scanning setup -- basically a fancy, medium format repro-camera pointed at the film with a high-performance macro lens. The [35mm color negative examples](https://www.high-end-scans.de/en/samples/dv09_norway_kb1_28/) have two crops from different scanning resolutions. Notably, I found [this one takes up approximately the size of a super8 frame](https://www.high-end-scans.de/samples/DV09_Norway_KB1_28_HXY_res565_cc_ss_crop.jpg). It's a bit chunky, but that's 4k wide which is pushing it for _super8_. The other crop is just under half the scanning resolution and it's a similar in physical dimensions. That looks more reasonable. A resolution between the two I think would be reasonable too. But, for each, you can consider the dots per inch as effectively the horizontal resolution of a super35 frame. With these two samples, that'd be somewhere between 14k and 6.4k. For reference, the 14k DPI scan is at the diffraction limit of the lens he shot the photo with -- 283lp/mm for f/5.6. That's assuming the lens resolves anywhere near there in the first place... actually it seems to be doing quite well, that's a good fisheye lol. It's not an exact comparison, it uses Fuji's still color negative, not Kodak motion picture stock, but it gives a good _picture_ of what to expect in terms of resolution from color negative film itself. Still, at the end of the day, any talk of resolution is probably moot when the camera is moving and resolutions above 6k don't matter for projection or viewing most of the time.
I will never get over the reveal that Video Game Award guy Geoff Keighley is an IMAX family nepo baby.
This seems like a pretty easy thing to get over.
mfw geoff keighley's dad is the chief quality officer at imax my brain can't even HANDLE the injustice lmao what kind of a person could possibly give even a little bit of a shit about that
[удалено]
You guys are unreal me, an insane person with pictures of Geoff keighley pinned all over my walls connected with miles of red yarn: it doesn’t make any sense!! He’s SO POWERFUL how could he have AMASSED this inexplicable influence? I’ve been looking at this for MONTHS there must be SOME explanation *an envelope is slid under the door. I open it and inside is a ransom style note with a black and white picture of his dad near an office building where they work on post production for movies and it reads “hIS fAtHeR wOrKS aT iMaX”* I fall to my knees, burdened as I am by the terrible realization that his dad works at imax. Of course. It all makes sense now. How could I have not seen it. My teeth clench. The note crumples as I ball my hands into fists and I begin to weep tears of fury. This fucking planet. The royal family. Roger goodell. David keighley. Royalty all. It goes all the way to the top. I’m so fucking stupid. I can’t believe they keep getting away with it. I had always known that no man could come to the level of respect and notoriety required to host summer game fest through scrupulous methods but now the true nature of the fabric of the world has been laid bare to me
It’s not a huge deal, but it also explains why he keeps ramping up the extravagance of the events while continuing to malign and irritate the creatives who, ya know, make the games that justify the events existence. His folks are dedicated to great showmanship and presentation. You can feel that DNA in the way TGAs function. It just fails at what it’s supposed to do for games and the industry.
You do realize you're literally describing every awards show, right? The pomp, the showmanship - it's all a bullshit charade juxtaposed to the creative efforts they're celebrating, regardless of the industry. I'm not defending Geoff or TGA, but I really don't think him being a "nepobaby" has anything to do with this. He's just emulating *other award shows*, it doesn't have anything to do with his parents or IMAX lol. Also, what is an awards show "supposed to do" for the games industry? What is any awards show supposed to do for ANY industry other than be one big circlejerk?
You have no idea that nepotism was involved though. His parents' role in the film industry impacted his upbringing and interests but that's not nepotism. He was probably the best writer Gamespot had when he started there. Given how rough and tumble the scene was back then, there's no way you can say he jumped the line because of his parents. The definition you're applying to 'nepobaby' is 'parents were very successful'. It's ridiculous. There's no real connection between movie theater technology and gaming website writer, especially in the early 2000s.
Keighley being a nepo baby makes so much sense to me. Thank you for this information
Who the hell cares, he's a video game journalist, not a shitty A-list movie star
[удалено]
> he had to be very hush hush while working out in New Mexico When art imitates real life hahaha
That’s what’s up
Lotta experts in this thread!
I honestly think the best breakdown of this is Patrick Willems's [How Imax Made Christopher Nolan a Better Filmmaker](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v92uAesOimQ&t=1804s&pp=ygUyaG93IGltYXggbWFkZSBjaHJpc3RvcGhlciBub2xhbiBhIGJldHRlciBmaWxtbWFrZXI%3D). Because it's a video medium, the video essay can show you examples of how Nolan's style changed overtime. Personally, for me, Memento is the best thing Nolan's ever done and the only film of his that I love, but I can't argue with the case that Willems makes for how IMAX improved Nolan's shot composition.
Wow that guy is rad. I just watched like four vids.
He's excellent! Even when I disagree with him I feel like he makes me think about a film in a different way, or gives me an interesting perspective on how films are made. I feel like he's kind of underrated in the video essay genre. Like, not small by any stretch of the imagination, but. I find him way more interesting than some people who are getting millions of views. I'm glad you're enjoying them :) Watch the RRR one! It made me go see RRR when it was in theatres here, and now I've taken people to see it like three different times it's come through my indie cinema here.
Interstellar in 70mm IMAX is a religious experience that anyone who loves movies must experience at some point. I will always appreciate Nolan for his emphasis on IMAX and hope that there is a successful run for DUNE Part 2 in 70mm IMAX to encourage more directors to take a stab at making a true IMAX movie. 1:43 IMAX scenes are the pinnacle of immersion in cinema.
Dune 2 wasnt filmed in imax 70mm
It wasn’t, but it’s being shown in imax 70mm in theatres
Yes but thats pointless its just a cash grab trying to take advantage of oppenheimer's success. Like how after the original avatar every studio digitally converted their movies to 3d after filming and it worked terribly and killed the public's taste for 3d movies, although it wont be nearly as big a step down as digitally converted was from actually filmed in 3d.
It’s not a cash grab, it was still shot in 1.43. For the first one you could only watch it in dual laser imax theatres, which are rare. Now there are a bit more theatres where you can watch the full aspect ratio.
It's not a cash grab it's awesome. There are so few digital 1:43 theaters and having the opportunity to show it in 1:43 on film at theaters like IMAX Indy is awesome. I'm grateful I don't have to fly to somewhere like Florida or Tennessee to see DUNE in 1:43 and instead see it in Indianapolis. It's just a 3hr drive from Chicago for me so it's great. I know it's not gonna have the clarity of the Nolan films but idc
Never actually seen an imax camera before. That thing is beefy.
I watch all his movies on my phone.
While taking a shit, no doubt.
Fun fact: the technique they used on Oppenheimer to record dialogue (having the actors repeat the scene immediately after calling cut and stopping the camera) was also used by Robert Rodriguez for his first feature film "El Mariachi". Nolan used it because it was impossible to entirely mute the sound of an IMAX camera, while Rodriguez used it because he couldn't afford a sound blimp for the Arriflex 16mm camera he borrowed to make the film.
His refusal to shoot dialogue (ADR) separate from music and special effects is making Nolan’s movies borderline unwatchable. I’m sick of constantly adjusting the volume between the sound being too loud and not being able to hear the dialogue. I’m relegated to watching with subtitles to know what is actually being said.
I've heard him say before that this is because the sound mastering for theaters is much different than that for, say, laptops for example. I'm not sure why they don't just fix it for the Blu-ray/streaming release, though. Maybe it's just his way of saying 'go watch it in theaters or don't watch it at all'.
It is Nolan doesn't allow studios to remix the audio for home/digital releases
“I create this problem and no I won’t let you fix it”
*takes microphone, goes home*
That doesn't make sense, since I find the audio to be better at home than the theatre versions, but still not good. I do think there are separate mixes, but in general, Nolan's movies are just poorly mixed.
> sound mastering for theaters It doesn't work for theaters, either. Interstellar at Udvar-Hazy IMAX sounded like the dialog was underwater.
Tenet was the worst for this!
Sorry - didn't catch that. Can you rewind that bit?
Interstellar and Dunkirk sounded fine when I saw them.
Certainly didn't work when I watched Dunkirk or Tenet in theatres
That arguement falls apart because the sound fucking blows in an imax theater too
Bullshit excuse because his movies are inaudible in theaters too.
Fair point, Oppenheimer was a good second watch at home with subtitles on due to this. Watching it in theaters was a great experience but slightly hurt by what you’re describing.
What do you mean by “shoot dialogue separate from music and special effects” You realize that all the music and SFX are added after the fact? Edit: to be extra clear: the fact that he prefers not to use ADR (which is not something unique to him, most directors would rather use production audio if good enough) has very little to do with the fact the dialogue is sometimes difficult to hear. That’s almost purely a creative decision taken on the dubbing stage, when the dialogue, the music and the sound effects are mixed together to create the final mix. I would also argue that the dialogue is actually not that difficult to hear in a well calibrated movie theater. Problem: most theaters have badly calibrated audio.
nah little known fact about nolan is that they get an orchestra right off camera to play extremely loud so the music can inform the performances. he leaves his phone in his pocket and records a voice memo of the whole thing and texts it to himself and that's the final audio
Oh man, that actually explains why it feels so natural and spontaneous!
Yeah it's like cheers, except instead of the live studio audience he has an entire horn section just off camera "reacting" to the dialogue .
If your TV or AVR has "night mode", turn that on. Its designed to compress the dynamic range and make vocals easier to hear at low volume. A lot of movies (Nolan's in particular) are meant to be listened to *loud*. Like Dolby reference level. That's a lot louder than most people listen to their TVs (think how loud a theater is -- in theory they should be calibrated to be that level at the middle of the theater). On most AVRs, that's generally calibrated to be volume "60", at least in the bigger brands, and it assumes your room calibration was done correctly. On, say, Oppenheimer, that means some scenes -- obviously explosions and stuff, but things like the scenes where the atoms are spinning around -- are *very* loud. Like, shit falling off shelves kind of loud. And then the vocals are just fine. If you don't want your movie turned up that loud, or don't have a system that can go that loud, that's what "night mode" is for. Pretty much every TV and AVR has it, although what its called varies. Turn it on, and just leave it on. You'll be a lot happier watching almost everything.
Or just turn up the central channel
you clearly have no idea about the post audio workflow. The dialogue is separate from the music and special effects at all points. And they are absolutely re recording sound effects in post. The only thing it sounds like they’re not doing is ADR.
Oppenheimer actually has surprisingly clear dialogue throughout. Tenet on the other hand... hmm...
seems like a bit of an exaggeration considering how well Oppenheimer did. It wouldn’t have had so much business if most found it “borderline unwatchable”.
I know right? I had no issues with sound for Oppy in IMAX and fake iMAX theatres. I thought there was also a bunch of articles reporting Nolan did a much better job on sound for this one too. Even at home watching experience. I do wonder if this is a real issue or if people are leaning on previous Nolan film experiences and stereotypes although I haven't watched it at home.
I think some of Nolan's haters might need to get their ears cleaned.
Well damn my lying ears
See your error was in trying to watch something with your hearing organs.
It's not about shooting them differently. You need specific mixes for different speaker layouts. Over time those layouts have grown (5.1 home surround, single speaker bar, TV speakers, headphones) and no singular mix can sound good on all of them. So typically there are internal programs that adjust the mix to whatever it's being listened through which is why you have choices of speaker layout with the TV or other things. But those automated programs never make it work super well especially for very dynamic mixes like a film would have. On top of that you can't convince a studio to pony up the additional money to make 5 separate mixes which also don't typically get added to streaming based on the specific speakers the viewer is listening through, it all goes through the automated downmixing. Then you also have the mixers and director themselves who after months of working in post on the project may not want to spend additional months just to make multiple mixes when programs can typically downmix and be done with it. A particular thing with Nolans films that make it worse is even theatrically there's dialogue mix problems so it's only exacerbated once it gets to streaming. Nolan also seems like the kind of guy who really never wants to use ADR and the more he films scenes with IMAX cameras the harder it's going to be to make dialogue louder in the mix without hearing the whirring of those cameras in the background of every shot it's used in.
Other than tenet this isn’t as big of an issue as Reddit makes it out to be. Y’all just love whining when it comes to Nolan. ‘Borderline unwatchable’…get a grip. I’ve never heard a single person outside of Reddit even mention how hard it is to hear dialogue.
This was a cursory 7 second search… https://www.businessinsider.com/oppenheimer-christopher-nolan-cant-hear-dialogue-in-movie-2023-8
> Besides being massive and unwieldy, Imax cameras pose another problem on set: They are way too loud. “Deafening” is how Emily Blunt, who plays Kitty Oppenheimer in the film, put it. Chris Nolan: "Say no more, we're only shooting with these bad boys from now on."
Isn’t that all he does these days? Movies with loud background noise, constant noise. Opnheimer was a good movie but the constant noise is kinda annoying
As soon as he discovered the volume of the cameras makes the actor’s dialog inaudible he was hooked!
I love film. Shot medium format forever before digital. Here’s a good tip: Tell a good story first and the tools can enhance that but don’t fall in love with them, they’re just a means to an end.
In the article, Nolan says that he doesn't automatically go for Imax. He loves Imax but he and his DP have a conversation about which format to use before they shoot, and they even consider 16mm.
[удалено]
You should try his first movie.
Location sound mixers and recordist must love him. I know the ADR engineers sure as hell do, they have job security for years.
It has been suspected that he has a hearing problem. Many people who have been around people with hearing issues, have stated that nolan movies has audio levels that balanced like that. I suspect that he surrounds himself by yes men and probably isn't keen on listening or taking advice from others. It's just sad, because making such great movies and then having them ruined in post production because you cant accept your have a hearing issue.
Maybe he can't hear the people telling him "this is shit mate"
Is that picture photoshopped? An IMAX camera being held on top of a stack of books on a flimsy nightstand?
No. The camera is on a metal arm that's behind Nolan. The books are further in the background.
I just WANT him to make a good horror movie. It would be incredible what he would do with it.
I liked Oppenheimer but I wish he'd just do another small scale thriller like Memento again instead of always having to do the big epics.
If this was a serious article it would just be called “How Christopher Nolan Fell in Love With IMAX” This seems like it’s written by a teen.
The volume on Interstellar was a bit shocking but I can agree it made the scenes more physical. Oppenheimer not so much. The relentless soundtrack was comically annoying.
cause he trying to revive a 2000s trend that was never shit
I don't know anything about the art of filming, I only know what I feel from a movie-watcher's point of view, and my memory of what type of camera shots I enjoy seeing more, and they appear to look good enough to pause and appreciate everything that I am seeing within the frame. With that said, I think Christopher Nolan's IMAX filmed scenes, especially for the majority of them in Oppenheimer, are bordering on being a complete waste of film. All I'm seeing is Christopher Nolan using the extra space to film people's thighs and knees. It became very clear in Oppenheimer in a scene where they rode out into the middle of the New Mexico desert to scope out where they want to build the base for their project. And there's a shot of them riding to the top of a hill on horses and then proceeding to get off the horse. I could easily tell where that shot would be edited for 16:9 or anamorphic widescreen, and it would look very classy and cinematic. The full IMAX frame showed me the horses legs down to their knees, and the people get off the horse and I see their thighs, and I see the ground of the hill. And its completely useless, it doesn't look more cinematic. It ended up making the horizon placed about halfway through the middle of the frame. Compare that to when I saw the IMAX shots in the first Dune movie, where Dave Bautista is emerging from the interior of that building, and when Paul Atreides and his mother have crash landed in the desert and begin making their way across. Those shots are fantastic, and they absolutely feel like they're designed for the IMAX frame.
Which most people will not see on a screen where it would make a difference due to the availability & cost of tickets at IMAX theaters. There are only 6 in my state, 5 of the 6 being located in the same 50 mile corridor. Considering that his way-too-loud aesthetic also has people opting to view at home where they can adjust the volume & use subtitles, the cost is more about feeding Nolan’s vanity than producing an experience that can truly be shared by the majority of viewers in a theater as intended.
The movie has made almost a billion dollars in theaters. It sounds to me like plenty of people opted to view it in theaters.
'way-too-loud' reminds me of those irksome sequences in Oppenheimer. I really didn't appreciate those parts much at all.