What's your favorite Christopher Nolan movie?

I don’t like the film vs digital debate, because in general I hate the idea of hard rules in art. I can absolutely see why people prefer film to digital, but to say it’s just better is closed minded to me. I like Deakins take on this, different films require different equipment, and the person using the equipment matters more than the equipment itself.

So glad I was able to see Oppenheimer in original 70mm Imax at the Science Museum in London - arguably the best cinematic experience I've ever had

I think the bigger issue is that digital filming tends to go hand in hand with the "fix it in post" mentality. I exclusively shoot movies or series digitally but I'm adamant as DP that we always put as many real elements in front of the sensor as possible, and do everything in front of the camera as practically as possible. I think that's one of the reasons why things shot on film feel more real, even if there's compositing going on you know somewhere somebody put a puppet or a miniature in front of a film camera and something real was captured to celluloid. It's the difference between fabrication (CGI) and forced perspective (The miniature set isn't as big IRL as it is made to look on screen). You can do just about anything with color grading and effects these days to make digital look like film if that's what you're going for.

Interstellar, but Inception comes close behind! Like Nolan said -”IMAX, is like 3D without the glasses”🔥

I saw Whoppenheimer on imax and to be honest, before going I had lost my love for going to the cinema and watching a movie. But now watching that film re-ignited my love for cinema, see the trinity test on that big screen really changed me. I cried after watching the movie

I just saw Oppenheimer in 70mm at the Sun theatre in Melbourne. It looked stunning to me. I think film and digital have their place depending on what you wish to achieve artistically.

As a 70mm projectionist, keeping the art of film projection alive is imperative. Shoot however you want, but when you go to distribute a movie, it should be on film. Blade Runner 2049 got 70mm trailers to run before Dunkirk, and it looks stunning... compare that to our *SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLAR* digital projector we have which can manage... 2k (1080p equivalent). Film reigns supreme.

Dunkirk may have been Nolan's masterwork, but Oppenheimer deserves attention for being a surprisingly arresting. I agree wth Deakins, who has a real sense for the flexibility for filmmaking. But I also agree with Nolan, who feels it's important to keep the options for film as open as possible. That includes everything from 70mm to digital.

Cinema is more about the theatrical experience, stories, the craft of moviemaking and the marketing than it’s about the medium.

I love that you mentioned the sound issues created by shooting on film, especially IMAX film. As films get more and more complex, the work of sound engineers on set and in prost production gets more and more difficult and you can actually sometimes tell how "placed in" the dialogue feels in Oppenheimer, its not a downside of course but if you work in sound, you can tell if you listen closely that they either had to use a different camera for the "guide track" or didn't have one at all.

I get it - both sides. One of the things that truly annoyed me when watching Oppenheimer, was that the eyes very very often out of focus and sometimes the only thing sharp were the ears or/and the background. I understand they probably shot with a very open aperture and it is enormously difficult for the 1stAC (given the few shooting days) but what is the point of going through all of this hassle, when the eyes or faces are not sharp in the end. 18k doesn't help with that either. About the 'phone' point: Yes, it is extremely wonderful that everybody has the option to capture videos. But to make a film means much more than having a camera. I hate that argument: 'just go out and shoot a film'. Because actually shooting it requires still either a big chunk of money or people who work for free - so to say: unpaid work. Locations, food, travel costs, ... you name it, still needs to be covered. I think it is a romanticized view on the modern freedom of moviemaking. Sorry for being a bit negative here. Still thank you very much for your video and for the work you put into it. I don't mean it personally, it is meant as a joke and a bit to proof my point: You didn't even had to shoot it, so why do you need a sponsor?

Good video, just want to clarify though that the image used in the thumbnail and shown at 1:49 is actually a digital still taken on a Fujifilm GFX and not an IMAX film still (the press release those photos are from contain a mix of both and the Fuji vs Imax images are labelled as such in the file names).

It's just an artistic choice. BUT I CAN NEVER FORGET THE FILM PROJECTION OF OPPENHEIMER, IT IS MAGICAL.

3:57: Blackmagic makes 12K Digital camera's, RED makes 8K, i'm not sure where the "modest 6K" comes from, but 6k was the maximum maybe 5 years ago by now.

That soundman joke killed all most chocked

Much respect for showing all the brands some love.

The cinematography in this film is beyond incredible, must experience this in IMAX, the atomic particle scenes and the sequence of the Trinity Test were simply splendid in IMAX. Nolan is truly a cinematic genius.

again - amazing video, great research & love the way you narrate! I am definitely staying here for more😉

Very well put together video. Great job!

Tarantino offers the perfect explanation for some directors shooting film at 6:50. He says you can shoot a film with a cell phone, and he doesn't mean that in an inclusive democratization is good kind of way. Shooting on film for him was as he said, a mount everest most could not climb. Digital is like building an elevator to everest. There is a strong streak of elitism and exclusivity about being in a prestige circle, of being in a way of making art by it's nature not accessable to but a tiny minority that is important to the philosophy of some filmmakers. Kinda Nietzsche/Rand super format for super people mindset.

High resolution = Better films? It's important all the little details that go into the story telling. Who cares if it's water colors or acrylics, use the tools to tell the story how you want to. Film does a great job with highlights, digital is great with shadows. Every form has its own benefits.

Oppenheimer budget was 100 million only.

its a shame there are only a few IMAX cinemas showing the film version. I was lucky to see Oppenheimer at the Manchester Printworks IMAX screen & it does have a mellow quality that suits story telling. i have used 70mm = 120 size film for studio still photography in the past & it can be manipulated in processing to give subtle effects.

Why Oppenheimer and finally Christopher Nolan won academy awards ???? Becoz he made a movie about USA and its scientist.

Love the videos, man. Keep it up!!!

I think especially for 16mm film, it looks most like we remember moments from our past. Also, high end film (Portra, Ektar, Vision 3) has a very good dynamic range (about 14 stops; some digital cams have more, such as the alexa with about 17-18 stops) which comes somewhat close to the dynamic range of human eye vision (18-20 stops). And really movies for me should rather look like memories, since you can never physically be in the action and the storytelling is compressed in 99.9% of films, which naturally resembles more the nature of remembering rather than experiencing. So (16mm) in my opinion, film delivers the most memory-accurate picture possible. When going to LF film such as 35mm, 65mm or IMAX, it becomes somewhat indistinguishable from digital but gains the resolution advantage. Also especially but not only when doing stills, I have the feeling that due to the imperfect nature of film it allows for much more mistakes on the photographer's side. However even though being more film-biased, I really admire a 74 year old Roger Deakins who has spent most of his life shooting on film adapting so quickly and determined to the new technology of digital systems. Not many old people that I know of are like that.

Holly sh...utter.. That soundtrack starting at 08:15 ! Eargasm.

this was a beautiful video great job!

Nolan is all about how best I can perfect the cinema exploring all the possibilities of Physics in cinema making, and How hard twist I can direct a story he is a revolution 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

Oppenheimer needs to win the best cinematography for Oscars next year.

This content is rly something else. WOW thank you!

Oppenheimer was one of the top 3 films i've seen this year (others being Barbie and Puss In Boots 2)

Now this is the video I was wanting in a while . You tube algorithm is getting better baby

VERY WELL RESEARCHED AND NICE EDITING AND VOICE OVER, GOOD TO SEE FILMAKER ENTHUSISTS TO SHOW THEIR ART THAT IS COMMON WITH CINEPHILES. LIKE PHYSICYSTS BRAGGING ABOUT NEWTON OAYING RESPECTS TO THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO A COMMON INTEREST FOR SCIENCE, WE SHOULD HAVE MORE LIKE THIS CHANNEL FOR CINEPHILES

I just got Oppenheimer on 4k. That is one of the most immaculate looking movies. Just incredible.

I love your Channel because most channels that talk about movies are always so negative all the time. But you focus on the good and quality which is worth the subscribing and adding joy to my entrainment.

Absolutely love this video!! I hope to shoot on 65mm one day

David Lynch on why he does not like film - "It scratches, it breaks, its dirty, and no two prints are the same. It a nightmare."

5:26 this reminded me of how marvel literally flew Tom Holland and all the crew over to Venice, and they stayed there for 2 weeks or so, but instead of filming their scenes from the movie in the ACTUAL city of Venice they just made it all in CGI. Like the street, the canal, everything. Like you're there already! Why not just film it?!?!

🤯🤯🤯🤯 amazing vídeo and editing, in turn. There is also Roger Deakins. Mito

4:41 holy crap, is that Solomun Richards?

very interesting....i think that even tho its a bit contradictory, i agree with both takes but i definitely think the most important part is was Roger Deakins said abt the importance of the person using the equipment rather than the equipment by itself.

I'm not a filmmaker, more of a photographer, but I get the obsession with analog film because i primarily shoot with manual lenses on my cameras. They add character to photos in a world where everything is super sharp and crystal clear. I also have a manual transmission car so I get the "use it or lose it" thing. Manual transmission cars are pretty obsolete in this day and age but there's something that feels good about shifting through the gears and knowing you're in complete control of your car

such a greaat video! really love it

This is the greatest KZfaq channel

Because seeing particles in the film has more personality than the digital film.

I love your videos bud 😍

2:44 is this the reason why nolan films have notoriously bizarre audio mixing?

Lot of information in the video 🥰 Analogue vs Digital filmmaking. It's the director's choice to film analogue or digital. But we audience have to preserve the technology for future generations to experience Cinema by encouraging Analogue films too😊

watching Oppenheimer in cinema (not even IMAX) was amazing. I was in awe of the movie and I watched it twice, it was that amazing. Just the visuals with the sound and the story all comes together into a piece of art. I'm really sad I couldn't see it in IMAX format and will never get a chance to tho

Thank you for the great video. I think Graig Fraser found a happy medium between digital and film with Dune and The Batman - shoot in digital, transfer to film, then scan back to digital. It keeps the flexibility of the digital workflow while giving the end product that softer feel of film. In terms of the viewing experience, for me there's no going back after seeing something on IMAX 70mm. 1.43:1 IMAX with Laser is also excellent, but having seen Dune Part 1 in Laser and Part 2 in IMAX 70mm, I find the film projection to be livelier.

As our TVs get bigger and better, the transfers from higher-resolution film will be able to keep up.

OK, NOW THIS IS EPIC

I mean there's almost no point in watching this video for all those people who have not seen 70mm IMAX. People dont know what it is until they've seen it with their own eyes. Without seeing it, there is no way for people to believe that its better. It's higher quality. Yes its better quality but when I walked into that 70mm IMAX for the first time, I had no idea it was going to look 3D without glasses. I had no idea it was VR without goggles. I thought "ehh it's just a bigger theatre and probably marginally better". I was so wrong.

The cut to “the soundman” at 2:50 literally made me laugh out loud. That was hilarious.

4:55 "Nolan refuses from using CGI and green screens". Holy shit, that detonation scene!

So Nolan did explode a nuclear bomb to keep movie more realistic?

Eyyyy new fantastic video!! Great man!! And yoooo je bent gewoon Nederlands man 💪🏻 ik DM je ook gewoon in het Engels 🤣🤣

I watched Oppenheimer in 70mm imax when I saw it a second time. It is neat to watch it in this format because of the analog irregularities in the film. With the film projection, the white spaces flickered though and was really distracting to me. I enjoyed the digital format better for the smoother display.

I like the quote that digital is a larger palette. Restrictions breed creativity, but if you already have the creativity needed, more options can help you get it out. That doesn't make you a better director for using film or digital, it's a just preference. Like 8 bit games vs 3d modeled.

It is interesting that in like 50 years when 16k is the norm, people could still enjoy films like this at max quality.

I found the timing of the streaming platform ad very funny

when it comes to sound plus image, Hateful Eight was THE BEST experience I've ever had. that movie is not best in everything, but certainly looks and feels divine.

not just digital, but also I would add the pandemic helped push that habit of being at home as well as the conveyance of being at home. Still nothing beats the cinema, I am sure that Oppenheimer pales in comparison watered down to 4k. Love your channel, thank you!

Can someone please tell my the name of the music in 9:33 ? Amazing video btw, thank you Du Cinema for this! Love it

I recently went to the cinema to watch the new Wim Wenders movie: Perfect Days. There is no way on earth that I would endure that slob at home, but at the cinema it was a different experience. I ended up really liking the movie and the fact that it was at the cinema definitely added to the experience. EXPERIENCE. That's the crucial word in my opinion. It's like going to a favorite restaurant or going to an ammusement park. It's very fun and enjoyable only if you do it rarely. The vast majority of movies I watch are at home, on my 1080p 15 inch laptop with Bluetooth headphones, very far from the 70mm imax experience, but that's the way I prefer to regularly consume media. I skip around, speed up, slow down, rewatch parts I liked.

I was really hyped to watch this film and wanted to watch it on film projected onto a huge screen. I travelled to another city to watch it on film and then watched it a little later digitally projected in my hometown. To say i watched the same movie would be a lie. The exposure on film and the colours were totally different. The film version had more depth, more light range and more details as well as character with the imperfections. The digital release had different colours, a lot less depth and struggled with the projection of these fast particles scenes at the start, that were made in camera. It just looked out of focus even in 4K on a smaller screen.

Il admit, most of my life as an adult I used to download movies and swop with buddies, I think we all did. I did that until the day I randomly found interstellar on a buddies hardrive and it was that day that I realized WHY we have cinema. Since then I have always bought my movies (Apple) or gone to the movies. Some movies are for cinema, some are fine at home. Iv always said, if I become wealthy, Id rent out a local IMAX to watch interstellar the way it was intended. Thankfully in September, I will!

You can't even notice the difference after you go past 4k

again - amazing video, great research & love the way you narrate! I am definitely staying here for more

In my personal oponion, with these day's technology and how movies are generally consumed, not using digital and only insisting on film gives me the vibe of hipster or elitism.

i'm glad i got the chance to watch the movie in 70mm, it was really an incredible experience

honestly one of the reasons i dont really go to the cinemas is due to there being no reason unless it is physical but all the ones in my area only do digital so it just ends up with me waiting a couple of weeks for the release on streraming platforms s

18K is a over estimate of the resolving capability of 1570 film. It's probably closer to 12K max.

For me... it MATTERS! ❤

I started my career as a photographer shooting film on old mechanical cameras and I was very skeptical when the first professional grade digital cameras were made available. The low megapixels count (around 3 mp at the time) just seemed to be too few to do anything useful besides things like photojournalism. I remember there was this story going around that a digital camera would have to pack like 50 megapixels to beat a 35 mm slide film, which was a much higher grade of film than the regular negative (C-41 process). Years went by and it turns out history proved that the story wasn't exactly accurate. Today we have, thanks to digital, access to a MUCH higher colour depth and exposure latitude just to get started with. This alone already brings the material we shoot today much closer to the reality of our eyes, if this is the argument in favour of film. It also allows a greater creative liberty, by allowing the raw material to be interpreted countless times without being modified itself (non-destructive editing). Don't get me wrong, I love the look of film stock and I still shoot on it from time to time just for the pleasure of developing my own stills. I am so fond of it that today I only shoot in a camera system that can reproduce very closely the look of classical film stocks. Even the digital noise looks more like the film grain, which is WAY more pleasant to the eyes than those horrible crisscrossed or mosaic patterns from earlier digital cameras. That said, I think it's way too easy for Nolan to stick to stock (pun not intended :)) and go out saying that this is "preservation". The guy who just made Kodak come up with a 70 mm film of the highest grade ever, using cutting-edge chemical technology, never seen before in the industry can have the world at his feet. This is the antipode of the young independent filmmaker who can barely afford basic equipment, having to resort to "guerrilla filmmaking", with no shitloads of money thrown at his face. And most of them fail to enter festivals and contests worldwide, despite the best efforts of all the (usually very small) crew. Maybe Mr. Nolan could step down a bit and get back to the real world, where not everyone is filthy rich like him and his like. While I very much respect his skills as an accomplished director, advocating for the use of stock film using a multimillion dollar production, with all kinds of superlatives doesn’t seem to be very encouraging for generations to come of filmmakers. Instead, it looks like he wants to show off a rich boy’s toy that very few can afford.

No wonder audio in Nolan films is so awful. I love Deakins perspective. Dude is legend.

Also when your watching it your looking at it basically in real time. Each section is just light from the very moment burnt into it

I wonder if Nolan could spot the difference of digital vs film if you would shoot the same shot, add grain and all that stuff in post & show him side by side.

Some day we will achieve Digital Resolution better than 18k. IMAX Theaters are just overall better experiences fancier seats better Sound Setup Bigger Screen.

Film really has an unique color grading that is very difficult to replicate consistently.

4:11 Audience behavior also discourages theater attendance. I can deal with occasional interruptions. But continued talking, eating, giggling - especially if I miss dialogue - makes me nuts. When Nolan and other directors view IMAX, they have the unique option of avoiding such inconveniences. Yes, I would miss it if theater cinema were gone.

Nice video. With the rise of VR headsets like Apple Vision where you can display huge screens from the comfort of your home, cinema will lose more track.

The requestion remains how does Nolan record sound? On a Tape machine or on a hard disk?

While I think digital is more efficient, I will agree that digital if not treated right can bring out a very clinical grey mesh look for a film, which has been a problem for marvel movies recently. Film always looks a little more authentic in my opinion and side note I love how film has imperfections like grain and how light sources like windows are always over exposed like our eyes would do if we aren’t looking at it head on.

Let's remember the Scene of RDJ with the reflecting Ultrabounces in his Glasses, Out of Sharp Scenes and the sheer amount of standard portraits with Rembrandt lighting before we hand out Awards for Best Cinematography.

There’s a small irony about Nolan liking film. The Dark Knight trilogy 4k set is filled with DNR. While mostly light it does ruin Batman Begins on the 4k so much that the included 1080p blu ray is a better watch. It’s still the best that the movies have looked (besides Batman Begins) but it could have been better even ignoring Nolan’s choice of using an Interpositive for all the films instead of the negative when possible

one of the most interesting comments I've seen in the "film vs. digital" argument is that movies made with digital are so colorful, perfectly focused, and even pristine looking that it seems fake, whereas film is much more natural looking and therefor looks more real and for some, can be more immersive and believable.

Oppenheimer is probably the only modern movie that I wouldn't mind seeing in black and white.

Wouldve been nice if the movie wasnt out of focus constantly

Hoyte Van Hoytema....Brilliant, im changing my name today.

There's pros and cons for both - ultimately if you have the money and the ego to say film is better then you will shoot on film... but the reality is, all films end up digitised!!! A lot of cinemas nowadays are actually digital cinemas because it's cheaper to run and maintain. The film is then going to end up on dvd, tv, and streaming services. So why spend all that money to film in in 16k imax for a handful of cinemas and an extremely small amount of cinema goers that are willing to pay the much higher fees. There's a reason why only a handful of directors insist on using film. There's also the question about the type of movie that you are making - if it's going to be something that has all in camera effects then fine... but if you are going to have to colour code it, remove aspects from scenes, add in effects etc - then you have to digitise the film and then convert it back to film, which is time consuming and another expense. People shot on film because they had no other choice...film has limitations... granted it does have rawness to it and it's own unique look - but for the vast majority of people they want a good looking film with a great story and they are not really bothered about the film grain. around 10-15 years ago at university i studied film art and we were one of a very few courses in the UK that still used film...although this was for only one assignment and i think it was for 100ft of film -- learning about lighting, the lenses, the camera, planning the shots etc were fantastic skills to learn BUT it was all for a dying art form. I love the look of film and working with it is more physical and exciting because when everything comes together it's an amazing feeling. I loved editing - the physically hold the film in your hands, slicing and splicing it, running it through the steenbeck - it was a magical experience. We were the last year to use film before it all became digital. I even did a course in a makeshift TV studio using the cameras there - but now of course the cameras are often unmanned and pre programmed (especially in the news studio). Digital is cheaper... it has less restriction... it's faster and efficient. Arguably it is so much better than film -- the issue is in the process... film makers have become sloppy. Many no longer carefully plan shot and set them up because if it goes wrong they can just film it again - but sometimes that means you lose that initial spark or that natural response from the actor. If you don't get the lighting quite right someone will fix it later. Sometimes shots are rushed. Worse is when they heavily rely on CGI because it's easier that having to spend months building a set and planning the shots - you can just film anywhere with a green screen and fix it afterwards. The only time i would say film is better is when you are filming highly detailed shots specifically intended for the imax screen and doesnt require sound - so things like when they filmed the titanic or filming shots of space. Other than that theres really no need. Opennheimer absolutely could have been shot on 35mm film if he really insisted on using film - he would have got the same effect and it would have been a lot cheaper and not as noisy plus longer shots. For imax theatres they could have enlarged to 70mm and the film wouldnt have been affected. Although he absolutely could have shot in digital and then transferred to film and the vast majority of people would not have even known.

Haven't been to the cinema in three years, and five years before that.

i agree about the whole digital on how it does not even feel real and takes away from the movie experience

This video deserves a million views ❤[best story telling and editing in this video] 📷

saw it twice in imax

Christopher Nolan is a wonderful film maker. Truly one of the greats. I will watch anything he makes. If he made a Cornflakes commercial, I'd watch that.

7:46 Incorrect comparison. Vynyl or tape music recordings are actually an inferior format over digital music (not all of course, but most CD quality MP3s blow analogue out of the water definition wise) and are suited for those who like that kind of sound and the ritualistic aspect of collecting the recordings, putting the vynyl on the record player and placing the needle or rewinding a cassette tape. Whereas film has more defnition over digital cameras period

2:58 “they had to record dialogue on a different camera”… that’s not how sound recording works in film production. No cinema film camera records audio. And when they do record audio they use an audio recorder. Perhaps they filmed those “audio-prioritized” scenes with a camera (alongside an audio recorder) just to help with some aspect of syncing or editing or who knows what (assuming the quote from this KZfaq video is true. But it just isn’t true that a camera was used to record audio.