Comments on: Christopher Nolan Speaks Out Against Digital Filmmaking and 3D

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 22:24:00 +0000

I don’t think he’s dismissing things too quickly. Of course, we have to advance in technology – but not blindly. Sometimes people that are too excited to adopt the newest technology might have short term benefits but are myopic to the potential long term downside.

By: David

David — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:51:06 +0000

I agree with Nolan on this for sure. I was not aware that he was not using digital for any of his films, but the 3D was a given. I don’t think he seems overly against digital, but he wants to make sure that a format he knows and loves is preserved and rightfully so. It does look better, but either can look great or poor when put in the right or wrong hands. The technology is just not there for 3D though. Avatar is the only 3D movie that I have seen that I even felt 3D added to the movie and possibly that was simply because there was little else than the over the top visual experience to keep me interested. I doubt Nolan has enough influence to really push the industry though; hopefully he can convince others to fight the good fight as well.

By: kyri

kyri — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:15:51 +0000

There is a separation between Jay’s digital and big studio’s digital.
and yes it is cheaper to shoot on film when you are shooting for a big studio.

Nolan is right. IMAX is the best film format outthere. and from now on I will only be watching films in the theater that were shot on film. And I would try avoid digital projectors also. I’ve kept my word on never going to see a 3d film again on the big screen. And I will make no exception. 3D is a distractive gimmick.

I will only watch Digital and 3d films on blu-ray.

By: Theman

Theman — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 00:34:58 +0000

I would love to hear Fincher’s rebuttal.

Nolan is the best filmmaker working today IMO. But the idea that digital is more expensive and harder to use than film is just totally bullshit.

Other wise people like Jay would shoot 35mm.

By: BubbleDubble

BubbleDubble — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:16:40 +0000

I agree with Nolan but only for filmmaking at the A-list Hollywood level. I’m a Z-list filmmaker and I’m sorry Chris, but digital is much cheaper and makes my projects feasible.

I would like to know Jay Cheel’s opinion here. He’s extremely talented and a digital filmmaker…is it by choice? or was the choice made due to budget?

By: Maopheus

Maopheus — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:18:43 +0000

Yeah, I agree, I thought Mann’s choice to use digital in the night scenes for “Public Enemies” to be very jarring. To see that typical high ISO look on a period movie was strange. For a modern movie like Miami Vice it’s OK, but it was a bad stylistic choice. Which makes me wonder if Mann was the best choice for directing that movie based on his preference for digital.

By: Nelson

Nelson — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:04:11 +0000

I think that the more choices, the more options,the better. I think that 3-d is good for certain genres but I don’t think it adds to the experience to try and force 3-d on movies that weren’t specifically designed for it or filmed with 3-d in mind.

One day 3-d technology might reach a point where it is fun and enjoyable, for EVERYONE, but right now, it’s a gimmick in most cases and a way for theater owners or film producers (I’m not sure which), to make a few extra dollars.

A bad movie is a bad movie, with or without 3-d. I think instead of focusing on gimmicks and technology, film makers need to focus on story, writing, and acting, and try to develop some NEW and interesting properties, instead of constantly rehashing the same ideas, over and over again.

A good reboot or remake, DONE WELL, can be great, but we need to get away from that and start focusing on being original and creative and doing some experimentation.

By: Owozifa

Owozifa — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:51:31 +0000

I like there being a choice because choices make diversity in films and film looks.

As to his 3D stuff, I kinda get what he means. Everyone is different and the technology seems pretty flakey to me. I have excitedly tried to embrace 3D twice so far, and both times just resulted in an incomprehensible mess of an image and frequent needs for eye breaks.

So once again a choice is ideal, because not everyone seems to have the problems I do. But it bums me out when I don’t even want to bother seeing a 3D only movie.

By: rus in chicago

rus in chicago — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:48:31 +0000

I want to read the whole interview but a couple things strike me. 1) he is only addressing his workflow / and style – he conveniently doesn’t mention his preference for practical sets and effects. That is a huge reason DI has come along; the flexibility it allows in the digital compositing world we live in. (Im not against Nolan holding a torch for practical in-camera workflow, just calling him out on his debate) He has the luxury of film, but weather he likes it or not, digital has democratized the filmmaking world. I had a film fund project fall in on itself when I didn’t win the grant and saw how film / processing was just to much to handle.
2. I actually am the type that hates the big canvas. I want to be able to enjoy the entire composition and details. Nolan’s IMAX love is just to much of a good thing. Its ok once in awhile, but closer to the standard…come on, we have a ticket budget here!

By: 1138sw

1138sw — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:43:29 +0000

I think digital film making is great for aspiring film makers. Convenience, cost and production workflow are just so much simpler for the aspiring film maker. If you’ve ever tried to replace a film cartridge in a film changing bag, making sure your slots and loops are all all lined up correctly…doing this mind you without seeing it, just going completely blind, with the added pressure of the director and Cinematographer on your back to get it done ASAP…well it makes one appreciate SD cards and SSD drives.

But I do see Nolan’s point in terms of pure aesthetics. Digital has come a long way for sure…but you can still see in certain uses that it’s digital and that can be jarring in a movie and really ruin an experience. Examples are are Michael Manns’s Miami Vice and Public enemies where you can see that some scenes are just totally video. It can really takes you out of a movie. Like I said Digital has come a long way in achieving that film aesthetic, but it still has some ways to go.

ISO, though improving, is another problem with digital. And though like I said it has improved, still cannot match the pure aesthetic sensitivity of film in really dark scenes. Film just has the ability to capture texture and depth in almost complete darkness. Video can’t do that totally yet without crushing blacks, eliminating detail.

As for 3-D I whole heartily agree with Nolan on this one…it’s just a gimmick totally meant to make money. Until you can do away with the stupid glasses that you wear you can count me out on spending the $16.00 -$18.00 to see a really meaningless experience. For god sakes I already wear glasses! Why do I want to wear another pair on top of my already existing pair!?

By: Maopheus

Maopheus — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:15:39 +0000

In addition, I don’t think Nolan dislikes 3-D in and of itself. I think every filmmaker wants the most effective and creative tools at their disposal to tell their story to the filmgoer. Therefore, Nolan would be foolish not to use 3-D if it fit that criteria. I just don’t think he thinks it’s there yet. I can sympathize with his opinion because there are too many different formats in terms of capturing, processing, and projecting. If 3-D were as straight-forward as 2-D is, then it would not be an issue. In fact, he would be using it right now.
But what he is protesting against is the pressure from the studios to do everything in digital and/or 3-D simply because it’s the hot thing and not because it’s better creatively, technically and financially. Nolan is not a Luddite. He’s not talking about going back to the days of Technicolor and editing film by actually cutting it with a knife. He’s a purist, which means he embraces and uses technology and efficient processes just like anyone but won’t do it simply because it’s the new hot thing. He will do it only because he feels it helps him tell the story as best as he can. His comments about CGI weren’t excerpted here but it’s the same idea. CGI is great, but don’t overuse it. He doesn’t want to use CGI to completely animated a scene. He will first photograph the scene practically and then use CGI to enhance and embellish. Given this stance, I wonder how the blowing up the football field scene in TDKR will end up looking.

By: Maopheus

Maopheus — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:37:41 +0000

I read the whole interview and it’s very interesting. At least Nolan is reasonable and intelligent in providing his position on why he favors film. He sees that digital has some benefit, and he can weigh the pro’s and con’s as opposed to simply saying film is better and that’s the end of it. I think it is too early to tell the true cost advantage of digital over film. The manufacturers will of course claim there is one as well as its adherents. I think they’re just as exaggerated as Nolan (and other film purists) in their claims that digital does not have a cost advantage. I think it’s all about where you are looking. For example, use the conversion from film-based photography to digital. You save money on buying film, developing it, printing, etc. But then you have to spend money on buying a new digital camera, appropriate storage media, etc. Also, to get your digital photos printed, you probably end up spending more than going to a lab. If you do it at home, you have to buy a printer, paper, and ink. With film, you had to be economical, you had to pick and choose the right time and spot. But of course, you never knew how the picture and you probably ended up with a lot of duds, whether it be over-exposure, under-exposure, a thumb over the lense, whatever. But now you can take many more photos, effectively infinitely many more, so you spend a lot more time managing the pictures with photo editing software. So in the end, I bet that if time and money could be expressed as one number, there is no difference between the two.
I believe his opinion about 3-D. And the main reason being that 3-D is an illusory process regardless of whether the images are captured natively or converted post-production. It’s still essentially an artistic decision as opposed to scientific on how the actual 3-D is being presented to the viewer. He is right that it works great for the single viewer or limited group. In that way, 3-D TV might actually be more effective than in the cinema. It’s impossible to give every viewer in a cinema the exact same experience when you’re essentially dealing with a 2-D image that is being tricked-up to appear 3-D. Not until we can develop some kind of holographic process will true 3-D exist.