The Dark Knight

[K Borowski]

So you are suggesting they trade a semi-automated workflow for one that requires scanning and manual data entry across MILLIONS of images, even though you couldn't spot the difference in the end result?

 

I'm sorry Ruairi, but did you read *any* of my post? I'm suggesting that film-origination can also have a high degree of automation with data backs.

 

And do you think they still hand-crank film scanners? :blink:

[Ruairi Robinson]

I'm sorry Ruairi, but did you read *any* of my post? I'm suggesting that film-origination can also have a high degree of automation with data backs.

 

Not when compared with a digital workflow. I think Scott already answered all of your points pretty succinctly.

 

You're technically correct that one could shoot millions of individual frames on VistaVision, but the on-set workflow would be extremely clumsy, especially when you've only got a 5-10 minute window in many cases to get the proper light. And the post workflow would be absurd and painful. It's very easy for you to say "well they've got the budget to do it all on film" but when you're actually doing it and you start putting all of the pieces together it's a different story. It's not only the costs of the film, it's also the costs of a slower on-set and post workflow. If they had skipped the dSLRs and just shot everything on VistaVision, our unit would probably have had to double or triple our shooting schedule, even with multiple cameras. And in post, DNeg has tools that can auto-stitch HDR panoramas. The time to scan millions of frames and tag them individually with their required metadata would add up there as well.

[K Borowski]

Not when compared with a digital workflow. I think Scott already answered all of your points pretty succinctly.

 

So how does IMAX compare to third generation DSLRs in terms of efficiency? As I have stated many times in the past, I couldn't care less about efficiency if it affects the quality of the product in any way.

[Ruairi Robinson]

So how does IMAX compare to third generation DSLRs in terms of efficiency? As I have stated many times in the past, I couldn't care less about efficiency if it affects the quality of the product in any way.

 

But... as you have already stated, you couldn't tell the difference yourself, so what are you even arguing the point for?

 

Visual effects companies have to care about efficiency, because they work to shrinking budgets, and ridiculous deadlines. If they can save time and money on something the audience WON'T NOTICE, then they will.

 

Shooting key scenes in IMAX is something everyone that sees in Imax will notice. At the two Imax screenings I saw, people were gasping at the first shot. At the two 35mm screenings I saw, they were not.

 

This is a very silly non-argument.

 

R.

[K Borowski]

This is a very silly non-argument.

 

So why are you arguing it with me then?

 

Here's how my priority system works:

 

 

1. Quality

 

2. Efficiency

 

3. Cost

 

 

Any other workflow is a compromise and is a disappointment.

 

And it *did* work for the Matrix, why do you suggest that it wouldn't or couldn't work for "The Dark Knight" which had a higher budget?

[Scott Fritzshall]

So why are you arguing it with me then?

 

Here's how my priority system works:

 

 

1. Quality

 

2. Efficiency

 

3. Cost

 

 

Any other workflow is a compromise and is a disappointment.

Cool well have fun with that when it's someone else's money. If you can actually make films [again, with other people footing the bill and expecting to get their money back] with that attitude, then consider yourself pretty darn lucky. The reality of the business, however- and I know that you know this- is that it rarely works out that way.

 

And it *did* work for the Matrix, why do you suggest that it wouldn't or couldn't work for "The Dark Knight" which had a higher budget?

The Matrix was different in many very important ways from TDK. Their stills photography, if I'm remembering it correctly, was used for the bullet-time sequences and for photogrammetric recreation of some buildings for envirionments. I'm pretty sure that they used film SLRs for the bullet-time because the film was made starting in 1997 and released in 1999, and according to wikipedia, the first dSLRs that really started to compete with and replace film were released in 1999, and Canon didn't release their 1D until 2 years after that. Bullet-time arrays in particular are actually a perfect example where workflow and useability will absolutely trump image quality. The ability to automatically assemble and preview what you just shot while still on-set means that you know exactly how the timing and every detail are working out, while you still have time to make changes. With film SLRs you would need to process and scan rolls of film from like a hundred cameras and then assemble it all.

 

I have very little doubt that had dSLRs been seen as a viable, mature alternative in 1998, that they would have chosen to use them for the bullet-time arrays. Especially now, as the quality gap between digital and film shortens, there's basically no reason for anyone to use film SLRs for this particular purpose. Oh and also the film SLRs they used weren't pin-registered, so the resulting moving image needed a lot of work to look proper.

 

As far as the photogrammetry work in The Matrix, my understanding is that it was used to create the environments during the bullet-time shots. I just did a quick search, and found this article: http://www.debevec.org/Items/SoftImage1999/ which claims that the subway environment was created out of 12 photographs. This suggests that they took several orders of magnitude fewer pictures for the entire film, which obviously has a massive impact on how their workflow is going to be structured and prioritized.

 

So yeah, very very different needs and very very different approaches.

[K Borowski]

The Matrix was different in many very important ways from TDK. Their stills photography, if I'm remembering it correctly, was used for the bullet-time sequences and for photogrammetric recreation of some buildings for envirionments. I'm pretty sure that they used film SLRs for the bullet-time because the film was made starting in 1997 and released in 1999, and according to wikipedia, the first dSLRs that really started to compete with and replace film were released in 1999, and Canon didn't release their 1D until 2 years after that. Bullet-time arrays in particular are actually a perfect example where workflow and useability will absolutely trump image quality. The ability to automatically assemble and preview what you just shot while still on-set means that you know exactly how the timing and every detail are working out, while you still have time to make changes. With film SLRs you would need to process and scan rolls of film from like a hundred cameras and then assemble it all.

 

Scott, this was for the third Matrix film, shot in '02. I've always been told that the cost of film is miniscule compared to other things, like crew costs, rental costs, and other costs. Again, are you saying that "Dark Knight" didn't have money for 35mm, when they could afford to shoot IMAX? I can't accept that. Nor can I accept the fact that, shooting HDR with a mark 3 DSLR, you can cram more than 8,000 images into a single camera memory card.

[Scott Fritzshall]

Scott, this was for the third Matrix film, shot in '02. I've always been told that the cost of film is miniscule compared to other things, like crew costs, rental costs, and other costs. Again, are you saying that "Dark Knight" didn't have money for 35mm, when they could afford to shoot IMAX? I can't accept that. Nor can I accept the fact that, shooting HDR with a mark 3 DSLR, you can cram more than 8,000 images into a single camera memory card.

Ok I just went back and re-read your post when you brought up The Matrix, and I'm pretty sure you're referring to them shooting millions of feet of motion picture stock on high-speed cameras, correct? I don't know whether or for what they used SLRs on that film, but if they did it wasn't for bullet-time since at that point it was totally CG. Again, they were doing completely different things with visual effects on that film.

 

And to be perfectly frank, it doesn't really matter whether you accept it. The fact is that a film with an enormous budget, some of the highest quality imagery on screen this year, and a team of some of the best VFX people in the world integrated dSLR photography with IMAX footage under incredibly demanding circumstances, and absolutely no one, including yourself and including trained VFX artists, can point out what was derived from what.

 

So if you want to keep whining about it, you can PM me and I'll give you Paul Franklin's email address. That way you can complain to him instead of me about his "cost-cutting, image-quality-reducing" techniques, and assure him that when you hire Double Negative to do visual effects for your film, you won't allow him to use dSLRs.

[K Borowski]

Ok I just went back and re-read your post when you brought up The Matrix, and I'm pretty sure you're referring to them shooting millions of feet of motion picture stock on high-speed cameras, correct? I don't know whether or for what they used SLRs on that film, but if they did it wasn't for bullet-time since at that point it was totally CG. Again, they were doing completely different things with visual effects on that film.

 

And to be perfectly frank, it doesn't really matter whether you accept it. The fact is that a film with an enormous budget, some of the highest quality imagery on screen this year, and a team of some of the best VFX people in the world integrated dSLR photography with IMAX footage under incredibly demanding circumstances, and absolutely no one, including yourself and including trained VFX artists, can point out what was derived from what.

 

So if you want to keep whining about it, you can PM me and I'll give you Paul Franklin's email address. That way you can complain to him instead of me about his "cost-cutting, image-quality-reducing" techniques, and assure him that when you hire Double Negative to do visual effects for your film, you won't allow him to use dSLRs.

 

I don't quite understand why you are angered by my post. It's a statement of fact.

 

No, they didn't shoot millions of feet for stills, but they did shoot background plates, and what I understand is that it was entirely with Vistavision. I guess I need to find that article.

 

But I know their use of film had nothing to do with good DSLRs being unavailable, because they were at that time.

 

All I am arguing is that film *could* have been used just as efficiently, and I cited a movie that proves my point.

 

So what the hell is the problem?

 

And don't be sarcastic about my using Vistavision for my next film. You know damned well that it'll be a minor miracle to have a 200,000 dollar budget on my next film, let alone 200 million.

 

So does not having a $200 mil. budget somehow negative my qualifications to spit out information I read in The ASC magazine? Does not having $200 million to throw around make me a rank amateur?

 

Oh, and BTW, out of focus DSLR-originated background plates not being noticed for what they are really proves that they are as good as 35mm-8perf., also shot out of focus, so congratulations on acomplishing this amazing feat. It is a real triumph for electronic filmmaking. . .

Edited July 29, 2008 by Karl Borowski

[Scott Fritzshall]

All I am arguing is that film *could* have been used just as efficiently, and I cited a movie that proves my point.

No, it couldn't have, as I already explained. It would have taken several times as long to capture as much data as they needed. It would have been significantly more expensive and significantly slower.

 

And don't be sarcastic about my using Vistavision for my next film. You know damned well that it'll be a minor miracle to have a 200,000 dollar budget on my next film, let alone 200 million.

And if you need visual effects and you VFX Sup shows up with a dSLR to shoot elements, are you going to insist that he spend part of that $200k to use film instead?

 

So does not having a $200 mil. budget somehow negative my qualifications to spit out information I read in The ASC magazine? Does not having $200 million to throw around make me a rank amateur?

No, but you obviously lack visual effects knowledge and seem determined to continue this incredibly pedantic and silly argument. I was trying to be helpful but I'm realizing that you're really just trolling so I'm kind of irritated at myself for having continued this conversation.

 

Oh, and BTW, out of focus DSLR-originated background plates not being noticed for what they are really proves that they are as good as 35mm-8perf., also shot out of focus, so congratulations on acomplishing this amazing feat. It is a real triumph for electronic filmmaking. . .

Now that's some good trolling.

[Ruairi Robinson]

Forget it Scott, it's Borowskytown.

[Robert Houllahan]

Forget it Scott, it's Borowskytown.

 

 

Saw it in all it's IMAX beauty I certainly couldn't pick out any plates and I would think that nighttime sodium-ish shots are easier to get away with the pic looks f**king great saw the buzzy focus on ledger did not really mind so much, intentional? or was he just too into the role to follow? thought that some bat-bike imax shots were a little softer than others like the hong kong night shots, not much to pick at a vfx masterpiece. Really love the imax.

 

-Rob-

[Max Jacoby]

I saw the film today and was very impressed by the overall sharpness. Not just the IMAX scenes (although they stoodd out), but also the 35mm anamorphic looked incredibly crisp. The projection was top notch too, easily one of the sharpest films I've ever seen.

 

Unfortunately the film itself is not very good and waaaaay too long.

[Ruairi Robinson]

I saw the film today and was very impressed by the overall sharpness. Not just the IMAX scenes (although they stoodd out), but also the 35mm anamorphic looked incredibly crisp. The projection was top notch too, easily one of the sharpest films I've ever seen.

 

Unfortunately the film itself is not very good and waaaaay too long.

 

 

If you think this movie was bad, here's a quick reminder of how far we've come.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJWpmPGCR1c

 

R.

[Max Jacoby]

But we still got a long way to go.

[Ruairi Robinson]

But we still got a long way to go.

 

 

Where?

[Leo Anthony Vale]

If you think this movie was bad, here's a quick reminder of how far we've come.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJWpmPGCR1c

 

That definitely reminds me Joel Schmacher began his career decorating depatrment store holiday windows.

[Robert Houllahan]

How many more comic book movies can they make? probably allot....

 

-Rob-

[Ayz Waraich]

But we still got a long way to go.

 

What are you talking about? That Batman has a long way to go after Dark Knight before its good? Or that it simply will never be good? or that you're too cool for school?

 

Very curious.

[K Borowski]

How many more comic book movies can they make? probably allot....

 

-Rob-

 

How many more comic books can they draw? Different questions, same answer. . .

[Justin Hayward]

What are you talking about? that you're too cool for school?

 

No, Max just holds Hollywood to a higher standard than he probably should.

 

I liked the movie a lot, but I was thrown a bit by the reviews. They compared it to some very realistic and complex movies, so I assumed going in that this would be more than a comic book movie... almost a guy in a bat suit set in the real, real, world. I found out I was wrong right away. This is a comic book movie.

 

I saw it again with that in mind and really liked it. It's certainly the best comic book movie I've ever seen and I generally don't like comic book movies, so I guess that's saying something.

 

What made me sad was watching Hong Kong make Chicago look like an ancient American wasteland as I live in Chicago.

[Max Jacoby]

What's so unreasonable about expecting a film to have a story that actually works and characters that one can engage with? Only the Joker was interesting, yes, you need a good villain, but if your main character is a dork (who speaks with a silly voice when in drag) the whole film is let down. None of the relationships actually engage on an emotional level, one merely understands what the filmmakers wanted to bring across on an intellectual level. Take for instance the scene where Bale bumps into Eckhart and Gyllenhal at the restaurant. There is ZERO emotional connection between the actors. Watching this I know what the scene is meant to be about, but at no point do I feel it. Same goes for the opening heist, it is so boring I nearly felly asleep. Compare this to the bank robbery in Heat, which is truly edge of your seat stuff and you know that Nolan still has a long way to go before he reaches the Hollywood heights of Michael Mann.

[Timothy Ratner]

I don't get how it placed #1 movie of all time on IMDB.com

It was an awesome movie, but not THAT good.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Timothy Ratner

[Ayz Waraich]

What's so unreasonable about expecting a film to have a story that actually works and characters that one can engage with? Only the Joker was interesting, yes, you need a good villain, but if your main character is a dork (who speaks with a silly voice when in drag) the whole film is let down. None of the relationships actually engage on an emotional level, one merely understands what the filmmakers wanted to bring across on an intellectual level. Take for instance the scene where Bale bumps into Eckhart and Gyllenhal at the restaurant. There is ZERO emotional connection between the actors. Watching this I know what the scene is meant to be about, but at no point do I feel it. Same goes for the opening heist, it is so boring I nearly felly asleep. Compare this to the bank robbery in Heat, which is truly edge of your seat stuff and you know that Nolan still has a long way to go before he reaches the Hollywood heights of Michael Mann.

 

So what you're saying is that you didn't connect to any of it? That's completely reasonable, but doesn't really make the film "not work". The gazillion other people that connected to it would make a strong argument otherwise on all of the points you just made.

 

For one -- The bank heist has a completely different goal then the one in HEAT, which is the action center piece of the movie there and only resembles this one superficially. The one here is 6 minute introduction to the Joker's character, and in that its an incredibly tightly written and successful scene. At the end of it, you know all you need to know about the Joker's character and his worldview.

 

I don't even know why i'm debating, since obviously the movie didn't resonate with you, which you've admitted. But the movie itself is clearly a minor miracle of the genre, and resonating with all kinds of people as the numbers/reviews show.

 

I don't get how it placed #1 movie of all time on IMDB.com

 

It's #1 on IMDB because it's a phenomenon right now. Everyone's excited and voting. It doesn't really speak to its true place on that list. Give it time. It'll lower, and find a more reasonable spot.

[Arni Heimir]

What's so unreasonable about expecting a film to have a story that actually works and characters that one can engage with? Only the Joker was interesting, yes, you need a good villain, but if your main character is a dork (who speaks with a silly voice when in drag) the whole film is let down. None of the relationships actually engage on an emotional level, one merely understands what the filmmakers wanted to bring across on an intellectual level. Take for instance the scene where Bale bumps into Eckhart and Gyllenhal at the restaurant. There is ZERO emotional connection between the actors. Watching this I know what the scene is meant to be about, but at no point do I feel it. Same goes for the opening heist, it is so boring I nearly felly asleep. Compare this to the bank robbery in Heat, which is truly edge of your seat stuff and you know that Nolan still has a long way to go before he reaches the Hollywood heights of Michael Mann.

 

Max, I know we have an ongoing feud. But why do you bad mouth movies so much? You are entitled to your opinion, but I often find you to be a little out of touch with the general consensus.

 

I really liked The Dark Knight. Normally these movies have a fantasy element to them. But I found this movie plausible and realistic.

 

Also, I really liked this movie because I felt that the subtext was in favour of the Bush administration. The movie was in my opinion an ode to Bush-Cheney.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Arni Heimir