4 ms·

With a few notable exceptions (James Cameron) the film industry is largely unconcerned with "possibility." I think this is often why there is such a big misunde

With a few notable exceptions (James Cameron) the film industry is largely unconcerned with "possibility." I think this is often why there is such a big misunderstanding from tech folks about how movies are made, since tech is very feature and tool driven whereas filmmaking is very much process-driven. The Odyssey was shot on IMAX cameras half the size of a car that weighed 400lbs. It's easy to call that out as being ridiculous, surely a much smaller camera system could have achieved 99% the same results, etc. but that totally misses the point. Nolan could have shot it on anything he wanted, and he chose the less convenient way, because that is his process. If he was forced to use a more reasonable camera, it would not have been a Christopher Nolan film. Sure, I'm down with that mix of generation + animation + mocap workflow. But at some point, people will going to look around at all the equipment, the people in mocap suits, the thousands of hours of generation and the millions of dollars of compute, and just wonder...wouldn't it be easier to just film someone with a real camera?

robocat 2mo ago
> half the size of a car that weighed 400lbs Link please - saw nothing like that from a quick search
- andyfilms1 2mo ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/1p2exyx/check_out_the_imax_setup_on_the_odyssey_featuring/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/1p2exyx/che...
iusewindows 2mo ago
Nolan is irrelevant. He is the last of a dying breed. Once him and his ilk are gone, studios will go 100% into AI slop, Oscars be damned. No company is funneling 200 million into risky Oscar bait when they can make one hour Tiktok equivalents and get higher ROI. Movie theaters as a whole might go the Blockbuster route in a decade or two. The younger generations are not supporting the film industry with their eyeballs or dollars. Someone else already replied to you politely explaining this from another angle, but for some reason you not to engage with him.
- the_af 2mo ago
  > Nolan is irrelevant Irrelevant to whom? He's not irrelevant to me and many movie fans. Also, you are lecturing someone who seems to actually work or has worked on the movie industry.
  - iusewindows 2mo ago
    He is irrelevant to future trends, as should be clear from basic reading comprehension. And so what...? Tens of thousands of people, probably more, have worked in film. Each one of these is immune to criticism and an accurate futurist? My point remains, he engaged with every early comment except the polite one from xp84, which lays out the same general issue already.
    - the_af 2mo ago
      How do you know Nolan is irrelevant to future trends? What's your expertise? Your point most definitely does not remain. You're arguing with someone who knows his/her stuff. Your claim, which comes from no experience, directly contradicts what someone who works in the industry is telling you how it actually works!
adolph 2mo ago
> Nolan could have shot it on anything he wanted, and he chose the less convenient way, because that is his process. Kinda. There are also interesting technical reasons. From my lay person understanding: 1. IMAX film is physically larger and creates a higher quality image 2. Because of the size and machine noise close up dialog is normally redubbed. 3. Nolan (and team?) came up with a method of sealing off the cameras' noise that made them even larger, so they had a system of mirrors that allowed the actors to interact in a more natural way and allowed close in capture by IMAX with integrated sound. The system of mirrors reminds me of Errol Morris' Interrotron which allowed him to film an interviewee's face directly from the perspective of the interviewer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrotron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrotron
- protocolture 2mo ago
  I swear I watched a 1930s hollywood film where a guy died inside the box they built to soundproof the camera.
  - DiscourseFan 2mo ago
    It was Babylon (2022), which takes place in 1930s Hollywood
    - protocolture 2mo ago
      Thats it yep.

robocat 2mo ago

> half the size of a car that weighed 400lbs Link please - saw nothing like that from a quick search

andyfilms1 2mo ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/1p2exyx/check_out_the_imax_setup_on_the_odyssey_featuring/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/1p2exyx/che...

iusewindows 2mo ago

Nolan is irrelevant. He is the last of a dying breed. Once him and his ilk are gone, studios will go 100% into AI slop, Oscars be damned. No company is funneling 200 million into risky Oscar bait when they can make one hour Tiktok equivalents and get higher ROI. Movie theaters as a whole might go the Blockbuster route in a decade or two. The younger generations are not supporting the film industry with their eyeballs or dollars. Someone else already replied to you politely explaining this from another angle, but for some reason you not to engage with him.

the_af 2mo ago
> Nolan is irrelevant Irrelevant to whom? He's not irrelevant to me and many movie fans. Also, you are lecturing someone who seems to actually work or has worked on the movie industry.
- iusewindows 2mo ago
  He is irrelevant to future trends, as should be clear from basic reading comprehension. And so what...? Tens of thousands of people, probably more, have worked in film. Each one of these is immune to criticism and an accurate futurist? My point remains, he engaged with every early comment except the polite one from xp84, which lays out the same general issue already.
  - the_af 2mo ago
    How do you know Nolan is irrelevant to future trends? What's your expertise? Your point most definitely does not remain. You're arguing with someone who knows his/her stuff. Your claim, which comes from no experience, directly contradicts what someone who works in the industry is telling you how it actually works!

adolph 2mo ago

> Nolan could have shot it on anything he wanted, and he chose the less convenient way, because that is his process. Kinda. There are also interesting technical reasons. From my lay person understanding: 1. IMAX film is physically larger and creates a higher quality image 2. Because of the size and machine noise close up dialog is normally redubbed. 3. Nolan (and team?) came up with a method of sealing off the cameras' noise that made them even larger, so they had a system of mirrors that allowed the actors to interact in a more natural way and allowed close in capture by IMAX with integrated sound. The system of mirrors reminds me of Errol Morris' Interrotron which allowed him to film an interviewee's face directly from the perspective of the interviewer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrotron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrotron

protocolture 2mo ago
I swear I watched a 1930s hollywood film where a guy died inside the box they built to soundproof the camera.
- DiscourseFan 2mo ago
  It was Babylon (2022), which takes place in 1930s Hollywood
  - protocolture 2mo ago
    Thats it yep.