Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (USE SPOILER TAGS!)

[Roonan]

I really don't get the importance of Episode VII being shot on film, let alone be in the title of the thread...

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by Roonan

I really don't get the importance of Episode VII being shot on film, let alone be in the title of the thread...

Well considering if it was up to Lucas I would assume it would be digital, probably another way to say Lucas isn't in charge anymore if we didn't already know.

[octagon]

I'm a 'purist' in that I love the look of film but digital cameras have gotten very good at mimicing the look and feel of film.

Since we're talking about this, I highly recommend the documentary Side by Side. I'm interested in the subject and figured it would be okayish and (host/interviewer) Keanu would be tolerable but the whole was really good.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Roonan

I really don't get the importance of Episode VII being shot on film, let alone be in the title of the thread...

It's interesting news (particularly considering how little actual news there is this far out) but yeah, putting it in the thread title is a little odd.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by octagon

I'm a 'purist' in that I love the look of film but digital cameras have gotten very good at mimicing the look and feel of film.

Since we're talking about this, I highly recommend the documentary Side by Side. I'm interested in the subject and figured it would be okayish and (host/interviewer) Keanu would be tolerable but the whole was really good.

I watched Side By Side, but really it was way too one sided. I think there will be a time when digital is better than film, but we are not there yet. Soderbergh films shot on 35mm compared to his Red shot films, come on, no contest, the 35mm stuff wins out. Out of Sight, Traffic, The Limey, Solaris, The Oceans movies all look better then The Informant, Haywire, Contagion, and Side Effects that all basically look like made for TV fare.

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I watched Side By Side, but really it was way too one sided. I think there will be a time when digital is better than film, but we are not there yet. Soderbergh films shot on 35mm compared to his Red shot films, come on, no contest, the 35mm stuff wins out. Out of Sight, Traffic, The Limey, Solaris, The Oceans movies all look better then The Informant, Haywire, Contagion, and Side Effects that all basically look like made for TV fare.

Which side do you think it skewed to then. Cause I thought it was excellent but didnt really them siding more towards one way or another.
There may be some sadness when some speak of what you will lose when goind digital but both sides make interesting cases and points.

[TDSOTM]

Arri Alexa is every bit as good as any 35mm camera.

[42041]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Soderbergh films shot on 35mm compared to his Red shot films, come on, no contest, the 35mm stuff wins out. Out of Sight, Traffic, The Limey, Solaris, The Oceans movies all look better then The Informant, Haywire, Contagion, and Side Effects that all basically look like made for TV fare.

Soderbergh is a pretty odd case, since he DP's the films himself, and for my money, he doesn't do a particularly good job of it.

Ultimately, the camera is just a tool, and in the hands of a talented DP who knows how to use his tools it doesn't much matter if the light is captured by silicon or silver halides.

[Nerdkiller likes BD]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

Arri Alexa is every bit as good as any 35mm camera.

But it's only 2.8K. In an era when 4K is coming about, it's already doomed for any movies shot at that resolution.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Nerdkiller likes BD

But it's only 2.8K. In an era when 4K is coming about, it's already doomed for any movies shot at that resolution.

hey, still an improvement over the 1440x1080 HDCAM of Attack of the Clones

[octagon]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I watched Side By Side, but really it was way too one sided. I think there will be a time when digital is better than film, but we are not there yet. Soderbergh films shot on 35mm compared to his Red shot films, come on, no contest, the 35mm stuff wins out. Out of Sight, Traffic, The Limey, Solaris, The Oceans movies all look better then The Informant, Haywire, Contagion, and Side Effects that all basically look like made for TV fare.

What about Fincher's stuff? I haven't been in a theater in years so I'm only going based on BDs but The Social Network and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo look pretty impressive.

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

Which side do you think it skewed to then. Cause I thought it was excellent but didnt really them siding more towards one way or another.
There may be some sadness when some speak of what you will lose when goind digital but both sides make interesting cases and points.

I thought it was pretty balanced too. I could see how it might seem tilted but that's largely because the 'pro-digital' arguments are greater in number (it's cheaper, it's easier to use, it's faster, it opens access to filmmaking, you can do things digitally that can't be done on film) and take up more screen time. The pro-film argument is basically 'it looks better'.

And 'it looks better' is a perfectly valid argument and they don't shy away from letting people present it.

I was very surprised by how much I liked it.

[Nerdkiller likes BD]

Originally Posted by 42041

hey, still an improvement over the 1440x1080 HDCAM of Attack of the Clones

Wait, 1440? Wow, talk about jumping the gun, Lucas.

[Show spoiler]Episode III is still better than Episode VI and Temple of Doom is the bad Indy Jones movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwpD3USKEKw

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by Nerdkiller likes BD

But it's only 2.8K. In an era when 4K is coming about, it's already doomed for any movies shot at that resolution.

Arri's 2.8K, even if you downsample it to 2K, looks better than a 3rd of 4th generation print that you usually see in theaters.

[42041]

By the time summer of 2015 rolls around, you're not gonna be seeing any sort of print in theaters...

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by 42041

By the time summer of 2015 rolls around, you're not gonna be seeing any sort of print in theaters...

I Promise they will still show film at my local theatre. We don't even have any 3d or digital projectors at my local crappy 8 plex

Hell, we don't even have cup holders !!!!

[42041]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

I Promise they will still show film at my local theatre. We don't even have any 3d or digital projectors at my local crappy 8 plex

Hell, we don't even have cup holders !!!!

Beween the studios seeking to end 35mm distribution, Fuji exiting the motion picture business entirely, and Kodak's financial woes, it's not really in the theater's hands. I believe Fox has said they'll stop making prints by the end of 2013, other studios will likely follow.

[blonde_devil]

I think a lot of theatres are switching to digital projection anyways so it won't matter. besides, being shot on film and distributed on film are 2 different things. personally I hope that 3D does die out - saw Phantom Menace in 3D and it was very underwhelming. unless you are watching on an IMAX screen or something that is huge, you get pulled out of the 3D effect usually because you see the edges of the screen. only way it is really effective is if they use gags - throw something small like an apple right out from the centre of the screen. but in a case like Star Wars, the space battles really are not going to benefit from 3D. besides, who needs 3D lens flare?

[Elbie]

A lot of smart folks here!

[pmac]

Originally Posted by Elbie

A lot of smart folks here!

Nah.

Besides, on this forum everyone is a student/ex student of film in one way or another

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by pmac

Nah.

Besides, on this forum everyone is a student/ex student of film in one way or another

Nah dawg, nah.

Hell naw.