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

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Shailene Woodley was recently announced as Mara Jade, but fan backlash quickly made them reconsider the role. Now they're looking at Kirsten Dunst...

since when does fan backlash matter? think of all the actors that wouldn't have done certian roles that they are not famous for if the studios listened to fans. If they are doing proper casting and not just going with the flavor of the month, I think they should ignore the fans to a large degree. if they are just casting the flavor of the month, then they obviously don't care about the movie anyways other than how much money it will make them.

[Falaskan]

Can that Alex Pystifer guy act? If he's not another Hayden Christensen I can deal with his shallow looks.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

both those actresses kinda suck. How can they even do Mara Jade as a younger actress and still have the character be a romantic lead for Mark Hamill. No way they do something like that.

A dumpy guy in his sixties hooking up with a hot twenty-something?

Don't see the problem.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

True. Transformers 4 will be the first film to use the IMAX digital 8K camera, and even then it is only for select sequences.

8K or 4K?
"Born to be Wild" had brief segments of the documentary shot in 4K 3D. It was a Phantom Gold 65 Digital 4K 3D camera and back then it was a prototype. Supposingly, this will be the same camera Michael Bay is shooting his "showcase" scenes.

Not much else is known. Perhaps he has access to a new camera that does shoot 8K 3D. Although I highly doubt so.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by Natty

Umm...guys...

If it happened I'd be excited. On the other hand, maybe someone else should get a chance to be a bad ass? Then again, guys play one hero after another. No reason Chloe can't.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by BozQ

8K or 4K?
"Born to be Wild" had brief segments of the documentary shot in 4K 3D. It was a Phantom Gold 65 Digital 4K 3D camera and back then it was a prototype. Supposingly, this will be the same camera Michael Bay is shooting his "showcase" scenes.

Not much else is known. Perhaps he has access to a new camera that does shoot 8K 3D. Although I highly doubt so.

8K.

http://www.hfrmovies.com/2013/04/17/...-imax-cameras/

edit: Hmmm... after a bit more clicking around the net, I can't find anything else that confirms this camera is 8K, the only thing that suggests it is Bay's unintelligent rambling in the link I posted, where he also uses the word "zigabyte".

[Racy Lacy]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Shailene Woodley was recently announced as Mara Jade, but fan backlash quickly made them reconsider the role. Now they're looking at Kirsten Dunst...

Bahahahaaaa nice one. Yer funny!

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

8K.

http://www.hfrmovies.com/2013/04/17/...-imax-cameras/

edit: Hmmm... after a bit more clicking around the net, I can't find anything else that confirms this camera is 8K, the only thing that suggests it is Bay's unintelligent rambling in the link I posted, where he also uses the word "zigabyte".

I've seen the actual video interview itself.
It's pretty much what you read from the link there.

He doesn't know much at this point. Only that IMAX has asked him to shoot with the new cameras.
The only thing I know is the last (and so far, only) "Digital IMAX 3D" is used in some short segments for "Born to be Wild 3D".

http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/05/...imax-3d-shoot/
It uses two Phantom 65 digital cameras, with a 3D rig and customized IMAX optics. Each camera shooting 4K. So I'm assuming TF4 should be using the same set up. That and I don't think there's a camera that shoots 8K digital at the moment, even in 2D. Let alone 8K 3D.

[42041]

Sony's F65 can shoot 8k with a firmware update. But that's very new.

[BozQ]

I just briefly searched the net. Apparently, it's a paid firmware update. But not sure if it's available yet. With it, the camera can shoot in 8K x 4K resolution. Very impressive.

[Ben_UK]

I really am not a fan of digital cameras. When I first saw Collateral, I had no real idea why the film looked so blurry when the camera moved. Then I learned that it was shot on digital. I then had the misfortune to watch Public Enemies, and whilst the film itself is pretty good, the actual film in terms of the visuals were awful. Loads of blurring on movement, ugly looking digital grain, just terrible. Public Enemies is one ugly looking film. I found it rather hard to accept from Michael Mann, a filmmaker who's previous 35mm work I have really liked, and looked GOOD!

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

I really am not a fan of digital cameras. When I first saw Collateral, I had no real idea why the film looked so blurry when the camera moved. Then I learned that it was shot on digital. I then had the misfortune to watch Public Enemies, and whilst the film itself is pretty good, the actual film in terms of the visuals were awful. Loads of blurring on movement, ugly looking digital grain, just terrible. Public Enemies is one ugly looking film. I found it rather hard to accept from Michael Mann, a filmmaker who's previous 35mm work I have really liked, and looked GOOD!

Digital cameras that are used now are much better than what Michael Mann used on Collateral and Public Enemies. Plus Mann actually wanted to make the film have that digital camera look to give his films an immedicay and documentary like feel. I'm also glad that film is being used for the new Star Wars film (since visually it's still the superior format), but if they would've went with something like the Arri Alexa, or one of the even better cameras coming down the pipeline I would've been okay with that since that stuff is preaty much on par with 35 mm film.

I actually liked the digital look Mann used on Collateral and Miami Vice, but I didn't like it for Public Enemies. That film would've benefited from being shot on film, because no matter what work went into the art and set direction, it was hard to get immersed in the film, and felt like actors playing dress up.

[TDSOTM]

This is a high budget film. They should've gone with 70mm.

[double_l4488]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

This is a high budget film. They should've gone with 70mm.

The Master, was shot on 70mm, but that pretty much never happens anymore. I think its very likely a lot of this movie could be shot on IMAX, 65mm.

[RyanPom]

Originally Posted by double_l4488

The Master, was shot on 70mm, but that pretty much never happens anymore. I think its very likely a lot of this movie could be shot on IMAX, 65mm.

You can't shoot a 2 hour movie on IMAX cameras because the cameras are so huge and bulky. That's why you only get some of the movie shot with IMAX. You can DNR it so it's shown in IMAX theaters. The Master was shot on 65mm and then blown up to 70mm.

[Monolithium]

Originally Posted by 42041

Sony's F65 can shoot 8k with a firmware update. But that's very new.

But the firmware update might brick the camera.

[RyanPom]

Originally Posted by Monolithium

But the firmware update might brick the camera.

They'll probably shoot it in 35, but shoot all the visual effects scenes with the Red Camera and then just blend it all in.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

This is a high budget film. They should've gone with 70mm.

That would be a dream come true. But Disney seems to be cautious with their production budgets now. Iron Man 3 had a significantly lower budget, so much so that the visual effects and sound post production is no longer done by ILM and Skywalker Sound. And I believe a large part of the budget went to Robert Downey Jr's salary.

Originally Posted by RyanPom

You can't shoot a 2 hour movie on IMAX cameras because the cameras are so huge and bulky. That's why you only get some of the movie shot with IMAX. You can DNR it so it's shown in IMAX theaters. The Master was shot on 65mm and then blown up to 70mm.

With proper planning and a reasonable budget, shooting a feature length movie entirely in IMAX is possible. But at the current rate pre-production is going, I don't think they have the time to do even 65mm.

And 65mm and 70mm are the same film stock. The 5mm difference is the existence of the optical soundtrack on the film strip itself for projection. There's no "blowup" from 65mm to 70mm.

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by BozQ

That would be a dream come true. But Disney seems to be cautious with their production budgets now. Iron Man 3 had a significantly lower budget, so much so that the visual effects and sound post production is no longer done by ILM and Skywalker Sound. And I believe a large part of the budget went to Robert Downey Jr's salary.

Well, Iron Man 3 had a 200 million budget, which isn't too shabby.

[RyanPom]

I don't think Disney has to be worried about production budgets when everything will be done in house from Lucasfilm.