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

[Judex]

In Star Wars related news, cinematographer of Star Wars Gilbert Taylor has died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23808854

[Nerdkiller likes BD]

Originally Posted by Judex

In Star Wars related news, cinematographer of Star Wars Gilbert Taylor has died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23808854

What a shame. Good to know that he lived a long and fulfilling (and I should say, inspiring) life.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by rewak

Really don't get why they'd shoot something on 35mm that's going to have a crap load of digital effects added post production and then projected digitally to the vast majority of cinemas because none of them have 35mm projectors anymore. Unless they go back to the old method of in camera effects, puppets, models, etc then really, why?

You do realise that as of now something shot on 35mm that has a DP made of it and is then projected digitally still looks better than something shot digitally that has a DP made and then is digitally projected?

[Nerdkiller likes BD]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

You do realise that as of now something shot on 35mm that has a DP made of it and is then projected digitally still looks better than something shot digitally that has a DP made and then is digitally projected?

I think you mean DI, as in Digital Intermediate.

[rewak]

And have you seen Skyfall? Digital can look very much like film, if the DP is up to the task and knows what they're doing.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by Nerdkiller likes BD

I think you mean DI, as in Digital Intermediate.

Well I skipped that step, but what I was trying to get at was just because it's shot on 35mm doesn't mean having it digitally projected is bizzare when in fact it will still as of now look better then something shot under similar conditions with an Arri Alexa or Red camera.

[rewak]

Even setting any digital vs film debates aside, because we'd be here forever more, i don't see them not releasing this in 3D and like John Carter they'll need to convert it, so why not just shoot it natively? It adds time and money, shooting 35mm is more expensive and time consuming than digital as it is. Maybe they're thinking hey, we're converting every other movie to 3D, better keep a consistent look and just have all the new ones be converts as well. Which is insane logic.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Nerdkiller likes BD

Ehhh. I'll make up my own title once I rent it next month.

why bother to rent it - watch honest trailers for it on youtube instead.

not that I want to it to be 3D, but why does using film mean it won't be? you just have to use 2 camera......

[Nerdkiller likes BD]

Originally Posted by rewak

Even setting any digital vs film debates aside, because we'd be here forever more, i don't see them not releasing this in 3D and like John Carter they'll need to convert it, so why not just shoot it natively? It adds time and money, shooting 35mm is more expensive and time consuming than digital as it is. Maybe they're thinking hey, we're converting every other movie to 3D, better keep a consistent look and just have all the new ones be converts as well. Which is insane logic.

Sometimes, it isn't just the fact that film is better looking as to why they don't shoot in digital 3D. Because you also have to factor in the downsides of shooting in 3D, like not being able to use prime lenses and then the general problems, like:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Stereo post-production workflow is much more complex and not as well-established as 2D workflow, requiring more work and rendering

Professional stereoscopic rigs are much more expensive and bulky than customary monocular cameras. Some shots, particularly action scenes, can be only shot with relatively small 2D cameras.

Stereo cameras can introduce various mismatches in stereo image (such as vertical parallax, tilt, color shift, reflections and glares in different positions) that should be fixed in post-production anyway because they ruin the 3D effect. This correction sometimes may have complexity comparable to stereo conversion.

Stereo cameras can betray practical effects used during filming. For example, some scenes in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy and the Hobbit trilogy were filmed using forced perspective to allow two actors to appear to be different physical sizes. The same scene filmed in stereo would reveal that the actors were not the same distance from the camera.

By their very nature, stereo cameras have restrictions on how far the camera can be from the filmed subject and still provide acceptable stereo separation. For example, the simplest way to film a scene set on the side of a building might be to use a camera rig from across the street on a neighboring building, using a zoom lens. However, while the zoom lens would provide acceptable image quality, the stereo separation would be virtually nil over such a distance.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by rewak

Even setting any digital vs film debates aside, because we'd be here forever more, i don't see them not releasing this in 3D and like John Carter they'll need to convert it, so why not just shoot it natively? It adds time and money, shooting 35mm is more expensive and time consuming than digital as it is. Maybe they're thinking hey, we're converting every other movie to 3D, better keep a consistent look and just have all the new ones be converts as well. Which is insane logic.

Because 3-D is dying. Look up the numbers for this Summer, audiences in North America have been avoiding 3-D like the plague. Internationally it's still doing very well, but that's mostly because it's the only option.

Also if I remember correctly shoting something natively in 3-D is actually a pain in the butt for those on the actual set. My guess is that whatever concerns there may be for slowing shooting down with 35mm are multiplied when shooting native 3-D with a digital set-up.

[Nerdkiller likes BD]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

why bother to rent it - watch honest trailers for it on youtube instead.

not that I want to it to be 3D, but why does using film mean it won't be? you just have to use 2 camera......

It's pretty much an unwritten rule nowadays that if you want to shoot in 3D, you have to use digital cameras. Well...that and the fact that 3D film cameras are even more bulky than their digital counterparts.

[Kaiju]

I got all caught up in the Batman news last night that I totally forgot about this.

GREAT NEWS if you ask me. Film looks so much better than digital IMO.

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Because 3-D is dying. Look up the numbers for this Summer, audiences in North America have been avoiding 3-D like the plague. Internationally it's still doing very well, but that's mostly because it's the only option.

Also if I remember correctly shoting something natively in 3-D is actually a pain in the butt for those on the actual set. My guess is that whatever concerns there may be for slowing shooting down with 35mm are multiplied when shooting native 3-D with a digital set-up.

Really? No.

I looked up the numbers and found a few. And this isn't even considering Despicable Me 2 or Monsters, Inc.

Iron Man 3 - 45% of opening weekend tix were for 3D
Man of Steel - 42% opening weekend tix were for 3D

How is almost 50% of total tickets "dying"? It's one thing to argue a point, it's another to make up facts and figures to try and get a point across.

[42041]

Originally Posted by rewak

And have you seen Skyfall? Digital can look very much like film, if the DP is up to the task and knows what they're doing.

Skyfall looks 100% digital.

They can shoot SW VII on a HDV camcorder for all I care, if they manage to make the movie not suck.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

Really? No.

I looked up the numbers and found a few. And this isn't even considering Despicable Me 2 or Monsters, Inc.

Iron Man 3 - 45% of opening weekend tix were for 3D
Man of Steel - 42% opening weekend tix were for 3D

How is almost 50% of total tickets "dying"? It's one thing to argue a point, it's another to make up facts and figures to try and get a point across.

in my local theatre, almost all the showing of 3D movies are in 3D - they might have 1 in 2D so if you want to see the movie, you have no choice but to see it in 3D. doesn't mean it is popular, it means people just wanted to see the movie and had no choice in the matter.

[chris_sc77]

Very cool it will be shot on film. I have not loved a single Abrams film but I hope this has a strong enough script so he has something special to work with.
Really hope they have it out in May 2015.
JJ takes too long to make a movie

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

Really? No.

I looked up the numbers and found a few. And this isn't even considering Despicable Me 2 or Monsters, Inc.

Iron Man 3 - 45% of opening weekend tix were for 3D
Man of Steel - 42% opening weekend tix were for 3D

How is almost 50% of total tickets "dying"? It's one thing to argue a point, it's another to make up facts and figures to try and get a point across.

Okay I went a little overboard (but I do think this will be an ongoing trend) and I don't buy the not enough screens excuse, because in past years the numbers were much better for 3-D films.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/box-off...190657117.html

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

Really? No.

I looked up the numbers and found a few. And this isn't even considering Despicable Me 2 or Monsters, Inc.

Iron Man 3 - 45% of opening weekend tix were for 3D
Man of Steel - 42% opening weekend tix were for 3D

How is almost 50% of total tickets "dying"? It's one thing to argue a point, it's another to make up facts and figures to try and get a point across.

Do you mean to say almost half of total tickets or almost half of total revenues? Those are two different things, no?

[klauswhereareyou]

Skyfall looked very good in parts, and I'm a big fan of the Alexa camera used, but there were some scenes (like preaty much everything in London early in the movie, and some of the stuff in that bar in China) that still suffer from that what I call TV cheap video look that when you take into account the budget spent, there is no excuse for something to recall a TV show look. But yeah, overall I really do like the Alexa, and I have little doubt that the next iteration of Arri cameras will be up to film quality. The Red on the other hand, oh man, what garbage. The only person who seems to know how to use it is Fincher, and even the suff he's done with it can't match the visual quality of his stuff shot on 35mm.

[klauswhereareyou]

Here be another article on the great 2013 3-D ticket sale decline http://www.filmjunk.com/2013/07/11/d...-ticket-sales/