Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

[Riddhi2011]

Jurassic World 2 is shooting digitally on the ALEXA65, at least partially. Panavision is listed only as "Large format optics," which means lenses basically. No announcements have been made yet but at this stage (half-way through) it seems that the information cannot be wrong anymore. It seems Spielberg is no longer pushing for film as he used to.

Link - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4881806/...?ref_=tt_dt_co

I still hope they use 35mm film for the live action segments and use the ALEXA65 only for the VFX plates and Aerials. But if they go for a fully digital acquisition, I would be quite disappointed. I was really hoping that they do not stop shooting film, as film is in danger of becoming lost forever.

Christopher Nolan recently brought this issue to light while accepting the 2017 FIAF award -

https://medium.com/art-science/movin...l-bc1dac5d607f

[Wildcat2000]

But isn't digital technically superior? Film can be damaged and degrade. Digital can be damaged too if whatever it's stored on gets ruined but I don't see the issue if studios wanted to eventually go pure digital.

The way movies were always meant to be seen? Like filmmakers would have always chosen film over digital in say the 50s? (If digital was around then).

I have no idea which movies have been shot digitally and which aren't but I don't see why film is mandatory to keep using forever.

[Riddhi2011]

Digital isn't superior, no! Film has much more colour information, much more gray shades, better highlights and latitude than digital. The grain structure in film adds a texture and realism that is lacking in digital acquisition. Digital has a more flat, synthetic sheen. Film has a more organic look and feel, especially if photochemically timed.

Plus, digital is very unreliable for archival. You have to change hard drives every five years or so and keep multiple copies stored at various sites. A film negative last over 150 years with no data loss or corruption, unless intentionally damaged. This is why even digitally shot films are archived on celluloid separation masters.

There's a vault in the arctic, where data is stored on film because it can last for thousands of years. When a digital file is corrupted, it's gone forever and nothing can be retained from it. A damaged film can be recovered and remastered.

It'd be incredibly sad to see Jurassic Park go digital. As a passionate supporter of celluloid, the format that gave rise to cinema in the first place, my affair with Jurassic Park series would also more or less come to an end.

However, I know most of you wouldn't be bothered about this change and I respect that.

[Wildcat2000]

Ok it seems I struck a nerve which I didn't mean to. Like I said I don't even know what's been shot digitally and what's still filmed.

I've read some people prefer film because of what you said, grain and certain coloring. I still don't see how that's "the way movies were meant to be".

The way I see it grain was never meant to exist. It's just something that happens to occur and some like it for aesthetic reasons. It's not like it was purposely invented to go along with photography.

As for colors. I don't know. I don't think I'd ever be able to tell which is which. Editing can give you any kind of colors you want I assume.

Maybe you're right about storage but not liking the JP movies anymore just because they're digital is pretty extreme.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Wildcat2000

The way I see it grain was never meant to exist. It's just something that happens to occur and some like it for aesthetic reasons. It's not like it was purposely invented to go along with photography.

As for colors. I don't know. I don't think I'd ever be able to tell which is which. Editing can give you any kind of colors you want I assume.

Very carefully observe your vision, under sunlight, on the roof. You'll see particles floating on the wet surface of your cornea. You'll notice that when you move your eyeballs, these particles also move in the same direction. We don't see the world like digital cameras do, but like film cameras, we see an imperfect, particle/grain filled image. This is why film is more realistic for me.

As for colour, I find photochemical timed prints of stills or motion picture to be near accurate to the deeper colours I can perceive with my eyes. Digital colours have to be manipulated a lot to achieve those results and still it does not appear as good. Again, this is a personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Wildcat2000

Maybe you're right about storage but not liking the JP movies anymore just because they're digital is pretty extreme.

You are very much right. It is an extreme stance. But some of us have these apparently needless craziness with us that is very much tied with our worldview. I know its a mess but it's personal and should not affect others.

[TheCoon]

The way they're shot doesnt bother me im just glad goldbum is back Jurassic world will feel more like part of the Jurassic park franchise now instead of some weird separate thing

[Wildcat2000]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Very carefully observe your vision, under sunlight, on the roof. You'll see particles floating on the wet surface of your cornea. You'll notice that when you move your eyeballs, these particles also move in the same direction. We don't see the world like digital cameras do, but like film cameras, we see an imperfect, particle/grain filled image. This is why film is more realistic for me.

We don't see the world the way film does either. We can barely, if at all, notice what you're describing under very specific lighting.

As for colour, I find photochemical timed prints of stills or motion picture to be near accurate to the deeper colours I can perceive with my eyes. Digital colours have to be manipulated a lot to achieve those results and still it does not appear as good. Again, this is a personal opinion.

I can understand that.

You are very much right. It is an extreme stance. But some of us have these apparently needless craziness with us that is very much tied with our worldview. I know its a mess but it's personal and should not affect others.

To prefer film over digital is fine but dropping out of a whole movie franchise just because of that is absurdly petty. To each thier own.

[esteban²]

While I agree with Riddhi on 'film vs digital' completely and find his arguments solid, there's no way I'm going to skip a movie or look at it differently when it's digital.

[xbs2034]

I think it comes down more to director's choice than Spielberg as an executive producer (as it probably should). Originally, they were talking about shooting Jurassic World in 3D which would've meant digital, but when it was delayed from 2014 to 2015 they seemed to decide to shot on film and post convert. If Trevorrow (who seems to be a proponent of shooting on film) was still directing, I'd bet it would be on film, but Bayona just shot A Monster Calls digitally.

As for the differences, 10 years ago I would say there was a huge gap between film and digital. But digital cameras have constantly improved to get both higher quality and more cinematic looking, and the Alexa 65 has been used on some great looking movies. Still, I really do like the look of 35mm and 65mm film (16mm has also seemed to be used a bit more recently, but is perhaps too grainy for my tastes), and hope it remains an option for directors to use (at least for now I think it will, cause film projection of new releases is indeed very rare, but plenty of Hollywood movies are still being shot on film).

[Riddhi2011]

Guys, I am not going to skip any Jurassic Park movie. What I wanted to say is that a big part of my interest in these movies as celluloid adventures is going to wane. So, I will watch them, but knowing that the franchise that got me into cinema, into nature, painting, writing, etc and made me love film is moving away from film will have taken away that part of my interest.
All art, no matter its canvas, should be respected if worth respecting. But I have a strong attachment to film and... well, uh, there it is.

JP was the first film I ever saw in the cinema. It was the first novel I ever read, outside of my school syllabus. I fell in love with nature, animals, rainfall, because of it. I fell in love with the look of film through it (I studied the trailers, film cells, prod photographs, the history of celluloid, colour timing, processing because of JP). And then of course came Christopher Nolan, who reignited my passion for film.

J.A. Bayona had the perfect opportunity to shoot a 'Jurassic Park' film on 15/70 IMAX and create that tall aspect ratio, showing dinosaurs in their real-life sizes, at least some of them. But the Alexa65 will not allow them do it as its open gate is slightly taller than 2.20:1. Plus, unlike 65mm or 35mm film, there's nothing remarkable about Alexa footage. It looks like a cheaper digital cousin of film, nothing unique or superior.

Colin Trevorrow is shooting EP IX in standard 65mm and 15/70 film. I don't think Spielberg is mentally involved with JP anymore. I think he has just turned it over to the execs and the new directors.

Originally Posted by Wildcat2000

We don't see the world the way film does either. We can barely, if at all, notice what you're describing under very specific lighting.

You don't notice the grain either when film is running 24 frames per sec, but it has a subconscious effect of more detail and texture and grittiness.

Originally Posted by Wildcat2000

To prefer film over digital is fine but dropping out of a whole movie franchise just because of that is absurdly petty. To each thier own.

That hurt.

[Wildcat2000]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

It'd be incredibly sad to see Jurassic Park go digital. As a passionate supporter of celluloid, the format that gave rise to cinema in the first place, my affair with Jurassic Park series would also more or less come to an end.

Well this made it sound you couldn't like the movies themselves anymore just because they'd be shot digitally.

I've never made any kind of movie but I'd like to try both to see each process. Still I think I'd probably lean more towards digital for technical reasons.

Asthetics, editing and storage aside I'd like to have the clearest video currently possible which I assume digital gives you.

I don't consider myself a camera buff either. People here definitely know more about specs and stuff than me. I've just always liked high technologies.

[Trekkie313]

I don't mind shooting digitally, I just want the color timing to be respectful to real life and past movies.

Modern color-timing is way too harsh and unreal.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

I don't mind shooting digitally, I just want the color timing to be respectful to real life and past movies.

Modern color-timing is way too harsh and unreal.

Here comes another debate over teal & orange ...

[wonderer99]

I too could not care less about the format. I actually prefer the cleaner look of digital over film but that is personal choice. Many would scoff at that but there is a lot of film snobbery when it comes to 'grain' talk. A lot of blu rays have a layer of grain so thick that it becomes distracting (yes Spielberg, I am looking at you) but honestly, 9 times out of 10 I am too wrapped up in the movie to give a damn about things like film/digital. They are mere interesting footnotes after the film is done.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

I don't mind shooting digitally, I just want the color timing to be respectful to real life and past movies.

Modern color-timing is way too harsh and unreal.

And shooting on film is no guarantee of natural colors. Just look at Jurassic World.



Bayona's previous films have had stylized color palettes, but A Monster Calls has pretty natural colors. I think it just depends on the film he's making. The Orphanage has cold, desaturated colors:


The Impossible has warm colors:


And A Monster Calls has muted colors:


So far, we have no footage of JW2, but the photo he's put out looks more like A Monster Calls in terms of colors:

[levcore]

It'll be graded to look like all other modern blockbusters because that's what the studio will want.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

And shooting on film is no guarantee of natural colors. Just look at Jurassic World.



Bayona's previous films have had stylized color palettes, but A Monster Calls has pretty natural colors. I think it just depends on the film he's making. The Orphanage has cold, desaturated colors:


The Impossible has warm colors:


And A Monster Calls has muted colors:

Both 'The Orphanage' and 'The Impossible' were shot on Super 35mm film which gives a rich, sharp image as opposed to the softer but creamier look of anamorphic lens. The Orphanage in particular, has that sharp, gritty and detailed image that comes from film. While 'A Monster Calls,' which was shot on digital, looks soft (not like the creamy type of soft; just ordinary soft).

Yes Jurassic World was digitally graded. But that image still has far more sharp detail and texture than 'A Monster Calls' which was done digitally. If you compare a film shot DI image to a Digitally shot DI image, you'll be hard pressed to find a digital image as sharp as the film one.

Compare 'Independence Day 1996' (shot on super 35 film) with ID4: Resurgence 2016 (shot with digital anamorphic). If you say that Resurgence looks sharper or more crisper than the original, then I don't know what to say, truly.

Look at 'Baraka' shot on 65mm film and compare it with 'Rogue One' shot on 65mm digital and tell me which looks crisper; more detailed.

Or Compare Rogue One with 'The Hateful Eight;' both of which used the EXACT SAME LENS! See what I am talking about?

Film is still ahead of digital imaging, still! You can blow-up a 65mm film virtually to any size and the image will still stand. Try blowing up a 4K DI image of a ALEXA65 movie to even 8K and see what happens - pixellation! Film has no pixel it has grain, which obviously looks more aesthetic and acceptable than pixellation.

Sit very close to any modern 2K digital screen and you'll see pixel blocks. Watch a 35mm projection and voila - No Pixels!

I myself have studied cinematography professionally and am currently working on a documentary project (shooting digitally). I have been told by my teachers (practicing cinematographers) that film handles highlights and strong light much better than digital. In digital if you're exposing for skin, you're background might be burned. In digital here is no info on those portions anymore. But on film, detail can still be extracted from those areas.

Anyway, I add once again: this is my personal opinion. But, please go ahead and watch the IMAX film 'Rocky Mountain Express' on Blu-ray. It's a digitally graded image. But look at the image quality and detail and get back to me. Please, I'll wait for your honest feedback.

Also, do watch 'Lawrence of Arabia,' 'My Fair Lady' and 'The Sound of Music' and tell me whether modern ALEXA65 or RED Epic 8K shot movies look as good, as detailed as those films.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Both 'The Orphanage' and 'The Impossible' were shot on Super 35mm film which gives a rich, sharp image as opposed to the softer but creamier look of anamorphic lens. The Orphanage in particular, has that sharp, gritty and detailed image that comes from film. While 'A Monster Calls,' which was shot on digital, looks soft (not like the creamy type of soft; just ordinary soft).

I was never talking about detail, only the color grading. Every one of Bayona's films used a DI, and JW2 will be no different. All I was attempting to do was demonstrate that shooting on film is no guarantee of natural colors, and that Bayona has tweaked how he grades depending on the film, and that the only still released so far from the film looks closer to A Monster Calls.

[Visionist]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

As for colour, I find photochemical timed prints of stills or motion picture to be near accurate to the deeper colours I can perceive with my eyes. Digital colours have to be manipulated a lot to achieve those results and still it does not appear as good. Again, this is a personal opinion.

I'll vouch for this; nothing and I mean nothing has ever approached the verisimilitude of TDK & TDKR in 15/70mm, both of which were also chemically graded rather than digitally I believe. It was staggering; folks were gasping out loud in the IMAX. Such a difference to the "usual cinema look"- everything seemed 100% real.

Edit: that this affect is achieved with the traditional 24FPS, whereas 48FPS instead looks "fake", is very interesting.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Both 'The Orphanage' and 'The Impossible' were shot on Super 35mm film which gives a rich, sharp image as opposed to the softer but creamier look of anamorphic lens. The Orphanage in particular, has that sharp, gritty and detailed image that comes from film. While 'A Monster Calls,' which was shot on digital, looks soft (not like the creamy type of soft; just ordinary soft).

Yes Jurassic World was digitally graded. But that image still has far more sharp detail and texture than 'A Monster Calls' which was done digitally. If you compare a film shot DI image to a Digitally shot DI image, you'll be hard pressed to find a digital image as sharp as the film one.

Compare 'Independence Day 1996' (shot on super 35 film) with ID4: Resurgence 2016 (shot with digital anamorphic). If you say that Resurgence looks sharper or more crisper than the original, then I don't know what to say, truly.

Look at 'Baraka' shot on 65mm film and compare it with 'Rogue One' shot on 65mm digital and tell me which looks crisper; more detailed.

Or Compare Rogue One with 'The Hateful Eight;' both of which used the EXACT SAME LENS! See what I am talking about?

Film is still ahead of digital imaging, still! You can blow-up a 65mm film virtually to any size and the image will still stand. Try blowing up a 4K DI image of a ALEXA65 movie to even 8K and see what happens - pixellation! Film has no pixel it has grain, which obviously looks more aesthetic and acceptable than pixellation.

Sit very close to any modern 2K digital screen and you'll see pixel blocks. Watch a 35mm projection and voila - No Pixels!

I myself have studied cinematography professionally and am currently working on a documentary project (shooting digitally). I have been told by my teachers (practicing cinematographers) that film handles highlights and strong light much better than digital. In digital if you're exposing for skin, you're background might be burned. In digital here is no info on those portions anymore. But on film, detail can still be extracted from those areas.

Anyway, I add once again: this is my personal opinion. But, please go ahead and watch the IMAX film 'Rocky Mountain Express' on Blu-ray. It's a digitally graded image. But look at the image quality and detail and get back to me. Please, I'll wait for your honest feedback.

Also, do watch 'Lawrence of Arabia,' 'My Fair Lady' and 'The Sound of Music' and tell me whether modern ALEXA65 or RED Epic 8K shot movies look as good, as detailed as those films.

Wow, thanks. Fascinating and informative post. I wish I knew more about this stuff. Can you suggest a good book for someone like me who is pretty uninformed when it comes down to it?