Star Wars: The Force Awakens (12/18/15)

[Kamandi]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Are these going to be 3D?

The film is being shot on 35mm film (just like the OT). That doesn't mean there wont be a 3D upconversion* but it does mean the native format is 2D.

* The alternative is to load two 35mm cameras side by side while filming. This has never been done on a major feature.

 

[Python]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Good to hear, thank you.

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

I hope 3D dies soon....

With thunderous applause..

 

[cokebabies]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Katzenberg needs to work on his Dreamworks face a bit more - gotta keep building that brand.

 

[Sachiel]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

The film is being shot on 35mm film (just like the OT).

and possibly IMAX (70mm).

 

[Python]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

With thunderous applause..

Oh yes!! I saw a 4k TV the other day, now that I would give my hard earned money for. Wow it was nice. Why ruin a picture like that with 3d.

 

[Rorywan]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Personaly perfer digital to film, as film tends to have an annoying grain VS a clear picture when its converted TO digital, as most theatres run digital projectors these days.

Your sad post makes me very sad.

 

[darthviper107]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

I would say that the more tendancy a director has to "clean stuff up" in post production would lead towards too much acceptance of poor shot footage. They focus on too much on the alterations and forget about getting good film.

Being able to review what you've shot allows you to try and avoid having to fix things in post.

 

[K07]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

They're obviously trying to recapture the spirit of what is so great about the old films - like real sets & practical effects. Sure - it takes more time & effort, but the end result has a ton more heart - & ART may I add, to the process.

It's a similar principle when recording music; digital as opposed to the old school analogue way. There are pros & cons to both, but the warmth & roundness you get from analogue is hard to recapture authentically using newer methods.

It's as plain as the nose on your face when you compare both trilogies. The PT looks like a ****ing video game half the time.

Digital is embraced because it's CHEAP, not because the positives outweigh the negatives. I know the pros vs cons of both. I am happy they're going with film and I don't think this debate between filmmakers or movie fans will go away anytime soon.

 

[darthviper107]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

I'm not sure of any pros to using film, it just seems like people prefer a lower quality image---people are used to poor quality and for things like CG it's all about trying to match all of those details, grain, camera shake, blur, atmospheric FX.

 

[Sachiel]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Personaly perfer digital to film, as film tends to have an annoying grain VS a clear picture when its converted TO digital, as most theatres run digital projectors these days.

Not true. Most theaters (especially worldwide) have film projectors.

Digital is embraced because it's CHEAP

Not really. It can cost just as much if not more than film.

I'm not sure of any pros to using film, it just seems like people prefer a lower quality image---people are used to poor quality and for things like CG it's all about trying to match all of those details, grain, camera shake, blur, atmospheric FX.

Film has a much higher resolution that digital and it shows more detail. It's a much truer picture than digital which is just samples. Digital is no where near what Film can do now.

Maybe you should do some actual research instead of believing the digital propaganda bull****?

 

[furystorm]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Yeah, film should still carry a higher resolution than the best (at this moment) digital camera system. Just gotta look at the size of a silver crystal I suppose. The thing I love about film is it's organic nature. Not every silver crystal is the same shape or size...

 

[K07]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Not really. It can cost just as much if not more than film.

I was in the impression digital cameras were smaller, cheaper, and easier to set up.
Perhaps it can be as or more expensive, but it can also be cheaper.

Film has a much higher resolution that digital and it shows more detail. It's a much truer picture than digital which is just samples. Digital is no where near what Film can do now.

Maybe you should do some actual research instead of believing the digital propaganda bull****?

Yup.I thought it was common knowledge that film has higher resolution than digital. Not just true for movies but photography as well.

 

[darthviper107]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Not true. Most theaters (especially worldwide) have film projectors.



Not really. It can cost just as much if not more than film.





Film has a much higher resolution that digital and it shows more detail. It's a much truer picture than digital which is just samples. Digital is no where near what Film can do now.

Maybe you should do some actual research instead of believing the digital propaganda bull****?

Maybe you should do your own research. There are widely used digital cameras that shoot higher resolution than the average film camera, almost as good as IMAX. RED in fact has one in development that has a much higher resolution than IMAX. Digital is also has less grain and very good color reproduction.

Film photography is much better, but for movies, not really.

 

[rushmore223]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Maybe you should do your own research. There are widely used digital cameras that shoot higher resolution than the average film camera, almost as good as IMAX. RED in fact has one in development that has a much higher resolution than IMAX. Digital is also has less grain and very good color reproduction.

Film photography is much better, but for movies, not really.

Film is analog so there are no real "pixels." However, based on converted measures, a 35mm frame has 3 to 12 million pixels, depending on the stock, lens, and shooting conditions. An HD frame has 2 million pixels, measured using 1920 x 1080 scan lines. With this difference, 35mm appears vastly superior to HD.

I am very familiar with RED, and they have no camera approaching the "resolution" of film.

There are other factors a well.

Motion blur - Many digital cameras suffer from a great deal of motion blur if you make quick pans, just look at the Dexters Diner scene from AOTC. Not so with film.

Range of color - Film has a much greater range of colors it can accurately pick up vs. digital cameras have to "guess" what colors are that are outside it's dynamic range.

Grain - This is wildly misunderstood, grain in analog film can be caused intentionally, by the quality of the lens and also the quality of the film stock itself. Expensive HD cameras experience grain much easier, depending mostly on levels of light and how busy the sensors are in trying to interpret data.

Black and Shadow - One area some people positively point to digital is it's ability to show a absolute blackness in an image. Though, in real life, you rarely come across absolute blackness. There are always shades of darkness, even in a very dark night. Film is much better at picking up the nuances in shadow that digital has a very hard time capturing.

The one area where digital outperforms film is in it's ability to skip the time consuming chemical processing film demands. Which is why Lucas loved it so much, it wasnt because it looked better, it was because it was easier.

Trust me, I do this for a living and own a few digital cameras that do phenomenal work and some people would kill to own. As much as I love these cameras, they arent as good as high end film gear, but they suit my needs better than a film camera could.

Digital is improving dramaticaly, right now film is better, 10 to 20 years from now might be a different story.

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Seems my points stand just fine there, DarthViper.

 

[darthviper107]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Film is analog so there are no real "pixels." However, based on converted measures, a 35mm frame has 3 to 12 million pixels, depending on the stock, lens, and shooting conditions. An HD frame has 2 million pixels, measured using 1920 x 1080 scan lines. With this difference, 35mm appears vastly superior to HD.

I am very familiar with RED, and they have no camera approaching the "resolution" of film.

There are other factors a well.

Motion blur - Many digital cameras suffer from a great deal of motion blur if you make quick pans, just look at the Dexters Diner scene from AOTC. Not so with film.

Range of color - Film has a much greater range of colors it can accurately pick up vs. digital cameras have to "guess" what colors are that are outside it's dynamic range.

Grain - This is wildly misunderstood, grain in analog film can be caused intentionally, by the quality of the lens and also the quality of the film stock itself. Expensive HD cameras experience grain much easier, depending mostly on levels of light and how busy the sensors are in trying to interpret data.

Black and Shadow - One area some people positively point to digital is it's ability to show a absolute blackness in an image. Though, in real life, you rarely come across absolute blackness. There are always shades of darkness, even in a very dark night. Film is much better at picking up the nuances in shadow that digital has a very hard time capturing.

The one area where digital outperforms film is in it's ability to skip the time consuming chemical processing film demands. Which is why Lucas loved it so much, it wasnt because it looked better, it was because it was easier.

Trust me, I do this for a living and own a few digital cameras that do phenomenal work and some people would kill to own. As much as I love these cameras, they arent as good as high end film gear, but they suit my needs better than a film camera could.

Digital is improving dramaticaly, right now film is better, 10 to 20 years from now might be a different story.

Yeah, 1080p is not at all close to film resolution---good thing that most people don't shoot at that. The average is to shoot at 2k, but the desired resolution is 4k, but digital cameras can shoot up to 6k at the moment. IMAX is around 7k-12k and the sensor that RED is working on is 16K

Motion Blur is not ever an issue with digitial, digital cameras have a greater control over speed. And AOTC and ROTS were both shot on a poor quality expensive experimental camera a really long time ago, the camera they used only did 1080p (yep, the prequels were only 1080p) and cost $100,000 each. Around the same time, RED came out with their first camera (RED One) which can shoot 4k resolution but only cost $17,000
After that, digital cameras for film became much much better.
As far as grain goes, you can easily add grain to digital footage if you like the look, but digital cameras are faster than film and do better in low-light situations meaning on average they don't have as much grain.
Film should technically be able to represent a wider range of colors, since it's not limited by the ability to recreate those colors (which is why you get banding in poorly calibrated digital video).
But--considering all film these days is going to be converted digitally, if only for editing and color grading. It doesn't matter that film has a higher color range because it won't ever be seen except in the original negatives.

 

[rushmore223]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Yeah, 1080p is not at all close to film resolution---good thing that most people don't shoot at that. The average is to shoot at 2k, but the desired resolution is 4k, but digital cameras can shoot up to 6k at the moment. IMAX is around 7k-12k and the sensor that RED is working on is 16K

4K is the norm righ now in digital cinema, still nowhere near film. I'm not knowledgeable on IMAX, so I wont pretend to be. As far as RED working on "Dragon", a 16K chip, thats entirely theoretical until footage is shown. I don't doubt it will be drool worthy once it actually goes into production, but who knows how far off that is, and if it will actually match the hype RED is creating over it.

RED does great work, but you have to expect them to blow their horn loudly, and you shouldnt get to swept away with speculation until there is actually something to see.

You make a reasonable point when discussing color range and digital conversion, which is why it will be very sad when these films can no longer be seen the way they were meant to be, we just have to hope the negatives survive long enough for technology to do them justice.

Edit - I believe Lucas had AOTC and ROTS upscaled, otherwise it would have been unwatchable on the big screen.

Not so sure I agree with you on low light capabilities.

 

[darthviper107]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

I was surprised they had shot AOTC and ROTS in 1080p, considering all the money they put into the digital cameras at the time they could have done a lot better and I'm surprised George Lucas was OK with that resolution.

 

[abake]

Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (12/18/15) Discussion Thread

Lucas wasn't really ok with a lot of the effects in the OT, still he made and released them that way.
Then he started tinkering with them as soon as he thought the technology was better.

Maybe he'll start tinkering with the PT a few years from now!