my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Large Format Forum   » Star Trek sequel in 35mm. And in 3D. And in IMAX. (Page 1)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Star Trek sequel in 35mm. And in 3D. And in IMAX. Allan Young Expert Film Handler Posts: 125 From: EGHAM, Surrey UK Registered: Jun 2011 posted 03-12-2012 07:17 AM                     This must be one of the more bizarre shooting processes in recent years. JJ Abrams is filming the Star Trek sequel in 35mm and converting it to 3D. That's a fairly odd decision in itself, but a recently released on-set shot also shows an IMAX camera in use - have a look here. If that's the new digital 3D IMAX camera, why not just use it for the entire film to save on the negative scanning and conversion process ? Or are they planning to letterbox the 35mm footage and have the screen expand vertically for the digital IMAX footage ? If it's a film camera, it doesn't look big enough to be an IMAX 3D rig. In which case, are they planning to release the movie in 2D on IMAX screens with the native IMAX footage cut in, as with The Dark Knight ? Given that there are probably going to be precious few 15/70 installations left by the time the movie is released, I suspect the former. Either way, it's a strange business.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 03-12-2012 09:01 AM                     your link doesn't work. here's a excerpt from collider.com regarding the 3D/film stock issue you ask, no mention of an IMAX camera though: Are you shooting Star Trek 2 in 3D, or will you be converting it later? ABRAMS: We’re shooting on film, and the reason for that is I wanted to shoot with anamorphic, and you can’t shoot 3D in anamorphic. Do you plan on using lens flares again, and have you thought about how the 3D will affect that, in converting it later? ABRAMS: I’ve had some people make fun of me about that. Yeah, we’ve done some tests. Not only lens flare tests, but we’ve done 3D tests. We actually converted a bunch of the original movie, which looked really good. That was the thing that made me feel like, maybe that would be okay. But, I didn’t want to shoot the movie digitally. But, it will be in 3D? ABRAMS: It will be converted, for those who want to see it in 3D. But, I wanted to match the look of the first one and shoot it anamorphically. Because the popularity of 3D has died down some, are you worried about the commercial viability of 3D? ABRAMS: I did not fight for the 3D. It was something that the studio wanted to do, and I didn’t want to do it. And then, when I saw the first movie converted in sections, I thought that it actually looked really cool. So, I was okay with their doing it, as long as I could shoot the movie the way I wanted to, in anamorphic film, and then let them convert it. So, those who want to see it in 3D, which looked pretty cool, can do it, and those that want to see it in 2D can do that too.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-12-2012 09:03 AM                        certainly a ringing endorsement of 3D and digital  |  IP: Logged Allan Young Expert Film Handler Posts: 125 From: EGHAM, Surrey UK Registered: Jun 2011 posted 03-12-2012 09:09 AM                     Another attempt at a link.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 03-12-2012 09:30 AM                     well... you're right (as well as the captured on-set still). screenrant also is stating the film is being partially shot in IMAX http://screenrant.com/star-trek-2-imax-3d-sandy-156554/ the story also states the movie will be post-converted for 3D I hope Abrams doesn't do a Brad Bird and not present the IMAX shot scenes in compromised 2.35 AR for it's eventual home video bluray release. in regards to the actual IMAX camera used for filming, it's possible it's the new Phantom 65 IMAX digital cameras that was used for 'Born to Be Wild' - which are lighter, quieter and can shoot more footage than the typical IMAX camera  |  IP: Logged Allan Young Expert Film Handler Posts: 125 From: EGHAM, Surrey UK Registered: Jun 2011 posted 03-12-2012 11:27 AM                     quote: Jonathan Goeldner it's possible it's the new Phantom 65 IMAX digital cameras that was used for 'Born to Be Wild' That's the guess I was making. I think the one used on 'Born to be Wild' was just a prototype but they've probably got a production model available by now. So he's shooting on 35mm because he wants to use anamorphic lenses and convert the footage to 3D, yet he's also using a non-anamorphic digital 3D camera for some of the shots ? As I say, it's a bizarre decision.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 03-12-2012 12:20 PM                     I got the sense that the 3D conversion was done in post production none of it captured in-camera.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Froes Film Handler Posts: 26 From: phoenix az USA Registered: Aug 2010 posted 03-12-2012 05:53 PM                     here's a good view of the camera in several scenes... http://sciencefiction.com/2012/02/28/star-trek-2-set-video-of-quinto-and-cumberbatch-fighting/  |  IP: Logged Shawn M. Martin Expert Film Handler Posts: 175 From: Arlington, VA, USA Registered: Feb 2012 posted 03-12-2012 08:16 PM                    That looks like one of the MSM film cameras.  |  IP: Logged Allan Young Expert Film Handler Posts: 125 From: EGHAM, Surrey UK Registered: Jun 2011 posted 03-13-2012 04:21 AM                     quote: Shawn M. Martin That looks like one of the MSM film cameras. I think you're right. In which case, I'm guessing it will be released in 2D in both 15/70 and Digital IMAX theatres, given that the company is so desperate to maintain that there's no real difference between the two.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 03-13-2012 12:53 PM                    quote: new Phantom 65 IMAX digital cameras that was used for 'Born to Be Wild' THAT'S WHAT WAS WRONG WITH BORN TO BE WILD! I knew that footage just didn't look quite right, and I've been stumped about why for quite some time. Now I get it.  |  IP: Logged Dick Vaughan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1032 From: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK Registered: Jul 2000 posted 03-14-2012 08:11 AM                        Not all of Born To Be Wild was shot on digital, it was split between 1565 and digital. From Film production notes : "Shooting the IMAX documentary in the spectacular IMAX 15/70, while also capturing nuanced animal behavior, called for a special camera in addition to the cumbersome 70mm IMAX film camera. Director of photography David Douglas helped the IMAX camera team develop a new digital 3D IMAX camera prototype that would address some of the limitations faced by wildlife filmmakers. Douglas, who has been lensing IMAX films for 35 years explains, “At just a quarter of the IMAX film camera’s 300-pound weight, the digital camera allowed us to go into places and situations that would have been impossible before. The result was a striking improvement that has redrawn the practice of large-format wildlife filmmaking.” The camera is not only lighter but quieter, which made it possible to use natural ambient sounds and also solved another of the filmmakers’ concerns. Fellman attests, “One of our biggest fears was how the animals would respond to this terribly loud, enormous camera and crane. The last thing we wanted was for them to change their behavior or retreat all together.”  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 03-14-2012 12:38 PM                    That all totally makes sense. I was always just a little bit perplexed when I saw the footage for Born To Be Wild. Some of it looked pretty cool, and some just looked ... weird. I don't think it looked bad. Just different for some reason.  |  IP: Logged Shawn M. Martin Expert Film Handler Posts: 175 From: Arlington, VA, USA Registered: Feb 2012 posted 03-14-2012 11:40 PM                    I should also add that the DP of this movie, Dan Mindel, is not a fan of digital, he likes to shoot exclusively in 35mm anamorphic, which is how almost all of his pictures have been shot, including his other two with Abrams. In fact, were it not for him, Abrams probably wouldn't even know what anamorphic is. So it's more likely to me that, given the opportunity to shoot some of this in IMAX, both Mindel and Abrams would prefer to go "all the way" so to speak and use the real thing (film) and not digital.  |  IP: Logged Allan Young Expert Film Handler Posts: 125 From: EGHAM, Surrey UK Registered: Jun 2011 posted 03-15-2012 04:25 AM                     quote: Dick Vaughan Not all of Born To Be Wild was shot on digital, it was split between 1565 and digital I read somewhere (can't find the article again) that the original plan was to shoot only around 10 per cent digital, but they were so pleased with the footage they got with the digital camera that it ended up around 50/50.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.