ST Filming Techniques and Technologies for the ST

Yeah, that "proves" absolutely nothing but in all honesty I see you've already decided to hate everything related to JJ, so I'll just drop out here, since there seems to be no point in arguing this any further.

 

For some reason all this "Lens flare" talk reminds me of the time fans were convinced MOS (Man of Steel) would contain boat loads of slow-mo because thats what Snyder is known for and to our suprise...there really wasn't any slow-mo in MOS. Just saying...we shouldn't instantly assume somebody is going to do something based on their past films because they can suprise us and not do what we all assume they will do.

 

If you don't like 3D, go to the 2D screening. You go to your preferred format and you pay less for a ticket. It's a win-win.

 

TheWrap confirms it... http://www.thewrap.com/movies/colum...-shoot-star-wars-episode-vii-35mm-film-112771

 

That's easier said than done when your local cinema limits the number of 2D showings because they can make more money off of inflated ticket prices to 3D showings. It's a pretty major problem.

 

Because that's the easiest way to stick lens flares into the movie the way J.J. likes them to look. If he were to shoot digital, then he'd have to stick them in in post and that's more time-consuming. So the choice to go to film is strong evidence that he will be lens flaring up the place. There is no other reason for him to shoot on film. He knows Disney is going to want the film to be in 3D. Shooting digitally is the easiest way to go about that and shooting on film is the hardest way to go about that. So again, by sticking to film, he's making the 3D post-convert more difficult, but making it easier for his oh-so-precious lens flare. This says to me that he is definitely going to have lens flare in the movie.

I think the only problem with HFR as it was done in The Hobbit was they only went up to 48fps. They should've gone whole-hog and went up to 60fps. It wouldn't have looked as weird to people. Case in point, if you've been on the new Star Tours attraction, that was done in 60fps and is a lot smoother and combined with the 3D effect creates a lot less nausea (to the point even where I can ride it all day without getting a headache like the old ride used to).

If George Lucas had 100% say in the matter, they would be shooting VII, VIII and IX in HFR 48/60fps. But he doesn't, so we're stuck with film and lens flares and terrible-looking post-converted 3D thanks to J.J. being a terrible terrible film director.

 

I'm happy with the news, i hope JJ uses IMAX cameras to film some scenes also.

 

I love everything about that.

 

Another article on it. If anyone interested.. http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=108118

P.S. Coming Soon article just uses this site for it's source,but Coming Soon wouldn't put it on it site if it didn't have truth behind it.

 

That article is talking specifically about digital still cameras I think. But still, even if it's true for digital movie cameras, it's much easier to create them with film. And like you say below, he's comfortable with it because he knows how to create those lens flares on film. Hence, they're going to be in the movie if it's entirely up to him.

Well, then maybe he should grow as a director and try out digital instead of stagnating as the talentless hack he's been for the last 7 years.

 

Given the number of people who were excited about this film (lol) using more models, special effects, and location shooting vs. the bluescreen and abundant CGI of the PT, it's pretty surprising to me that so many are reacting negatively to the return to the 35mm format that gave the OT much of its aesthetic. Not to mention the fact that film captures so much more detail than digital does. This is a positive step towards making the ST truly feel like a continuation of the OT.

 

They're gonna have to convert the film to digital in order to do all the special effects, not to mention for projection purposes as most theaters nowadays have 100% digital projection, and all that extra information that film will capture will go away anyway. So they might as well shoot it digitally.

And again, the way you film it has nothing to do with model work or special effects. There was more model work done in Revenge of the Sith than in the entire Original Trilogy combined.

Also, the aesthetic of the original triolgy came about because it was a time of civil war. Everything was supposed to look beat up and dingy. Everything except for the Imperial ships and stuff at least. It had nothing to do with the type of film they used.

 

The Red Epic cameras (which The Hobbit was filmed with) actually film more detail than 35mm film. It's a whole different world from the Sony digital cameras that were used for Ep II and III...

 

On the topic of lens flares, while I dislike their overuse just as much as anyone else, I just wanted to (again) point out that the existing Star Wars movies already have plenty of lens flares in them. Some pretty remarkable ones include the appearance of the Falcon near the end of ANH, and the opening shot of ROTS. (I don't know whether the latter is CG or not.)

 

Just want to say I'm an avid fan of JJ Abrams, and I enjoyed his work from before he was even hired as director.

And if you know anything about him, it's that he puts story before spectacle. That's his thing.

The lens flares were put in Star Trek to get across to the audience that the future is very bright, too bright to handle. Hell, he's even admitted in interviews and commentaries that the amount of lens flares he put in the film was ridiculous. This was toned down in Into Darkness, but still retained because he still wanted the whole "brightness=future" concept to get across.

I just find it pretty crazy that people think lens flares are going to be in the movie. Hell, the guy is even using film just to make the ST similar in style to the OT! Why throw that effort out the window just to put in lens flares? The guys in Disney and Lucasfilm didn't put schmucks in charge of their 4 billion dollar golden goose.

 

Times about one million.

This was my first and probably only real concern I had when I first heard who would be helming the film. It would have been an important consideration for whomever got the gig, but after watching Star Trek, it was really obvious that the cinematography used during the action scenes, especially, was wholly different than we are accustomed to in Star Wars.

This wouldn't bother me if this were a Star Wars spin-off we were talking about (try something new? Sure), but as a part of the Episodic saga, I think that it's really important that a number of very specific elements are maintained (certain story themes, John Towner Williams, Jr. score, etc.), and this is absolutely one of them.

 

It "proves" absolutely nothing unless you think 35mm automatically means "lens flares." JJ Abrams just prefers 35mm and I can't blame him. Spielberg was like that also in the 90s.

Stop with the knee-jerk reactions.

 

Why would using film make the ST similar in style to the OT? The type of film used back then had nothing to do with the look of the movie. The look of the movie came from it being a time of galactic civil war and everything was supposed to look beat up and dingy. It has nothing to do with the film stock they used. And even if that were true, the reason they're using 35mm film, as some people have pointed out already, is that it's because he's comfortable with 35mm.

(and how he can easily create lens flares with it)

And they did put schmucks in charge of their 4 billion dollar golden goose. They hired J.J. Abrams.

 

As I've said before, JJ Abrams prefers 35mm because it's easy for him to create lens flares with.

 

As far as I understand things, a lens flare doesn't have anything to do with the photosensitive medium, it has to do with the lens that's being used (hence the name).

 

Regardless, he knows how to make them specifically with 35mm cameras. Mark my words. There will be a plethora of lens flare in Episode VII.

EDIT: And probably a ton of shaky-cam crap too. It's gonna look like Star Trek and that's not a good thing.

 

Well, this has already happened. The Special Editions were the result of taking the film and converting it to digital. Other than some new special effects that were added to make them "special editions", did they look different to you?