Trek XII should be shot on film or digital?

Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by jefferiestubes8, Oct 24, 2009.

?

Should Star Trek XII be shot on film or digital?

Poll closed Nov 23, 2009.
  1. Film

    5 vote(s)
    55.6%
  2. Digitally

    4 vote(s)
    44.4%
  3. Don't know enough to be able to differentiate on the big screen

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. jefferiestubes8

    jefferiestubes8 Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    New York City
    Star Trek XI was shot on 35mm film.
    From an artistic intent perspective film has grain and a look that is only gotten by shooting on film.

    The last time we had a Trek TV series on film was season 3 of Enterprise.

    Star Trek: Enterprise The Complete Fourth Season - 2004-05 DVD review

    Other recent Paramount Pictures major action movies have been shot on 35mm including:
    Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
    which has about 550 visual effect shots.

    and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) which has over 1,650 visual effect shots,


    The film must be digitized before the effects can be added which is a cost to the producers.

    Should Star Trek XII should be shot on film or digital?
     
  2. Bluesteel

    Bluesteel Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    London,UK
    Does it matter really? The vast majority of the audience want a good quality film. SD,HD, or the stuff after HD is all that matter to us. If I can get a good quality film without any problems on the Cinema and DVD. I'm a happy bunny.

    But since it's cheaper to do it digitally why bother with film?
     
  3. Clancy_s

    Clancy_s Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    You can digitize film better than you can 'filmize' something that was originally digital, so my vote goes to film.

    However I trust the creators to make the right choice for the story they want to tell - IMO they got this one right :)
     
  4. FreddyE

    FreddyE Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Just watched one of the special features of the blueray set today...there JJ said he specifically chose to use film because in his opinion it looks more real. And since it worked great this time...I don´t think he will change to digital next time. Unless of course filming in 3D becomes the "normal thing" until then...wich might lead to the studio insinsting on 3D wich would mean them having to go digital anyway.
     
  5. jefferiestubes8

    jefferiestubes8 Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    New York City
    I think the reaction and box office to Avatar will really change things by 2012-2013 as from the time films get written & through pre-production they can still be changed to 3-D before production starts.

    about Avatar in The Hollywood Reporter:
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ia13021641b2079d289fc3dc3a2865694
    [login required] originally from this TrekBBS post.

    I've said before I think Star Trek XII will be considered for 3-D. If that is the case 3-D is done mostly digitally captured these days...
     
  6. QuasarVM

    QuasarVM Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    I don't care what it's shot on so long as it doesn't have Khan, Klingons or Romulans in it. I can be shot on parchment for all I care so long as it's something original that actually ADDS to the Trek universe...
     
  7. Ward Fowler

    Ward Fowler Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Location:
    Lucerne's Parlor of Mystery
    Nothing beats or quite replicates the look of film.
     
  8. Epsilon-9

    Epsilon-9 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    After seeing Star Trek XI at the famous Empire Leicester Square in Dolby digital cinema via the JBL 56KW THX sound system I have to say digital. It was by far the best digital presentation I’ve seen at the Empire yet.

    Film is what it is it has grain structure. It costs more to produce 35mm prints and will only last as long as it’s treated well by the projectionist.

    Thou some digital films only get a few weeks or two months exhibiting in larger number 1 screens today. The old days of large gage 70mm had at least several months and looked absolutely marvellous with brighter/sharper image and big six-track magnetic Dolby A/SR soundtracks.

    I was a bit cynical about digital up to a few years ago and now see the benefits of what it has to offer to the cinema-goer.
     
  9. jefferiestubes8

    jefferiestubes8 Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    New York City
    Just so we are clear Epsilon-9 Star Trek XI was shot on 35mm film.
    Digital projection is different than shooting on digital in the first place.
     
  10. Epsilon-9

    Epsilon-9 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Is that so I could have sworn it was shot in digital? Well ether way it looked far better than 35mm playback and I used to be projectionist many years back. Are we clear…:rommie:

    Yet we are now moving into a new dawn a new age in filmmaking. So I’m for digital just as long as it doesn’t look like Collateral or Mimi Vice which looked absolutely dreadful. Looked like some cheap episode of The Bill on ITV.:brickwall:
     
  11. jefferiestubes8

    jefferiestubes8 Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    New York City
    Tech specs
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/technical

    Agreed. Public Enemies (2009) looked like a soap opera as Michael Mann likes deep focus and he shoots digitally. It looked bad.

    JJ Abrahams knows how to shoot dark scenes. On Alias the 35mm grain was present but it looked artistic on the very dark scenes.
     
  12. Zeke

    Zeke Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    Location:
    Waterloo, Canada
    Okay, who else read the topic preview text "Trek XII should be shot on..." and immediately thought "sight"?
     
  13. jefferiestubes8

    jefferiestubes8 Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    New York City
    3D?

    http://trekmovie.com/2010/02/10/son...s-after-star-trek-sequel-will-trek-go-3d-too/

    If it is to be shot in 3D it will be shot digitally...
     
  14. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Yeah, exactly. It'll be shot digitally - the studio would be foolish not to insist on 3D.
     
  15. Geckothan

    Geckothan Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Location:
    People's Republic of Britainistan
    This is an ancient thread and the poll is closed, but I say film all the way.
     
  16. jefferiestubes8

    jefferiestubes8 Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    New York City
    sounds like digital to me with the 3-D
    http://collider.com/star-trek-sequel-3d-release-date/128436/
     
  17. CaptainMatt

    CaptainMatt Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    Location:
    Sector 001
    They should shoot the next Star Trek on film rather than digital. It just looks better to my eyes.
     
  18. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Certainly it's digital. I agree that they should shoot in 3D rather than converting.
     
  19. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Digital cameras are now looking just a good as film. And when sensors have the size of 35mm film, the depth of field is the same anyway.

    It gets ugly when they use cameras with smaller sensors, because then it looks like cheap video, no matter how much money you pump into set design, costumes, make up and lighting.
     
  20. Captain Robert April

    Captain Robert April Vice Admiral Admiral

    :techman:
    :beer: