Trek XII should be shot on film or digital?

[jefferiestubes8]

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.

The final year of Enterprise was the first season of any Trek series to be shot fully in high-definition video, instead of the 35mm film used previously. This was initially done as a cost-savings measure, but the look and quality of the production was actually enhanced by the digital shift.

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?

 

[Bluesteel]

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?

 

[Clancy_s]

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

 

[FreddyE]

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.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

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.

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:

as a movie likely to alter the public's perceptions about motion capture in particular and filmmaking in general.

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...

 

[QuasarVM]

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...

 

[Ward Fowler]

Nothing beats or quite replicates the look of film.

 

[Epsilon-9]

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.

Nothing beats or quite replicates the look of film.

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.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

After seeing Star Trek XI at the famous Empire Leicester Square

I have to say digital. It was by far the best digital presentation I’ve seen at the Empire yet.

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.

 

[Epsilon-9]

After seeing Star Trek XI at the famous Empire Leicester Square

I have to say digital. It was by far the best digital presentation I’ve seen at the Empire yet.

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.

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…

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

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.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

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.

Tech specs
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/technical

I’m for digital just as long as it doesn’t look like Collateral or Mimi Vice which looked absolutely dreadful.

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.

 

[Zeke]

Okay, who else read the topic preview text "Trek XII should be shot on..." and immediately thought "sight"?

 

[jefferiestubes8]

3D?

In 2012 the 4th of July holiday falls on a Wednesday. Last month Paramount picked Friday June 29th for the release date of the Star Trek sequel to take advantage of the holiday. Well Sony wants in on the action and so today announced Tuesday July 3rd to release their reboot of the Spider-man franchise.

They also announced the next Spider-man will be in 3D. Will Star Trek follow in the 3-D Trek?

Producer JJ Abrams spoke about 3D Trek last October, at the Star Trek DVD press conference:

Question: Any chance of you shooting the next Star Trek film in 3-D?
JJ Abrams: It is funny. Paramount talked to me about doing the first one in 3-D and, having it only be my second film, I was petrified just at the addition–I thought it would be another dimension of pain-in-the-ass. I thought I would be like, "oh my god, I just want to make a decent 2-D movie.” I was so worried that, instead of being a decent 2-D movie, it would have been a bad 3-D one. So I’m open to looking at it because now I feel a little bit more comfortable and, if I, in fact, direct the sequel to our Star Trek film, 3-D could be really fun, so I’m open to it. What I’ve seen of Avatar makes me want to do it, because it’s so crazy-cool looking.

...if Paramount wanted the first Trek in 3D, they are likely to really want the second one to be 3D. Especially if they have to go head to head with a 3D Spidey.

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...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, exactly. It'll be shot digitally - the studio would be foolish not to insist on 3D.

 

[Geckothan]

This is an ancient thread and the poll is closed, but I say film all the way.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

sounds like digital to me with the 3-D

There’s no explicit clarification as to whether Abrams will be filming in 3D or post-converting, but Deadline’s report says Abrams will be “making the movie in 3D”. It’s a bit of a no-brainer that they’re going the 3D route, but I do hope they plan on filming in native 3D as the short post-production time doesn’t bode well for a pristine 3D-conversion.

http://collider.com/star-trek-sequel-3d-release-date/128436/

 

[CaptainMatt]

They should shoot the next Star Trek on film rather than digital. It just looks better to my eyes.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

sounds like digital to me with the 3-D

There’s no explicit clarification as to whether Abrams will be filming in 3D or post-converting, but Deadline’s report says Abrams will be “making the movie in 3D”. It’s a bit of a no-brainer that they’re going the 3D route, but I do hope they plan on filming in native 3D as the short post-production time doesn’t bode well for a pristine 3D-conversion.

http://collider.com/star-trek-sequel-3d-release-date/128436/

Certainly it's digital. I agree that they should shoot in 3D rather than converting.

 

[JarodRussell]

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.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Okay, who else read the topic preview text "Trek XII should be shot on..." and immediately thought "sight"?