Star Trek XII to be shot in 2-D and IMAX
- Thread starter Gojira
- Start date
Well, that's rather too bad. It's good that they'll have plenty of time for the conversion, though.
Yeah, 2D for me as always.
Paramont half-assing Star Trek films again?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXY4hdQB5cs[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXY4hdQB5cs[/yt]
Will they be doing a 2-D conversion to 3-D?
I don´t know. 3D version could be inferior to a film shot in 3D such as Avatar.
For exemple, Thor. Conversion to 3D created a very dark movie.
I didn´t see Harry Potter in 3-D.
News!
Chris Doohan said in Trek Movie that Pegg told him that he read the script the other day and loved it.
I don´t know. 3D version could be inferior to a film shot in 3D such as Avatar.
For exemple, Thor. Conversion to 3D created a very dark movie.
I didn´t see Harry Potter in 3-D.
News!
Chris Doohan said in Trek Movie that Pegg told him that he read the script the other day and loved it.
I already made my mind up to watch the movie in 2D (if available) before they even announced that they would f*** the movie up with a 3D version. So that news doesn't change my decision at all.
Has anyone thought, and this is probably the case, that it's simply Abrams prefers to shoot on film? Many directors prefer the look of a film based image, rather then digital (I believe Spielberg IIRC said he would never shoot a live action film digitally). All of Abrams other films have been shot with anamorphic lenses on film, and it seems to be the style he prefers. This allows to achieve his vision in 2d, and for Paramount to have large amount of time to do a quality post 3d conversion.
I like that the focus is on 2D since sometimes 3D movies have a tendency to use certain tricks to make things pop. I doubt Abrams would really work towards those things though.
The only thing you have to wonder is how they'll do the lens flares in 3D as a post thing.
The only thing you have to wonder is how they'll do the lens flares in 3D as a post thing.
Well, I've seen the trailer to The Hobbit, and there's no difference to film. At least in the outcome. I don't know if the production/post production process is different. If you have to learn entirely knew lighting setups because to get the film look you have to do it differently or something.
But The Hobbit looks exactly like The Lord of the Rings, so it's not impossible.
However, you're looking at that Hobbit trailer as a hugely compressed image, even in 1080p, to the size and detail of the plates it was shot on. I work in the film industry, and have seen both digital and 2k/4k film plates up close, and I can tell you there is a difference in look to them. There is something about the grain structure that a lot of the directors, including Abrams likes, and even though you can get beautiful, sharp, and highly detailed images digitally, they just don't look quite the same as film.
When we see a trailer online in 1080p, or even a 1080p blu ray, the image has been compressed quite a bit, even though it still creates a fantastic image for someones home cinema. Though I will say if you get a properly done blu ray, like any of the recent Paramount offerings, if the movie was shot on film, you can see the film grain, and it looks great.
There's an economic downside to it. It will affect budget, and what gets put up on the screen.
Shouldn't it be a lot cheaper to do VFX heavy films in 2D? I mean they have to render twice the amount of frames for proper 3D, right? With 2D they are done in half the time --> half the costs.
Even if Paramount holds the budget to the levels of the last film I wouldn't think it would hurt it too much. Many of the main sets are already constructed and in storage as are the uniforms. CGI models of the Enterprise, Earth space dock and Earth itself shouldn't need to be redone from scratch.
Not like they're starting from square one.
film or digital
Glee season 1 was shot on 35mm and seasons 2 & 3 are shot digitally.
Just yesterday I was watching a DVD of Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball (Video 2010) which happened to be a direct-to-video release on Blu-ray & DVD. Netflix sent me the DVD and my Blu-ray player upconverted it to the HDTV. It had a very crisp look to it and obviously sourced on a cinema-quality high definition video camera which was the Panavision Genesis HD Camera according to the imdb tech page. The Panavision Genesis shot Superman Returns also in 2005. The first Smokin' Aces film in 2006 was shot on 35mm film. The grain adds a lot to the look.
Not that Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball suffered from being shot digitally as I thought it was a great sequel. It looked great but it is a different look. Lighting and editing still add tremendously to the look and feel.
See The Walking Dead or Friday Night Lights TV series shot on Super16 film for aesthetic effect grain since they are both shot on Super16 which has 4x less the size of film area of 35mm so the grain is really 4x as much.
related thread:
Trek XII should be shot on film or digital?
It comes through all the way down the pipeline. Even TV shows that were shot on 35mm film such as CSI (Las Vegas) switched to digital and now looks different.
Glee season 1 was shot on 35mm and seasons 2 & 3 are shot digitally.
Just yesterday I was watching a DVD of Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball (Video 2010) which happened to be a direct-to-video release on Blu-ray & DVD. Netflix sent me the DVD and my Blu-ray player upconverted it to the HDTV. It had a very crisp look to it and obviously sourced on a cinema-quality high definition video camera which was the Panavision Genesis HD Camera according to the imdb tech page. The Panavision Genesis shot Superman Returns also in 2005. The first Smokin' Aces film in 2006 was shot on 35mm film. The grain adds a lot to the look.
Not that Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball suffered from being shot digitally as I thought it was a great sequel. It looked great but it is a different look. Lighting and editing still add tremendously to the look and feel.
See The Walking Dead or Friday Night Lights TV series shot on Super16 film for aesthetic effect grain since they are both shot on Super16 which has 4x less the size of film area of 35mm so the grain is really 4x as much.
related thread:
Trek XII should be shot on film or digital?
