Trek XI in IMAX?
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
I'm hoping for a soundtrack by Pink Floyd.
How does that work? I mean, some movies are released in regular theatres and in IMAX theatres. Are these movies filmed with the better cameras for the IMAX theatres and then modified for standard screens? I've seen Batman Begins and I am Legend in IMAX and it was well worth the extra $3 to see and hear it on the bigger screen.
That's an interesting question. I am assuming there is a process to covert 35mm film to IMAX, as filming an entire movie with 2 different cameras doesn't seem likely. But maybe they reshoot some scenes with IMAX camera to enhance the IMAX version.
There is indeed an "upconversion" process, if you will, enabling film shot on 35 mm to be shown on IMAX, even though it is seriously letterboxed to match the original aspect ratio. I've managed to see several of these releases and they do look amazing. The Batman sequel, Dark Knight, actually filmed several scenes in IMAX as a special treat/incentive for those who see it in IMAX. It would be pretty cool if they are doing the same for Star Trek, although I'm not sure Paramount has done any IMAX releases yet. So far, I believe it's only been Warner Bros and Sony who've done this.
There were plans, waaaaaaay back in the day, for there to be an IMAX movie. Starring Colm Meaney. That would have been neat. Especially the part about it starring Colm Meaney. Oh well.
Anyway, all we have to go on that IMAX is involved here is that David Gerrold thinks he saw a kind of camera. It's quite possible (perhaps Paramount seeks to get on the bandwagon Warner and Sony are enjoying?) but not yet definite.
Anyway, all we have to go on that IMAX is involved here is that David Gerrold thinks he saw a kind of camera. It's quite possible (perhaps Paramount seeks to get on the bandwagon Warner and Sony are enjoying?) but not yet definite.
I remember this too and I was very disappointed when it was cancelled. IIRC, the plan was to make a 45 minute or so film showcasing Treknology, which was why they were going to use the character who was the transporter chief from TNG and the engineer on DS9. Made sense and sounded cool. Pity... Perhaps this is the medium for a short film about the Rikers and the crew of Titan. New ship, new Treknology, new characters. I'm in!
Wikipedia lists the following:
"Star Trek: IMAX, announced in 1997, was a film planned for release in the IMAX format. The film was intended to "be shot in state-of-the-art IMAX 3D with CGI graphics, with a running time of about 40 minutes and a budget of around $10 million." A script was completed by Rick Berman and Hans Tobeason. Colm Meany was to reprise his role as Miles O'Brien and David Warner was to play Chancellor Gorkon once more."
"Star Trek: IMAX, announced in 1997, was a film planned for release in the IMAX format. The film was intended to "be shot in state-of-the-art IMAX 3D with CGI graphics, with a running time of about 40 minutes and a budget of around $10 million." A script was completed by Rick Berman and Hans Tobeason. Colm Meany was to reprise his role as Miles O'Brien and David Warner was to play Chancellor Gorkon once more."
IMAX was my speculation. DG thought they were probably 70mm cameras. He could be right.
I can't think of a good reason (financially that is, not artistically) to shoot an entire movie in 70mm these days. Plenty of epic movies were shot in 70mm in the 50s and 60s but only a handful of movies in last 35 years. There used to be a decent number of theaters that could show 70mm film, but probably not anymore. Most likely they were shooting certain scenes in 70mm (for use in visual effects, etc). That's something they still do (e.g. Spider-Man 2).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films
Well, if you ever see the short film (featuring the crew of the Titan) which is currently circulating around the country as part of Star Trek: The Tour, you will likely change your mind.
Right, but deduced from that quote. So it's certainly possible; but we don't have much to go on by this point.
Rats! I've read that The Tour is coming to Chicago sometime and I'm looking forward to it. I saw a brief snipet of the short I believe you are referring to. Does it have Wesley and Tuvok? It looked a bit light-weight.
Well, if you ever see the short film (featuring the crew of the Titan) which is currently circulating around the country as part of Star Trek: The Tour, you will likely change your mind.
Rats! I've read that The Tour is coming to Chicago sometime and I'm looking forward to it. I saw a brief snipet of the short I believe you are referring to. Does it have Wesley and Tuvok? It looked a bit light-weight.
Well, if you ever see the short film (featuring the crew of the Titan) which is currently circulating around the country as part of Star Trek: The Tour, you will likely change your mind.
It's basically a clip movie featuring talking heads of Wesley and Tuvok so I don't think it can be used as an example of what a true Titan movie could be. There's a clip of it floating around the net somewhere.
So far as the big cameras in the current movie, I believe the speculation about shooting background plates for special effects may be the most likely. We'll see as the hype moves into high gear.
Agreed. That's probably it, since they are apparently shooting the principal photography on STAR TREK in Anamorphic 35mm at 2.39:1 aspect ratio, just like Abrams' last film MI:III (same DP)... and nine of the previous Trek films -- TUC was shot in Super 35mm... which exposes a 1.37:1 squarish image which is matted to 2.39:1 and subsequently optically blown up and squished horizontally for a standard 35mm anamorphic release print (e.g. the LOTR films)
The DVD of TUC has an odd 2:1 aspect ratio which deviates from the theatrical aspect ratio which was 2.39:1. No horizontal picture information was actually lost on the DVD, however... they just opened up the matte on the top and bottom of the frame revealing more picture information. When I project the film at home, I just crop it back to its intended theatrical aspect ratio.
Visual effects companies usually prefer larger gauge film for the VFX shots because there are more perforations to hold the film steady and there is a physically larger area to get the exposure -- so that means more resolution. Cameras with spherical lenses (that is -- normal lenses) are always used instead of Anamorphic lenses which distort images horizontally.
VistaVision is the de-facto standard for VFX plates on Anamorphic films. VistaVision is run through a specially modified camera the same way 35mm film is run through a still camera -- horizontally instead of vertically. That gives the VFX company 8 perfs on the top and bottom of the image to hold it steady.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision
***
At the beginning of this clip you can see the larger gauge (width) of the 65mm film versus 35mm.
65mm Camera Loading on TechnoCrane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JQr6tNEvxQ
The cameras use 65mm... the more familiar 70mm name comes from the projection format at the theater. The extra 5mm is to accommodate the magnetic audio tracks. Incidentally, Robert Zemeckis and his DP Don Burgess used a lot of 65mm on CONTACT because of all of the VFX scenes in which they also had to record dialogue from the actors. 35mm VistaVision cameras are loud, while 65mm cameras can be soundproofed like normal 35mm cameras. I believe Zemeckis talks about this on the commentary track.
