Star Wars: Episode VII to be shot on 35mm film and use less CGI
85 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Desuh;41985661]Scanners outresolving film exist already. The resolution of film is finite. At some point you will only get grain. Then the lenses as good as they are have resolution limits as well. I think that beyond 4K film doesn't gain any detail.[/QUOTE]
I think you are wrong, I was looking for a article to dispel the myth regarding old films on Blu-Ray about a year ago and found this snippet in this article.
[url]http://www.filmjunk.com/2010/05/31/blu-ray-myths-old-movies-do-not-benefit-from-hd/[/url]
[quote]Film has no real “resolution.” The actual resolution has been debated for many years, and Wizard of Oz was scanned in at 8K during the restoration process, meaning 7680 x 4320 was the output resolution (or thereabouts). It needed to be scaled down to 1080p for Blu-ray, meaning that yes, Wizard of Oz can still look better than it does now. Star Wars Episode I never will after Blu-ray.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;41985277]I am not enthusiast, but you can achieve much higher qualities of resolution with film. With film you can upgrade it's quality as we advance in output capability (i.e. 4K resolution), whereas with digital, you're stuck with that resolution forever. That's why we are able to get new HD remakes of old film movies. This wont be possible with digital movies made at our time, at the future.[/QUOTE]
Not sure if I remember right, but I think film starts to loose quality when pushed over 4k.
Currently there are digital cameras shooting 5-8k, and the resolution continues to go upwards as time goes on. We could always boost film "resolution" by making larger negatives, but I really doubt that will happen.
Film is still better looking that digital overall, but for good or bad, I think that digital will catch on and pretty much leave film to bite the dust by 2020's.
Cgi or not
Plz just give starwars a good story and I'll be happy
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;41985732]I think you are wrong, I was looking for a article to dispel the myth regarding old films on Blu-Ray about a year ago and found this snippet in this article.
[url]http://www.filmjunk.com/2010/05/31/blu-ray-myths-old-movies-do-not-benefit-from-hd/[/url][/QUOTE]
It's not going to have much gain at 8k from 4k. Film does have a resolution limit by which you won't gain anything from enlarging it any more. And that hovers at about 4k, which I think with cine glass is still pushing it. Less noticeable though because things are moving though
I'm just happy it's shot on film because it brought Kodak out of bankruptcy. Other than that it doesn't really affect the viewer so I don't really care how someone chooses to use their workflow, it's up to them
I don't think CGI is what made the prequels bad
more like the plot hade more holes in it than a bullet ridden swiss cheese
[QUOTE=DeEz;41985907]I don't think CGI is what made the prequels bad
more like the plot hade more holes in it than a bullet ridden swiss cheese[/QUOTE]
Really wishing I could find a gif of plinkett's "Qui Gonn Booze" thing
[QUOTE=DeEz;41985907]I don't think CGI is what made the prequels bad
more like the plot hade more holes in it than a bullet ridden swiss cheese[/QUOTE]
everything about the prequels were bad
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41985164]Less CGI can be fine as it can keep the artists from getting lazy but I am not sure if there's justification for ditching modern digital cameras for film.
Can any film enthusiast enlighten me on which advantages does film recording have, these days?[/QUOTE]
Film still has a higher latitude than the vast majority of digital cameras
it also just has that special look we all love
[QUOTE=Slacker996;41986198]everything about the prequels were bad[/QUOTE]
The tech they added to the extended universe was cool, I thought.
[QUOTE=redback3;41985454]my dick is hard - i'm so excited[/QUOTE]
[img]http://facepunch.com/image.php?u=48009&dateline=1374049603[/img]
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;41985511]I too am moderately anticipating the release of this film.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://facepunch.com/image.php?u=202761&dateline=1373997945[/img]
[img]http://facepunch.com/image.php?u=202761&dateline=1373997945[/img][img]http://facepunch.com/image.php?u=48009&dateline=1374049603[/img]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41986387]Film still has a higher latitude than the vast majority of digital cameras
it also just has that special look we all love[/QUOTE]
Hey, what do you mean by higher latitude? I'd like to know in what ways 35mm cameras are better than modern professional cameras. thanks/
I always tought, CGI cartoony shit aside, that Episode I looked the best out of the prequels. Compare that and Episode II, there [I]is[/I] a difference thanks to film. Oh well, it's all subjective and they all aged terribly anyways.
Not to mention the Blu Ray transfers for things like Alien or Blade Runner look like they were shot just yesterday. The two most gorgeous movies I can remember, actually. Same goes for 2001 a Space Odyssey (not all of it was shot in 70mm so it does count) and the original trilogy; I just can't imagine myself thinking the same of, say, the Hobbit 30 years from now. Digital still has a long way to go. Maybe I'll just never get used to it.
As someone who works with developing photos, at least, 35mm film is worlds better than the vast majority of digital cameras and [i]especially[/i] cell phone cameras. As long as it's in good lighting, 35mm beats digital most days of the week.
[QUOTE=Slacker996;41986198]everything about the prequels were bad[/QUOTE]
Nope, the music by John Williams was great through all the prequal movies. Duel of the Fates is great. But yeah it's kind of overshadowed by the lack of quality in the other aspects of the films.
I know you guys are going to disagree with me, but I really loved this part
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWoGkrt5Upg[/media]
[QUOTE=DarkSiper;41986934]Hey, what do you mean by higher latitude? I'd like to know in what ways 35mm cameras are better than modern professional cameras. thanks/[/QUOTE]
Latitude is a film, or photography term. It refers to the amount of stops of light into the "whites" and into the blacks you go into.
Film has a much higher latitude into the whites than any digital camera that I'm aware of(this will eventually change I'm sure)
standard 35mm film has a lattitude of 14.5.
The Scarlet(Successor to the RED camera) has a latitude of 13.5, or 18 with HDRX, but this is artificial and [i]can[/i] show through in motion pictures.
as far as resolution goes, there isn't a huge difference in high end film, and high end digital photography/cinematography
[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Slacker996;41986198]everything about the prequels were bad[/QUOTE]
in the third film, hayden christians hair NEVER moves in any scene. Ever. At all. Unless he touches it.
This is horribly frustrating to watch once you notice it.
[QUOTE=Slacker996;41986198]everything about the prequels were bad[/QUOTE]
The plots weren't the greatest and they could have used more action over all the diplomacy, but to say there was nothing good is ridiculous. Most of the really good stuff added from the prequels resonates better in the EU and other media, such as games, toys, comics, etc.
Oh God, I can only imagine how badass the battles will look like
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41985164]Less CGI can be fine as it can keep the artists from getting lazy but I am not sure if there's justification for ditching modern digital cameras for film.
Can any film enthusiast enlighten me on which advantages does film recording have, these days?[/QUOTE]
saved eastman kodak co.
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;41989004]The plots weren't the greatest and they could have used more action over all the diplomacy, but to say there was nothing good is ridiculous. Most of the really good stuff added from the prequels resonates better in the EU and other media, such as games, toys, comics, etc.[/QUOTE]
I think Episode II could have been good if Lucas didn't shoehorn the romance subplot. Obi-Wan's investigation on Kamino and Geonosis was pretty interesting.
[QUOTE=Slacker996;41986198]everything about the prequels were bad[/QUOTE]
The prequels would have been thoroughly enjoyable if Anakin Skywalker wasn't such an obnoxious little twat and if Lucas had left out that awful ham-fisted romance which took up way to much screen time.
the Prequels would have been better if Lucas kept the same role he had in the OT.
I don't remember what it was be he was less involved.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;41989559]the Prequels would have been better if Lucas kept the same role he had in the OT.
I don't remember what it was be he was less involved.[/QUOTE]
Well he personally directed the first film, and did the final recut that was done extremely shortly before the film was shown so that's not strictly true.
the second and third films he didn't direct but had hands in the lore, characterization and overall plots but the director Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand took the helms on the second and third films respectively and created a lot of the dramatizations, moments, and real "feel" of the series while george was occupied in different elements
so when he took on the prequels, he really just went nuts with the stuff that was the background of the original films and failed to match what the greats he'd worked with besides had done before
Not entirely sure what the bias against CG is all about. Requires just as much artistry and skill and generally looks as good (if not a bit different)
Mind you there is something really cool about the model scenes in bladerunner and shit, but it's nothing to berate CGI for.
Practical special effects work augmented with CGI is the best route.
[QUOTE=Mr._N;41989891]Practical special effects work augmented with CGI is the best route.[/QUOTE]
Ever wonder why Pacific Rim's Jaeger cockpits looked so great?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcsFMTjgsCM[/media]
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41989799]Not entirely sure what the bias against CG is all about. Requires just as much artistry and skill and generally looks as good (if not a bit different)
Mind you there is something really cool about the model scenes in bladerunner and shit, but it's nothing to berate CGI for.[/QUOTE]
Having done both model making in small scale for miniatures and worked with modelers doing work on CG before, there's indeed artistry in both.
But there's a certain level of believability brought by real life objects and well trained and honed camera techniques that works to make us believe it better than most current CG techniques. That's not always going to remain true, but model scenes from the past, and many current ones are brilliant and do a great, great job of creating a powerful look.
it's also an almost entirely dead art.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41989799]Not entirely sure what the bias against CG is all about. Requires just as much artistry and skill and generally looks as good (if not a bit different)
Mind you there is something really cool about the model scenes in bladerunner and shit, but it's nothing to berate CGI for.[/QUOTE]
Thing is, as advanced as CGI is at the moment, you can still see that something's not quite right about the 3D stuff. There's no better way to make something believable by making it physical, not digital.
When done right, props and animatronics can look beautiful and certainly will "age" better than any CGI effects (since computers will get better and better, and we'll of course get used to the better graphics). Combining both animatronics and CGI however gets the best of both worlds: Lifelike props for authenticity and CGI for adding any details to finish the shot.
[QUOTE=robotnik185;41989952]Thing is, as advanced as CGI is at the moment, you can still see that something's not quite right about the 3D stuff. There's no better way to make something believable by making it physical, not digital.
When done right, props and animatronics can look beautiful and certainly will "age" better than any CGI effects (since computers will get better and better, and we'll of course get used to the better graphics). Combining both animatronics and CGI however gets the best of both worlds: Lifelike props for authenticity and CGI for adding any details to finish the shot.[/QUOTE]
Part of the problem with a lot of CGI is not the CGI itself. It's the lack of production design that suits the CG. An absolutely amazing example of this is in shows like Boardwalk Empire. More than half of that show is CG, but it's totally buyable because they sell it with a real life floor, railings, objects in the foreground and midground, but much of the background is a patchwork of CG techniques and matte painting. Using the CG to bring costumes and characters to life by reworking the background is a great technique.
Pacific Rim did it pretty amazing too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
