Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Star Trek sequel in 35mm. And in 3D. And in IMAX.

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Large Format Forum » Star Trek sequel in 35mm. And in 3D. And in IMAX. (Page 2)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Star Trek sequel in 35mm. And in 3D. And in IMAX.

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 03-21-2012 06:28 PM

quote:
Do you plan on using lens flares again, and have you thought about how the 3D will affect that, in converting it later?

ABRAMS: I’ve had some people make fun of me about that. Yeah, we’ve done some tests. Not only lens flare tests, but we’ve done 3D tests. We actually converted a bunch of the original movie, which looked really good. That was the thing that made me feel like, maybe that would be okay. But, I didn’t want to shoot the movie digitally.

Yeah, people like me. [Big Grin]

I groaned when I read that he's apparently gonna do the flare crap again....

Oh, and I won't even waste my time or money watching this in 3D.

| IP: Logged

Allan Young
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 125
From: EGHAM, Surrey UK
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 02-05-2013 08:44 AM

So ... IMAX are now trailing Star Trek Into Darkness: An IMAX 3D Experience.

I'm guessing the 15/70 prints will be 2D DMR with the IMAX film footage cut in ?

So much for the the IMAX Corporation's pretense that there is no difference between their digital and film houses. Or maybe there are so few of the latter left they don't care anymore.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-06-2013 09:58 PM

Here is the pic Allan tried to (naughtily) link to...

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 02-07-2013 02:01 AM

quote: Allan Young
I'm guessing the 15/70 prints will be 2D DMR with the IMAX film footage cut in ?

So much for the the IMAX Corporation's pretense that there is no difference between their digital and film houses. Or maybe there are so few of the latter left they don't care anymore.

Allan, IMAX pioneered the 3D conversion process originally. If released on film ( that's the distributors choice ) it would be all in 3d.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
THAT'S WHAT WAS WRONG WITH BORN TO BE WILD! I knew that footage just didn't look quite right, and I've been stumped about why for quite some time. Now I get it.

Born To be Wild due to using digital footage was most likely one of the first post produced digitally and not cut on film. Hence the look.

| IP: Logged

Allan Young
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 125
From: EGHAM, Surrey UK
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 02-07-2013 05:30 AM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
IMAX pioneered the 3D conversion process originally. If released on film ( that's the distributors choice ) it would be all in 3d.

Well, I guess we'll find out shortly. But I'm having trouble understanding why they would go to the expense of using the IMAX MSM camera only to scan the footage for conversion to 3D. If the 15/70 prints are going to be in 3D, why not just shoot with an IMAX 3D rig in the first place ? It makes no sense.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 02-07-2013 05:09 PM

Creatives do what creatives do, it rarely makes sense but that's the art of film making. I personally liked the look and feel of the first film, lens flares and all but I would not like it if many films were shot that way! He can not recreate that look of 35mm scope with IMAX equipment, though he could use anamorphic lenses on some digital cameras if he wanted to.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-07-2013 06:50 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbJ-y6BWfUc

Go to about 1:10 to see where the lens flare issue is addressed!

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 02-14-2013 06:41 PM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Creatives do what creatives do, it rarely makes sense but that's the art of film making. I personally liked the look and feel of the first film, lens flares and all but I would not like it if many films were shot that way! He can not recreate that look of 35mm scope with IMAX equipment, though he could use anamorphic lenses on some digital cameras if he wanted to.

Weren't many of those lens flares simply added in post production? It's just 3 clicks in After Effects and most people won't even notice the difference between real lens flares. Maybe there is even a hotkey for "add pointless anamorphic lens flare to scene" in J.J. Abrams favorite post production tool?

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Born To be Wild due to using digital footage was most likely one of the first post produced digitally and not cut on film. Hence the look.

That movie looked just AWFULLY soft, almost unwatchable on a huge dome screen. If they had a digital intermediate present, why didn't they do a better job at compensating for the deformations inflicted by the dome on the OMNIMAX prints?

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 02-14-2013 11:26 PM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Weren't many of those lens flares simply added in post production?

Nope. Abrams mentioned once that they were shining lights right at the camera a lot to really ramp up the lens flares as much as possible.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 02-16-2013 10:08 PM

What a dope.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 02-17-2013 12:13 AM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
That movie looked just AWFULLY soft, almost unwatchable on a huge dome screen.

The wide shots to me looked a little soft, the close ups to me looked quite good. Perhaps the projectionist missed the mark? I have only seen it on the largest IMAX screen in the world. I don't think they bother to worry about the few last dome theatre's with special prints anymore.

Later films like "Skyfall" shot digitally can convert very well to 15/70mm film however.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 02-17-2013 06:43 PM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
The wide shots to me looked a little soft, the close ups to me looked quite good. Perhaps the projectionist missed the mark?

That could be the case, but the other features I watched that day were sharp and clear. Also, the movie contained many closeups that just look silly on a dome screen.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
I have only seen it on the largest IMAX screen in the world. I don't think they bother to worry about the few last dome theatre's with special prints anymore.

I didn't do the math, but in terms of raw surface, the dome where I've seen it isn't all that much off. It's a pity IMAX is slowly ditching the dome.

It's not an easy format, but could be amazing, if the footage would've been a bit better adapted with some better perspective correction. In an all-film setting, that would be very hard to do, but with a digital intermediate present that should be entirely doable.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Later films like "Skyfall" shot digitally can convert very well to 15/70mm film however.

I've not seen Skyfall in 15/70, so I cannot judge about the looks of a digitally acquired DMRed movie, but I guess it helps that it was shot in 4K+.

I did see the Dark Knight Rises in 15/70 and the 35mm DMRed scenes didn't really impress me, they looked soft and dull compared to the awesome and jaw dropping IMAX footage. But maybe that's also because of the constant, in your face shift between both types of footage.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 03-07-2013 04:28 AM

I saw the Star Trek IMAX extended trailer/ preview a few days ago, the 3D lens flares looked pretty much as you would expect them to.... There were some scenes in the mostly scope trailer that looked to be 1.85, I imagine those scenes were shot with the IMAX camera.

| IP: Logged

Allan Young
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 125
From: EGHAM, Surrey UK
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 04-16-2013 03:37 AM

It appears the 15/70 prints are all 3D. I guess this will mark the first time IMAX footage has been scanned, converted to 3D and written back to film. Almost certainly the last time, too.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 04-16-2013 10:32 PM

Umm No Allan that's simply not true, IMAX pioneered the 3D conversion process and have converted IMAX documentaries like Egypt/ Mummies many years ago that still screen today.

I have seen the first 12 minutes of the latest Star Trek in 3D and close to 30 minutes in 2D. Looks impressive, especially the full frame IMAX sequences!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.