Analog Star Wars - The next Star Wars will be shot on Kodak 5219

[Marc Wielage]

But for me none of it all really matters, as there are more reasons for me to never shoot film for any Motion project or still project for that matter. My choice to NOT shoot film is also based on it's Dinosauric way of processing, I surely do not want to wait around for Film stock to get shipped out processed and scanned to be made digital to then have to reverse the process again for print to release, how tiresome...

It's actually not that bad with film shoots, if you're in NY or LA. Chances are, you'll still be able to screen dailies by 9AM the next day, which is not that different from many digital projects.

I'm curious how many (or how few) people participating in this thread have actually shot film before. There's a whole generation of cinematographers who have never experienced the pros and cons of shooting on negative, and when they have nothing to relate it to, I think they tend to make a lot of assumptions that are not necessarily true.

BTW, kudos to Mr. Mullen on his comments about Gil Taylor, which are spot on. I know for a fact that Lucas was not happy about the diffusion used on the original Star Wars, and there was a lot of grousing about it, both from him and the studio. There is one scene in the movie that George personally lit (because Taylor was ill that day), which was the shot in the trash compactor. Lucas kept the lighting very low for that scene, and it was a chore to color-time for the HD version. I think it came out OK, but a few viewers noticed it was noticeably darker than in previous versions -- which had not been timed by George before.

Note also that Mr. Mindel commented on J.J. Abrams' inclination to use real sets rather than a lot of green screen, as shown by the infamous Budweiser "engine room" sequences. He indicated in the lecture that they're going to try to do the same thing with Star Wars 7.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Ketch, sharpness is not the holy grail of what constitutes a 'good image'. If sharpness is what you like, then of course you will find nothing better than Red or Sony. But there are many other things that people look for in an image, sharpness only being a problem when the lack of it is so apparent that it makes the image look inferior. But that is not the case with film for the last 15 years...

When you talk about film, it seems to me that you mainly have in mind films from the 60s and 70s... because the way you describe film is not the same film that I know of. There are people out there today doing brilliant things on film, things that could have been made on digital but were instead chosen to be shot on film, I still believe that film has a 'texture' that only film has, and digital cannot replicate. And sometimes that is exactly what people want their images to feel like.

Robbie Ryan is a very young Irish DP that is doing in my opinion some of the best, original and beautiful work anywhere in the world. Be it film or digital. His films are not about showcasing sharpness, scientific color measurments or dynamic range, they're about showing you beautiful images, images that he was able to see in his mind's eye and somehow exposed it on film for the rest of the world to see. Just give him a film camera and some Fuji stock and he'll show you how its done!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EceNo1LJj4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7BFZqQ4ruA


Having an image with super eye blinding sharpness or 40 stops of DR you are accomplishing absolutely nothing. Its only a super computer turned on. It's up to you to use it creatively. In other words, film has never stopped anyone from showing you amazing worlds and fascinating images.

António, you can not pick a single point of any one's reply and make it as if that was all they said or talk about it, you keep giving me this Holy Grail thing... There is no such a thing for me, each camera media has many aspects to bring to account, Sharpness of course is no doubt one of them and an important one to me, if it is not to you then good on you, I respect your choice and do respect mine, but there is far more then just that, and i have said it many times.

When discussing about a Camera choice or Medium to shoot on choice, and a variety of reasons to choose one or the other are given, singling out one of them makes simply no sense and no justice to the discussion, unless your are attempting to make one look like He does not know what He is talking about it, then is a different story but that will not go well with me.

I am also well aware of Film stocks they are available today, and I have been since a long while, but still makes no difference, since mid 90's I have stopped using Film, and never looked back, does not mean I do not appreciate what has been done and continues to be done on Film, because I do, but it is my choice to choose not to USE IT for nay given project still or motion.

Film does have a unique texture that only film has because it is made that way, some in purpose some because of the nature of the material and process used, but it is also because we are used to see it since birth that we have come to like it vs crisp Digital images, I was one of them at first when HD first came out, as it made it all look like Soap Opera, but then I got used to it and actually now like much more to see clear crisp images too, never said I did not continue to like Film shot movies, just that I would no fused, and it is not because out of Sharpness, as Film shot project can look as sharp as you want to make them look.

I like working with Digital and I chose the Red Epic camera, while I respect andy one else's choice and do not make distinctions when I watch their work, unless of course is in such low rez that makes their images unbearable to watch, then I don't care how beautiful of a story or images it might contain, like many SD films that I can simply absolutely do not watch, now if they were to be rescanned in higher resolution then I will watch them with pleasure, and it is not about sharpness it is about resolution.

Resolution, Dynamic Range, Contrast, Color Rendering, Native ISO, Sharpness, Raw file strength etc. are all elements of our world and I consider them all when choosing a camera, and I do not make a choice by singling out one element, not ever, yet I know what I like, and I go for it, not carrying what any one else's likes, as this are my choices only, if then you or any one else's likes what I produce then much the better of course.


@Marc Wielage: I know Marc, I leaved in LA for just over 20 years, but still, I just will not go back to that when I can have my images in edit mode within minutes form captures while still on set, were I always choose to mix DIT with Editing a first look with a possible color pass as well to get a clearer idea of the look I am going for to present to any one on set and move forward with uncanny speed, something Film will never be able to do, but again, this is only but one of many reasons why I have no desire to work with film.

Yet again, I do absolutely respect any one choosing Film as their medium, but I will still try to change their minds, opportunity given...

 

[Michel Hafner]

The image was far clearer then I expected and the colours were vibrant, we're not watching test patterns we're watching movies sharpness is irrelevant unless you've got text on the screen, you also have to factor in the screen itself I went to an F55 event where they showed a bunch if 4K content on a 4k projector but it didn't really look all that impressive because the screen wasn't really that big, I watched Django on a much bigger screen and your claim that the sharpness isn't there is utter rubbish.

I know that the sharpness of 35mm in 4K is not there compared to 65mm in 4K and what a 6K dragon would deliver in 4K. I have seen enough 35mm, 70mm and 4K digital on big screens to make that claim. I'm not saying 35mm is bad, just not as sharp as what you get from the best digital cameras today. So I really would have preferred they used 65mm for the new Star Wars films, if they want the film look, or go with Dragon or Sony if they want to use a digital camera. This is supposed to be a big sci fi film with lots of sfx, grand vistas and intricate model/CGI work in 4K, I guess. To be delivered mainly as 4K DCP. I don't see the allure of 35mm here compared to 65mm or digital, unless they plan an intimate art house piece about the spirituality of jedis and the wickedness of Sith lords... :wink5:

 

[James T Mather]

Great to hear someone's sticking with film.

I heard there is a lot more motion control/miniature work and a move away from the soulless cgi digital look of the recent films.

No school like the old school. Nice one JJ.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I know that the sharpness of 35mm in 4K is not there compared to 65mm in 4K and what a 6K dragon would deliver in 4K. I have seen enough 35mm, 70mm and 4K digital on big screens to make that claim. I'm not saying 35mm is bad, just not as sharp as what you get from the best digital cameras today. So I really would have preferred they used 65mm for the new Star Wars films, if they want the film look, or go with Dragon or Sony if they want to use a digital camera. This is supposed to be a big sci fi film with lots of sfx, grand vistas and intricate model/CGI work in 4K, I guess. To be delivered mainly as 4K DCP. I don't see the allure of 35mm here compared to 65mm or digital, unless they plan an intimate art house piece about the spirituality of jedis and the wickedness of Sith lords... :wink5:

I don't really agree with that either, Inception was shot on a combination of Anamorphic, 65mm and VistaVision and when I saw it on IMAX I don't recall being able to tell which shots were which format, it was only with the dark knight and dark knight rises which had quite a bit shot on IMAX that the difference in clarity was obvious, even the colour reproduction was better on the IMAX shots, though with the Dark Knight Rises the difference only really became obvious when I got the blu-ray as I didn't see that one on IMAX.

I can only imagine that Star Wars will be a combination of IMAX and Anamorphic as that is how the most recent Star Trek was done, IMAX for the big action sequences and Anamorphic for the dialogue.

Great to hear someone's sticking with film.
I heard there is a lot more motion control/miniature work and a move away from the soulless cgi digital look of the recent films.
No school like the old school. Nice one JJ.

You know, Despite the panning the prequels continuously get for having extensive CG they actually do have quite a lot of model shots and practical effects in them, Even attack of the clones had it's fair share of location work, I think it's only episode 3 that ended up being shot entirely on stage.

 

[Brett Harrison]

In another thread I suggested that perhaps - perhaps! - that even if film acquisition is dead, one could acquire on Dragon, then print to film, then scan that film. You would then have the cost savings of digital with the uncompromised look of film. Nobody had an opinion. Perhaps someone would like to say something about this? It sounds naive but it might be the perfect solution.

Edit: Ketch and David, thanks for your posts. They were noteworthy in their own ways.

Not a bad Idea Karim and it was recently at the Oscars with short film winner 'Curfew'. A lovely picture shot on the R1 and printed out to Vision 3 stock then scanned back for final DI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLAVg17luqc

more indepth:
http://vimeo.com/35973

I really wish there were a LUT out there that emulated a 'round trip' to a camera negative stock - as good as print film emulation is, it's not the originating format.

 

[Dustin Veneman]

Hope they do miniatures too.

 

[M Most]

Yet again, I do absolutely respect any one choosing Film as their medium, but I will still try to change their minds, opportunity given...

Well, if you respect them so much, maybe you should stop trying to change their minds. You have your reasons for doing what you do, they have their reasons for doing what they do. JJ Abrams and Dan Mindel's decision to shoot Star Wars on film doesn't impact you, your career, or your life one iota. You (and a number of others here) would be showing a lot more respect by adopting a "live and let live" attitude about these things, rather than trying to tell highly experienced and accomplished professionals how to do their job.

 

[Corey_O]

Well, if you respect them so much, maybe you should stop trying to change their minds. You have your reasons for doing what you do, they have their reasons for doing what they do. JJ Abrams and Dan Mindel's decision to shoot Star Wars on film doesn't impact you, your career, or your life one iota. You (and a number of others here) would be showing a lot more respect by adopting a "live and let live" attitude about these things, rather than trying to tell highly experienced and accomplished professionals how to do their job.

Mike,

What do you say about the impact on the environment that the photo chemical process has vs Digital? I'm just asking about your opinion and I am not judging.

 

[M Most]

Mike,

What do you say about the impact on the environment that the photo chemical process has vs Digital? I'm just asking about your opinion and I am not judging.

It's miniscule. The reason to use film today has nothing to do with social consciousness or lack of it. It has to do with an aesthetic choice. And the reason it's been largely supplanted by digital techniques has nothing to do with social consciousness, either. It has to do with economics.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Well, if you respect them so much, maybe you should stop trying to change their minds. You have your reasons for doing what you do, they have their reasons for doing what they do. JJ Abrams and Dan Mindel's decision to shoot Star Wars on film doesn't impact you, your career, or your life one iota. You (and a number of others here) would be showing a lot more respect by adopting a "live and let live" attitude about these things, rather than trying to tell highly experienced and accomplished professionals how to do their job.

Mike, some times I really enjoy your well put posts, some other times you just should have done much better by staying out of it all together as in NOW.

Have you read what I wrote form the first post? Of course not or you would not have made such silly comment.

Be more careful next time how you include my name with that of others which might do indeed disrespect others, and or give opinions which could be left unsaid, I never compare one to an other, as I believe of each's individuality, and I take offense with your generalization and negative tough about me, as I have never done so to you i any of your posts, so refrain from doing it to me.

I do respect any one's opinion and or choice, that doe snot mean that I do not have the possibility or right to respectfully give them my opinion in that matter, and present it in such a way that it is still their ultimate choice to decide what to do or what to use... Of course I am not referring to this particular case here, as I am referring to any one that might not chose one option vs. the other simply because if misinformation of luck of knowledge of, which happens often, and GAIN, I am not saying this is the case here...

I have not started this tread nor I ever said anything NEGATIVE about it either, so Mike, next time please do read what I have posted then read it again, and then post your reply, just remember to be RESPECTFUL yourself, if you want to receive back some respect yourself, and wish for people to continue reading your toughs in this forum, because as I said, even so I do respect your and very much enjoy most (no pone intended here) of your contribution to this forum, several times you could have be better off refraining yourself from talking down to people like you are the only one that knows it all, and that no one has the right to an opinion, no matter the opinion.

Bottom line, you are avery knowledgeable individual, just don't mistake respect and interest given to giving you the right to be disrespectful to others in here...

Also, I am not a teenager to be lecture by you nor any one else, I think I have earned my stripes in this life and this industry, and yes, I will offer my opinion and try to convince any one in fact to shoot the Red Epic instead then Film, and that is not been disrespectful is simply offering an opinion even to some one that has already one.

 

[M Most]

Also, I am not a teenager to be lecture by you nor any one else, I think I have earned my stripes in this life and this industry, and yes, I will offer my opinion and try to convince any one in fact to shoot the Red Epic instead then Film, and that is not been disrespectful is simply offering an opinion even to some one that has already one.

And that is exactly what I did. I offered the opinion that in some cases, offering that opinion is construed as trying to tell someone how to do their job who has already made it clear that they have a different opinion than you do. I wasn't "lecturing," I was pointing out that perhaps one should think twice before offering an "opinion," because unless the opinion was requested, it can sometimes cause more harm than good for the party offering it. In other words, I was offering advice. You don't have to take it. But you also don't have to take such offense and consider anything not directly complimentary to be an insult.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

And that is exactly what I did. I offered the opinion that in some cases, offering that opinion is construed as trying to tell someone how to do their job who has already made it clear that they have a different opinion than you do. I wasn't "lecturing," I was pointing out that perhaps one should think twice before offering an "opinion," because unless the opinion was requested, it can sometimes cause more harm than good for the party offering it. In other words, I was offering advice. You don't have to take it. But you also don't have to take such offense and consider anything not directly complimentary to be an insult.

Fair enough... We just differ about what been entitle to an opinion and the right to give one means, unless you find yourself working for Hitler, which of course will NEVER happen to me as I chose whom to work with.

And if anyone was to only give an opinion when asked for one, I am afraid there will be very few opinions given, and I disagree strongly with your policy and thinking about this, and for this on my sets I always allow and welcome unrequested unsolicited opinions, and then of course it is always up to me to see if I can make good use of them or not, and in the same spirit I always offer and give my opinion on any subject of knowledge when in that position, no matter whom the addressed individual or professional might be, with no regard to celebrity status, as any one, even the most expert and highest Director, Cinematographer, DP or Producer celebrity in our industry has always some thing new to learn, from any one at any time, ad if that opinion his always given with the out most respect and at the right time and in the right tone, there will always, well at list almost always be well received, unless the receiving end is a total insecure A^$.

 

[M Most]

"Offering an opinion" and "trying to change people's minds" are two very different things. That's my whole point. The first is usually fine if the situation calls for it. The second is sometimes OK, but other times it's simply annoying, arrogant, and often counterproductive, depending on the people involved, the subject and the circumstances. One needs to be able to differentiate this, regardless of whether they work in the film industry or any other one. But I think I've said enough.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Great to hear someone's sticking with film.

I heard there is a lot more motion control/miniature work and a move away from the soulless cgi digital look of the recent films.

No school like the old school. Nice one JJ.

I agree, its great to hear Film is being shot. I just wish there was more of it.

 

[António Fagundes]

"Offering an opinion" and "trying to change people's minds" are two very different things.

This.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Back On Topic...

Film is a great media for recording... eh... films...

Has proven so over and over.

Let's not be surprised by the choice to record films on film...

I hope this round will be back on track!

And I do by far prefer miniatures to DFX!
(I am not against digital effects, just think that there is sooooo much one can do with the actual optical sighnalpath, independently of aquisition format...)

Look foreward to this.

 

[M Most]

I agree, its great to hear Filming is being shot. I just wish there was more of it.

That's just not going to happen. It's already to the point where processing film, even in some of the world's busiest production centers, is difficult. Nearly all of the major labs have either been shut down (Technicolor Pinewood was only the latest one) or merged with each other (New York and Vancouver are examples of this). And in some parts of the world there are simply no labs left (Australia comes to mind, with Deluxe's purchase and subsequent closing of all the Atlab locations). Even in Los Angeles, only Fotokem and Deluxe remain to process negative (and I'm not really sure that Deluxe even does that any more). Basically, you REALLY have to want to shoot film to justify the logistics that might be involved in supporting that decision today.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

"Offering an opinion" and "trying to change people's minds" are two very different things. That's my whole point. The first is usually fine if the situation calls for it. The second is sometimes OK, but other times it's simply annoying, arrogant, and often counterproductive, depending on the people involved, the subject and the circumstances. One needs to be able to differentiate this, regardless of whether they work in the film industry or any other one. But I think I've said enough.

Indeed enough said.

 

[Nick Morrison]

That's just not going to happen. It's already to the point where processing film, even in some of the world's busiest production centers, is difficult. Nearly all of the major labs have either been shut down (Technicolor Pinewood was only the latest one) or merged with each other (New York and Vancouver are examples of this). And in some parts of the world there are simply no labs left (Australia comes to mind, with Deluxe's purchase and subsequent closing of all the Atlab locations). Even in Los Angeles, only Fotokem and Deluxe remain to process negative (and I'm not really sure that Deluxe even does that any more). Basically, you REALLY have to want to shoot film to justify the logistics that might be involved in supporting that decision today.

Wow. Scary to think how much has changed in only 5 years. Pretty soon we'll be watching movies beamed into our contact lenses.