Star Wars VII Will Be Shot on Film!

[ionbasa]

 

"Star Wars" and "Star Trek" director JJ Abrams says "Star Wars Episode VII" is proceeding "full steam ahead," and although somewhere along the line, he's fallen out of love with IMAX he has confirmed the new film will be shot on film.

 

Director J.J. Abrams, who recently signed on to direct the next installment in the Star Wars series, has shot his movies exclusively in film — and it turns out that won't be changing any time soon. Boba Fett Fan Club reports that cinematographer Dan Mindel discussed the use of Kodak film on the set of Episode VII at an industry event in Los Angeles this week, a bold move more than a half-decade after 4K digital shooting first became practical. Episodes II and III were shot digitally, so Abrams' decision is a return to the old school — he may be looking to preserve the look and feel of the original three movies.

Sources:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1026_3-57617472/jj-abrams-falls-out-of-love-with-imax-new-star-wars-movie-to-be-shot-on-film/

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/23/4649720/analog-strikes-back-next-star-wars-to-be-shot-on-film-not-digital

 

Personally I think this is interesting and ironic given that paramount is making a switch over to digital: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/104270-paramount-makes-the-switch-from-film-to-all-digital/

 

But at least we get similar film 'quality' such as the original trilogy. Also generally speaking film can always be up-scaled to digital later on, I believe 35mm is somewhere in the 2.5k-4k range without sacrificing too much detail in the actual image. Personally I like the idea of media being shot on film, and then projected digitally.  

 

So what are your opinions and though?

 

Is JJ Abrams making a mistake by not filming digitally, or is he staying true to the look and feel of the original trilogy?

 

 

EDIT:

 

People suspected this to be true a few months ago, but JJ Abrams confirmed people suspicions two days ago.

[qwertywarrior]

there are still many movies shot in 35mm im confused as to why its a surprise 

[Unhelpful]

I've still only seen one star wars movie... I think it was the one where captain kirk died.

 

All kidding aside, I dont care too much.

[Hans Christian | Teri]

Film is still a great medium but does add yet another step to production as it has to be "digitalized ". It can be discussed to death whether or not the 24fps film standard is better than higher framerate digital capture or not but I do personally think that it possesses something that the "new look" just don't have. I personally do all my video in 24fps as well, it just works and gives your production the cinematic look that we have gotten so used to.

[TopWargamer]

Such old news...

[ionbasa]

Such old news...

Read the edit, it was confirmed by Abrams two days ago, those previous statements were mostly assumptions from last year.

[Camul]

Film is still a great medium but does add yet another step to production as it has to be "digitalized ". It can be discussed to death whether or not the 24fps film standard is better than higher framerate digital capture or not but I do personally think that it possesses something that the "new look" just don't have. I personally do all my video in 24fps as well, it just works and gives your production the cinematic look that we have gotten so used to.

I argued sooo much that the HFR versions of movies are better, that it's just gonna be the same film but smoother. Then I saw the Hobbit in 48FPS and I'm never, ever going to see another movie in HFR as long as I can help it. I don't know how, but more frames somehow make the movie look sooo shitty.

[algoat]

Good, I like the look of film better.  Film captures everything, none of the frames are interpolated.

[Humbug]

Shooting on film is fine. Dark Knight rises was shot on film.

 

Since this is Star Wars I'm sure a lot of the shots will include CGI, which means we will be seeing a mix of film and digital in the final shot.

[beebskadoo]

I argued sooo much that the HFR versions of movies are better, that it's just gonna be the same film but smoother. Then I saw the Hobbit in 48FPS and I'm never, ever going to see another movie in HFR as long as I can help it. I don't know how, but more frames somehow make the movie look sooo shitty.

I actually had the opposite experience, it seemed realistic. like a real movie (The Hobbit) like I was there. it was more immersive.

[ionbasa]

I argued sooo much that the HFR versions of movies are better, that it's just gonna be the same film but smoother. Then I saw the Hobbit in 48FPS and I'm never, ever going to see another movie in HFR as long as I can help it. I don't know how, but more frames somehow make the movie look sooo shitty.

At first when watching the Hobbit, it almost made me feel un-easy for some reason. Probably not used to 48fps, although 60 and 30 don't bother me at all. The experience was similar to when I first watched 3d in movies, in that I got noxious.

[CatCloud]

Don´t know don't care, im not going to read, whatever they are doing i don't mind as long as they don't "Disney" the franchises and the old school nostalgia is there. 
I´ll be day 1 watching it on Cinema + Pre pre PRE order all DvD/BR´s ASAP

[Guest]

Such old news...

Nice avatar Baka and Test <3

[Imaginaerum]

I argued sooo much that the HFR versions of movies are better, that it's just gonna be the same film but smoother. Then I saw the Hobbit in 48FPS and I'm never, ever going to see another movie in HFR as long as I can help it. I don't know how, but more frames somehow make the movie look sooo shitty.

Looked great to me, reminded me of a video game.

[kuddlesworth9419]

It is also being made by Pixar. So it's gonna be crap.

[Camul]

I actually had the opposite experience, it seemed realistic. like a real movie (The Hobbit) like I was there. it was more immersive.

I agree that it seemed more realistic, but I think that's what I didn't like. It didn't feel like a movie anymore to me.

[Humbug]

It is also being made by Pixar.

No it's not

[MetEishYa]

I agree that it seemed more realistic, but I think that's what I didn't like. It didn't feel like a movie anymore to me.

For me i watched both movies in both HFR and plain 2D, i watched the HFR first and when i was watching the 24 fps version it seemed to be missing something and in some parts very laggy. For me the HFR version is much much much better than the 2D version.

[ManOfDisguise]

very noob questions from an experienced noob(me): film vs digital? whats the NOTICEABLE difference when watching a movie thats on film and one thats digital? 

 

                                                                                    MOOAR Fps in movies- is this like in games, where more is just better and smoother?

[kuddlesworth9419]

No it's not

Well one of the film is.

[Puppet]

Good, I think it was part of the reason why episodes 1-3 were ruined. Returning to film is definitely the right call.

[Frollard]

Remotely on topic with 24 versus higher framerate; freddiew did a neat trick on the VGHS season 2 - everything that was 'real world' was 24fps, and everything that was 'in game' vr style was 48fps-- much like the matrix where colour cast was used to identify real vs matrix, the framerate smoothing was neat to watch as a bit of a metaphor (games = higher framerate).

 

As for film versus digital - digital can be manipulated to look exactly like film, and having worked as a projectionist I can say digital is far superior medium to project.  Fact is they're gonna digitize the 35mm to do all the CG anyway, so it makes no sense to shoot on 35.

[Humbug]

As for film versus digital - digital can be manipulated to look exactly like film, and having worked as a projectionist I can say digital is far superior medium to project.  Fact is they're gonna digitize the 35mm to do all the CG anyway, so it makes no sense to shoot on 35.

But wouldn't digitized film look still look like film? Even after digitization it won't look like it was shot digitally.

 

Also am I correct in assuming that all modern movies (even those shot on film) would also have a digital version stored (since it doesn't age).

[Puppet]

Remotely on topic with 24 versus higher framerate; freddiew did a neat trick on the VGHS season 2 - everything that was 'real world' was 24fps, and everything that was 'in game' vr style was 48fps-- much like the matrix where colour cast was used to identify real vs matrix, the framerate smoothing was neat to watch as a bit of a metaphor (games = higher framerate).

 

As for film versus digital - digital can be manipulated to look exactly like film, and having worked as a projectionist I can say digital is far superior medium to project.  Fact is they're gonna digitize the 35mm to do all the CG anyway, so it makes no sense to shoot on 35.

 

Not really you would just be adding grain on top of noise, there is a big difference. Film has a lot more dynamic range than digital and can be processed a lot more effectively prior to post production and although it will still be converted, the lack of digital artifacts prior to encoding really do help with the final look. 

[pequin]

I actually had the opposite experience, it seemed realistic. like a real movie (The Hobbit) like I was there. it was more immersive.

I was sorta wondering that myself. I was thinking for example, those scenes when the camera is panning around mountain tops, maybe directors just need to be aware that the fps is much higher so they should pan the cameras slower?