Results 1 to 5 of 5

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Article: Star Wars Episode VII To Be Shot On Film, Not Digital

    "SirSteve"
    Check out my new venture:
    CollectionStation.com - A social network for collectors!

  2. #2
    This is good news on a technical side of things. While I do believe that digital is the future of photography, it's not because digital is superior to film. It's simply more convenient. If you want the highest quality images, then traditional film is the only way to go.

  3. #3
    People are reading an awful lot into this, saying it's a slap against Lucas or that they're excited to watch a 35mm film print. Really, it's just because Abrams likes and is more comfortable working with film. It will still have to be digitized for the effects to be added, and essentially all projection is digital these days.

    It is interesting that they're not shooting it in 3D, as they initially said they would be. I wonder if 3D's fading time in the sun is a factor here.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigbarada View Post
    This is good news on a technical side of things. While I do believe that digital is the future of photography, it's not because digital is superior to film. It's simply more convenient. If you want the highest quality images, then traditional film is the only way to go.
    To a point. Some of the digital cameras available nowadays, like the Red Epic, are capable of capturing incredible detail at up to 4K resolution. There will always be a matter of personal preference involved, but the quality is definitely there and will only keep getting better.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. JabbaJohnL View Post
    Some of the digital cameras available nowadays, like the Red Epic, are capable of capturing incredible detail at up to 4K resolution. There will always be a matter of personal preference involved, but the quality is definitely there and will only keep getting better.
    But that's just the thing, film cameras have no resolution. Resolution only comes into play when you digitize an image and break it down into pixels. With film, there is effectively infinite resolution. So, a 4K digital photograph is still nowhere near the level of quality that you can get from a professional-grade film camera.

    However, for the purposes of a low-resolution movie, digital images will suffice. Even when the movie is transferred to Blu-Ray, that format is still relatively low-res compared to print media. And print media is just a low quality version of a film image.
    "To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence… When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C.S. Lewis

  5. #5
    4k isn't that great for cinema, my local theater has 4k projectors and I can see the space between the pixels from the 1/3rd seating. It's unacceptable for the prices requested, no better than the Episode I digital projection experiment in '99 really.

    That said, AOTC and ROTS didn't suffer because they were shot digitally, they suffered due to the flawed vision and creative choices made in their creation. The idea that digital cinematography must be inferior to film is a bit of a dubious choice, and when someone like JJ Abrams claims to use it exclusively, I think of them as hipsters using it ONLY to separate themselves from other moviemakers. Film handles light and detail better than digital, but has come such a long way in the last 15 years that a quality storyteller can use a myriad of tools to address those issues easily while gaining significant advantages in important areas such as turnaround and storage.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO