id expect them to stick with film. unless someone convinces abrams otherwise :)
Last I heard, they were shooting the next "Star Trek" film in 35mm anamorphic again, so it sounded like it would be a 3D post conversion job.
Hate to burst peoples balloons... but 98% of those anamorphic lens flares within that film were created in post. I met the guy that developed the plugin for that film to create realistic flares..
And now we all have animorphic flares to be had in minutes with ease... with 1000's of amazing combinations. You can match the real ones perfectly and create even better ones... and put them exactly were you want them.
Other problem when shooting anamorphic on big special effect films.. is the flares... Post guys will hit you over the back of the head if they have to start painting out flares to put in there effects plates.
That just becomes irresponsible & Dumb cinematography... If there is know post effects to be done at all, then shoot madly anamorphic and flares... beautiful. I love it myself.
But when you have effects with the shot, It's hard to 3d track anamorphic lenses... lens distortion makes it near imposuible to 2 track and comp... lens flares kill you everytime... So shooting a normal square pixel camera (like EPIC) with flare-less crisp images, you can quite easily match those shots later into anamorphic content quite easily... if you know what your doing.
And this is how the last STAR TREK was done.
Well, I guess that means you consider Dan Mindel, J.J. Abrams, and Roger Guyett to be "irresponsible" and "dumb." I don't.
Anamorphic cinematography has a lot more to distinguish it than simply flares. There are specific qualities to the distortion, particularly on backgrounds, that are unique and uniquely attractive to particular types of storytelling. On huge tentpole features like "Star Trek," the cost of the visual effects is not the issue that it is on smaller projects. They are expected to be expensive and worth it. When ILM is your primary contractor, things like tracking anamorphic plates are much less of a concern. The picture was shot on film because of the desires of the creators. And it was shot anamorphic for the same reason. That doesn't make it a "smart" or a "dumb" choice. It makes it a proper creative one.
And No... They are not dumb, they are both genuius and awesome at what they do. And myself being a huge animorhic lens fan love the way they use the anamorphics to get the coolest looks. I applaud the both.
I'm talking about what you can an cant do especially if you don't have the same coin. But in there case they have millions upon millions of dollars to waste in post by painting out unwanted flares and spending 10 x longer trying track a shot. All the power to them.
But again. 98% of the flares were put in afterwards. And alot of the full CG shots were pushed around to make look like animorhic footage.
For example. I'm doing a Job at the moment were I have to insert my footage into someone elses ad. The original spot was shot anamorphic 35mm. So now I'm smearing my RED images and adding flares etc, graining it up and mimicking the animorphic imagery perfectly. No one can tell the difference. How do you think ILM match there square pixel (full CG)and animorphic imagery so well.
The same way.
A friend of mine was an operator for part of the filming ( he was the b 1st ac one last one) and they shot a large portion of the movie in IMAX i believe.
There was a lot of in-camera anamorphic flares in "Star Trek", there are plenty of photos of crew members shining xenon flashlights from off-camera to get them! Of course there were also some added for efx composite work to make it match the general photography, but my point is that most of the flares in non-efx shots were real, not done in post (it's hard to NOT get them when shooting Panavision anamorphic with bright lights on set pointed into the lenses)... I don't know where you got this "98% of the flares were done in post" figure.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|