8mm Forum: Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

»	8mm Forum » General Yak » Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Joerg Polzfusz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 815
From: Berlin, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System
Registered: Apr 2006

posted April 24, 2013 03:55 AM

Hi,

was "Star Trek Into Darkness" (2013) completely shot on film (35mm and 65mm) in 2D? Or have some scenes been shot with a video-camera (if so: in 2D or 3D)? (The entries in the imdb contradict themselves as video-cameras are listed as "used", however only film is listed as "source format"?!)
To me it looks like I can skip any shows in 3D as the movie was shot in 2D and hence will only look darker in "pseudo 3D".

Jörg

| IP: Logged

Matt McBride
Film Handler

Posts: 62
From: Starkville, MS USA
Registered: Oct 2012

posted April 24, 2013 08:44 AM

I don't know the exact answer, but I do know that IMdB is notorious for getting the technical details wrong a lot. I wouldn't put too much faith into what they say about what cameras were used and such.

| IP: Logged

Joerg Polzfusz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 815
From: Berlin, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System
Registered: Apr 2006

posted April 25, 2013 02:53 AM

Thanks. In the meantime I found a German webpage that claims that the movie was shot in 2D and hence is only in "pseudo-3D". At least this doesn't contradict the imdb.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Murin, Jr.
Master Film Handler

Posts: 260
From: Lanoka Harbor, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 2009

posted April 26, 2013 04:31 PM

JJ Abrams designed every shot Star Trek 2 to be in 3D while filming which meant having the supervisor for the conversion on set all the time.

This is NOT a case of the conversion being done last minute. Big difference.

Keep in mind that many directors won't use 3D cameras due to their being bulkier than 2D cameras thus limiting their placement and movements.

Besides, as Titanic, Top Gun and Jurassic Park have proven, 2D-
3D conversions are becoming indistinguishable from native shot material.

I'm certain that within 5-10 years, 3D cameras will be phased out altogether in favor of conversions.

Of course, I'm a 3D maniac so it's ALL good to me! [Smile]

--------------------
My crummy Deviant Art account. Read my poetic tribute to the internet comic strip Ozy & Millie and view my crappy attempts at art.

http://cougartiger.deviantart.com/

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted April 27, 2013 12:35 PM

I'm sad to say that I'm really not looking forward to this STAR TREK film. I saw the first one and while it wasn't a total loss, it sucumbs more to modern "something has to be happening quickly every second" format than the great storytelling of the past STAR TREK films.

Yeah, I know, I'm a crotchety old fart!

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted May 07, 2013 09:50 AM

I'm with you on movies in general seeming a little (ummm) hyperactive these days. To a certain extent I think they are trying so hard to impress us with 3D they are overdoing it.

Some great moments on screen have been quiet, reflective ones. Can anybody in Hollywood still do that?

I still like what they did with the first and want to see this new one.

We live in a new era. About a year ago I had the original series on the 'tube and there were Bill Shatner and Leonard Nimoy with their 1960s uniforms and prosthetic ears. My kid walked into the room and said "They look like Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock".

-Look like??!!

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2