Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF News

RFF News News related to photography and rangefinderforum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

JJ Abrams returns Star Wars to Kodak Film
Old 12-16-2015   #1
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,686
JJ Abrams returns Star Wars to Kodak Film

"J.J. Abrams shot the latest Star Wars ironically one of the first franchises to move away from film on 65mm film, said Andrew Evenski, president and general manager of Kodak's (KODK) entertainment and commercial films division.

"We've had a lot of success with people coming back to film, mainly because (of) the aesthetics of it," Evenski said. "It's more natural looking."

USA Today Story Here
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2015   #2
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,397
Encouraging story, and thanks for the link which mentions other recent big-budget films shot on Kodak film. It would be great if base demand from the film industry can keep consumer film prices reasonable into the future.
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2015   #3
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Apparently Tarantino's The Hateful Eight is the first movie shot and screened in 70mm Ultra Panavision since Khartoum in 1966.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/8/98...ntin-tarantino
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2015   #4
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
 
SolaresLarrave's Avatar
 
SolaresLarrave is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: DeKalb, IL, USA
Age: 59
Posts: 7,475
I recall that the second trilogy was shot in digital... or not? At least part of it was.
__________________
-Francisco
Check out
My Leica M4-2 Blog and/or
My Nikon D700 Neophyte's Guide
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2015   #5
zuikologist
.........................
 
zuikologist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,870
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=867'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2015   #6
zuikologist
.........................
 
zuikologist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,870
According to the article, Phantom Menace was shot on film and digital.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaresLarrave View Post
I recall that the second trilogy was shot in digital... or not? At least part of it was.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=867'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2015   #7
YYV_146
Registered User
 
YYV_146's Avatar
 
YYV_146 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 32
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02Pilot View Post
Apparently Tarantino's The Hateful Eight is the first movie shot and screened in 70mm Ultra Panavision since Khartoum in 1966.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/8/98...ntin-tarantino
I remember reading somewhere that the full-size Ultra Pana projection reels were ~350 pounds each...too bad I don't live near any of the designated 70mm theaters. Would love to see that in full glory.
__________________
Victor is too lazy for DSLRs

Sony A7rII Kolari mod

Noctilux ASPH, 35lux FLE, 50 APO ASPH, 75 APO cron, 21lux, Sony/Minolta 135mm STF

500px
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2015   #8
NY_Dan
Registered User
 
NY_Dan's Avatar
 
NY_Dan is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New York City area
Posts: 1,193
Let the film be with you.
__________________
Never Seeing Nothing, published by inkBooks.
Schmendrick, published by PoliwagBooks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2015   #9
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_Dan View Post
Let the film be with you.
And also with you.....

Sorry, wrong group......

Hi, I'm Bill, I'm a.......

Dang, twice in a row

It is very good to hear that folks realize that digital isn't all it's cracked up to be.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2015   #10
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2015   #11
kiss-o-matic
Registered User
 
kiss-o-matic is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaresLarrave View Post
I recall that the second trilogy was shot in digital... or not? At least part of it was.
There is no second trilogy if you are referring to star wars.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2015   #12
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
 
rhl-oregon's Avatar
 
rhl-oregon is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,909
I wonder if anyone (else, that is) remembers a second feature film offered free once you paid for the ticket to the original late-night SW opening. Bonus points if you stayed and actually watched the freebie, however awful.
__________________
Robert Hill Long
Southern Pines, North Carolina USA


http://rhl.photography
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2015   #13
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 2,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiss-o-matic View Post
There is no second trilogy if you are referring to star wars.
Not to get all geeky, but of course there is.

1st trilogy - the original trilogy from 1977-1983

2nd trilogy - aka the prequel trilogy from 1999-2005
__________________
Keith
My Flickr Albums
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence. ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2015   #14
lxmike
Barnack fan
 
lxmike's Avatar
 
lxmike is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Co Durham NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 3,245
thanks for sharing , interesting to know
__________________
Currently loaded: Leica IIIc. IIIg and Bronica ERTS.

Glass currently in regular use: Voigtlander 15mm 4.5 Helliar

Soon to arrive Leica MDa

myblog:lifefromawindow
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2015   #15
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Saw this movie last night and I thought it was terrific. Looks beautiful, too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-22-2015   #16
kiss-o-matic
Registered User
 
kiss-o-matic is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by kxl View Post
2nd trilogy - aka the prequel trilogy from 1999-2005
heresy

[filler]
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #17
Cyriljay
Registered User
 
Cyriljay's Avatar
 
Cyriljay is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 241
I have seen this two weeks ago . Great film.
I did not know about the film process .

It is a great news .
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #18
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
Saw this movie last night and I thought it was terrific. Looks beautiful, too.
Yes, it looks beautiful, and I saw it in Rochester whence the film was manufactured.

But ... I can't (yet) say it was "terrific" ... good, very good, but not excellent. I reserve the right to revise my opinion upon subsequent viewings.

I thought Carrie Fisher's role was compromised by the lines she was given, and she couldn't work miracles.

OK, an actual review of the film is OT ... I love the fact that the film stock was manufactured right here in ROCHESTER!
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #19
Vics
Registered User
 
Vics's Avatar
 
Vics is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 3,289
I saw it on the 26th Imax+3D, and I liked it a lot, but my eleven year old grandson pronounced it "the best movie ever made!" (He's never seen North Dallas Forty...)
__________________
Vic
Sony a200

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #20
Faintandfuzzy
Registered User
 
Faintandfuzzy's Avatar
 
Faintandfuzzy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaresLarrave View Post
I recall that the second trilogy was shot in digital... or not? At least part of it was.
Yes...locked in forever at 1080P
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #21
tyrone.s
Registered User
 
tyrone.s's Avatar
 
tyrone.s is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down Under
Posts: 237
Not surprising he used film like the original, he copied everything else from that film as well!
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #22
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,754
Good film. It has its CGI moments, but they are nowhere as egregious as Episodes I-III. Yes, we've all seen bits and pieces of it before, but if you're the type that repeatedly watches Empire Strikes Back or even Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, it's a case of pot-meet-kettle.

D
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2016   #23
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrone.s View Post
Not surprising he used film like the original, he copied everything else from that film as well!
Which works extremely well for me.
I watched it with my daughter who has never seen the original Star Wars.

I thought the new characters are well-done by good young actors.

But... do they really have to... (sigh)
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2016   #24
tyrone.s
Registered User
 
tyrone.s's Avatar
 
tyrone.s is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down Under
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Which works extremely well for me.
I watched it with my daughter who has never seen the original Star Wars.

I thought the new characters are well-done by good young actors.

But... do they really have to... (sigh)
It's ... like ... the force (sigh).

Fair enough. My kids are still a little too young to watch it (daughter's 7, son's four and half). I enjoyed it myself and saw it on the first day as a special treat in 3D

Certainly there's nothing massively original about the original movie either (hero's journey >> jonah and the whale >> Boy to man). But then there's probably only 6 stories since the beginning of time anyway. It just seems a little bit too much of a re-travelling down a road we've already been on. But I had more of that feeling after the movie, not while I was watching it. And that's a credit to the artistic, technical and creative abilities of the people who made it.

At any rate it's fantastic to see real film stock being used and not everything being digital. The more film stock that's produced the better off all film users will be given the economics of scale and so on. Plus it seems reassuring that influential film makers like Abrams and Tarantino et al are using and advocating film and expressing the appreciation for what, aesthetically speaking, film can still bring to the game.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2016   #25
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
I think of the movie as more of a reboot/remake, a retelling of a modern myth, so I didn't mind the familiar tropes. I might have preferred a threat that wasn't just another Death Star, but I think the new actors are just delightful, and the special effects are not so gratuitous. I love the Kylo Ren character—he's a Vader wannabe; his mask is completely optional; his lightsaber looks like something he probably designed when he was 9 years old, playing with toys. He's kind of a meta-Star-Wars character, somebody as steeped in the lore of the original movies as we are. And it was great to see Ford and Fisher in those roles again.

I saw it in 2D first, then went to see 3D later. I tend to think 3D doesn't add anything to most movies, but this time I really enjoyed it. Abrams and crew used it judiciously, I think...I actually liked the movie better the second time.

I didn't realize the current-tech 3D could be shot on film, though. Is the principle the same as it was back in the old days of 3D?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2016   #26
rulnacco
Registered User
 
rulnacco is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 136
Quote:
Yes...locked in forever at 1080P
They need to be locked away somewhere else suitable, too. Good lord those films were dreadful.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2016   #27
Mephiloco
Registered User
 
Mephiloco is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NOLA
Posts: 512
Film is still pretty common on big shows. We shot Jurassic World mostly on 5219. Magnificent 7 we used 5207 and 5219 while shooting 4 perf anamorphic (same exact cameras that shot Star Wars). Just did a music video that was using 7 different film stocks. Jack Reacher 2 is a 4 perf anamorphic Kodak show. Spectre was Kodak.
__________________
Leica M240, M2, M4-2, IIIc, Sony A7S
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2016   #28
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,686
Just saw it in 2D and really liked it. Great "look and feel", sim to A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back.
True, the storyline was a modification of A New Hope .... okay ..... let's see what Disney does next with the franchise.

Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford have aged enormously. I was shocked.

EDIT: Daisy Ridley had the most work to do and she was like #6 in the credits!
__________________
Dave

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2016   #29
mike rosenlof
Insufficient information
 
mike rosenlof is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Colorado
Age: 60
Posts: 354
Another new movie -- kind of a polar opposite to SW -- "Carol" shot on Super 16mm.

Lovely movie, period piece set at the 1952 of the original novel. Many good things to say about it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2016   #30
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike rosenlof View Post
Another new movie -- kind of a polar opposite to SW -- "Carol" shot on Super 16mm.

Lovely movie, period piece set at the 1952 of the original novel. Many good things to say about it.
I'm a fan of the director, Todd Haynes, too. I will definitely go to see it...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:27.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.