Support NeoGAF

[fluffydelusions]

After some difficulties in pre-production, work is getting underway for Jurassic World, the fourth film in the Jurassic Park series. Director Colin Trevorrow tweeted last night that principle photography for the action flick will begin this April and — surprisingly — shooting will be done on film, not digital. Trevorrow says that both traditional 35mm film and large-format 65mm film will be used by cinematographer John Schwartzman (Armageddon, The Amazing Spiderman, Seabiscuit).

65mm film is rarely used, particularly in the 4K digital era. Each frame is significantly larger than a traditional 35mm frame, making the film extremely sharp. It's likely that select action scenes will be shot in the large format, similarly to Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. However, it's not yet clear how the film will be released in theaters — it's doubtful that it will be projected in 70mm, as few theaters can handle the film. Instead, the movie will probably be offered in IMAX.

Traditionalists will be pleased with the choice to opt for film instead of digital, which has steadily taken over Hollywood in the past few years thanks to its convenience and cost savings. Perhaps more importantly, the move means Jurassic World will visually match the three earlier Jurassic Park films, which date from 1993, 1997, and 2001. Such visual cohesiveness is something that directors like George Lucas and Peter Jackson eschewed in favor of new technology in the Star Wars prequels and The Hobbit, respectively.


Trevorrow has already shown an interest in keeping the fourth film true to the series' roots. In a separate tweet last year, the director said in no uncertain terms that the dinosaurs in the movie would not have feathers — despite evidence from paleontologists that many were covered with them.

Jurassic World will star Chris Pratt, and is set to be released on June 12th, 2015. No plot details have been revealed yet, but information from Louisiana's film offices reveal that some of the film will be shot in New Orleans this June.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/6/5387406/jurassic-world-will-be-shot-on-film

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Cool!

 

[tipoo]

The main difference for consumers I'd assume would be post-process 3D vs native for digital which is generally better, if you're into 3D.

Anyways, it's been a long time coming, but at last

 

[BIGWORM]

JackNicholsonnod.gif

 

[GK86]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=764366&highlight=jurassic+world

Already a thread.

 

[TUSR]

Nothing much I can say besides that I feel it was the right choice.

 

[triplestation]

whats the advantage of film over digital anyway (in terms of visuals)

is it that grainy quality?

i want to get this straight

so 35mm is the grainiest 65 is less grainy and film is like no grain

help me understand

 

[TAJ]

whats the advantage of film over digital anyway (in terms of visuals)

is it that grainy quality?

i want to get this straight

so 35mm is the grainiest 65 is less grainy and film is like no grain

help me understand

Film can be archived more reliably. Aaaaaand that's it.

 

[Razorback]

whats the advantage of film over digital anyway (in terms of visuals)

is it that grainy quality?

i want to get this straight

so 35mm is the grainiest 65 is less grainy and film is like no grain

help me understand

35mm and 65mm are both film. And the graininess has to do with the sensitivity of the film and not the size.

Digital is, well, digital.

 

[triplestation]

35mm and 65mm are both film. And the graininess has to do with the sensitivity of the film and not the size.

Digital is, well, digital.

so why 65mm preferred for SFX

 

[pswii60]

whats the advantage of film over digital anyway (in terms of visuals)

is it that grainy quality?

i want to get this straight

so 35mm is the grainiest 65 is less grainy and film is like no grain

help me understand

Digital sucks. The world is analogue. Analogue forever!

 

[Illithid Dude]

whats the advantage of film over digital anyway (in terms of visuals)

is it that grainy quality?

i want to get this straight

so 35mm is the grainiest 65 is less grainy and film is like no grain

help me understand

It's higher resolution as well. 65mm is like.... 10k? Higher?

There's also a certain quality to film that you simply can't get with digital. A certain way colors and especially skin tones look.

 

[TAJ]

It's higher resolution as well. 65mm is like.... 10k? Higher?

There's also a certain quality to film that you simply can't get with digital. A certain way colors and especially skin tones look.

Oh, gaaaaawd. Not this shit. Almost every movie you've seen for over a decade has been converted to digital even if it was shot and screened on film.

 

[Illithid Dude]

Oh, gaaaaawd. Not this shit. Almost every movie you've seen for over a decade has been converted to digital even if it was shot and screened on film.

Did I ever say it wasn't?

 

[ButchCat]

Feeling iffy about this.

 

[Phire Phox]

Ummmm...cool?

 

[Dommo]

whats the advantage of film over digital anyway (in terms of visuals)

is it that grainy quality?

i want to get this straight

so 35mm is the grainiest 65 is less grainy and film is like no grain

help me understand

35mm and 65mm are both film formats. As a result, they both carry grain structure. There are ways to limit or add grain based on which type of film stock you pick. Some people like the aesthetics of grain (Spielberg) and try to make it as prevalent as possible. Others don't. Digital obviously has no grain but it comes with a different phenomenon - noise. Noise is the equivalent to grain on digital and it's generally agreed that it's hideous and not wanted. Unlike grain, noise has colour particles, and so it almost has the effect of tearing up the image, like a bad jpeg. Only one director that I can think of enjoys and embraces digital noise, and that's Michael Mann. Generally directors try to avoid noise as much as possible, giving digital shots a clean, cllook.al look.

The primary differences between film and digital are that traditionally, film has had a far higher dynamic range. This means that in any one shot, one shot on film will pick up much more information in the bright and the dark spots, whereas on digital, those areas of the frame will be either blown out (completely white - it's too bright for the camera to handle), or crushed (completely black - it's too dark for the camera to handle). This gives the image a far, far more professional look, allows for far more customisation come colour grading time. This has what's turned people off digital for so long. This is no longer much of a problem. Both the Arri Alexa and Red show similar results in terms of dynamic range to a 35mm camera.

Another problem is that of resolution. 35mm is equivalent to about 4k. Digital has only now stepped into that field and Red Epic actually surpasses that resolution.

So everything that was once holding back digital is no longer really a problem. And it kicks film's ass in terms of workflow. Even grain can be reproduced in post if you want that look

 

[triplestation]

It's higher resolution as well. 65mm is like.... 10k? Higher?

There's also a certain quality to film that you simply can't get with digital. A certain way colors and especially skin tones look.

That's what I'm thinking

Digital movies look so damn crisp

A movie like Jurassic park imo is better with some grit

I think digital is much easier to work with tho

 

[Ninja Scooter]

makes sense. It is a movie about ....dinosaurs.

 

[TAJ]

Did I ever say it wasn't?

No. Sorry. The film fans I've met IRL have tended to be hyper-smug, uninformed and unpleasant and I'm probably putting that on you.

That's what I'm thinking

Digital movies look so damn crisp

A movie like Jurassic park imo is better with some grit

I think digital is much easier to work with tho

Capture and exhibition are completely different animals. You're not seeing the potential of film in theaters. By the time you see it it's gone through generations of duping and/or conversion. Then you lose some more resolution just projecting film because of jitter. (the film rattling around ever so slightly in the projector)
If you're going to digital projection from film you can scan straight from the negative and flip the values, and good film scanners can hold the film very steady.