6
   

Star Trek Into Darkness

 
 
oralloy
 
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 07:28 pm

No one started a thread on the new Star Trek movie yet?

Anyway, I went and saw it yesterday. I highly recommend it. Good story, and great treatment of Star Trek lore/canon.


I also strongly recommend seeing it at a 15:70 IMAX theater. Approximately 30 minutes of the movie was filmed in 15:70 IMAX, and if you don't see it in such a theater, you'll be missing some content.

Note: "Digital IMAX" is not the same thing and is inferior to 15:70 IMAX. Here is a list of all 15:70 IMAX movie theaters in North America:
http://thedarkknightrises.warnerbros.com/imax.html

(The list is related to the most recent Batman movie, which was also partially filmed in 15:70 IMAX, but it's accurate.)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 6,661 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 07:52 pm
@oralloy,
I saw it already and enjoyed it. I liked it better than the last one, and the last one wasn't bad either.

What is the basic visual difference between 15:70 IMAX and Digital IMAX?
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 08:47 pm
I'm interested in seeing it, but not paying for the serious IMAX, etc.

But we will see it at some point.

I've been reading tons on it on various Star Trek boards - I've probably read every spoiler out there - yes, I know T'Pring is back with Janeway, Wesley Crusher and Phlox.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 06:31 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
What is the basic visual difference between 15:70 IMAX and Digital IMAX?

Two visual differences:

a) 15:70 IMAX has a taller screen, whereas Digital IMAX has a low, wide screen like traditional movie dimensions. This means that if anything filmed in 15:70 IMAX is shown in a Digital IMAX theater, the top and bottom of the image will be cropped off.

b) 15:70 IMAX has much higher resolution (the 70 stands for 70MM film in the projector), allowing for much greater sharpness and detail. Digital IMAX has resolution superior to a normal projector, but inferior to that of 15:70 IMAX.

This site explains it well:
http://www.slashfilm.com/qa-imax-theatre-real-imax-liemax/

One of the pictures from that site gives a good depiction of how the top and bottom of the image gets chopped off:
http://bitcast-a.v1.ord1.bitgravity.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/ZZ68ECE699.jpg

The size of the screen might be less of an issue, because with Digital IMAX everyone is seated closer, making the smaller screen look larger. But the top and bottom will still be chopped off of any image filmed in actual 15:70, and there will be less sharpness and detail to the picture when it's showing 15:70 footage.


Of course, all this only applies if part of the movie has been specifically filmed in 15:70 IMAX. If nothing in the movie has been filmed in 15:70 to begin with, then a Digital IMAX theater will work just as well as a 15:70 IMAX theater.

So far, I think only Batman, Mission Impossible, and now Star Trek have had actual 15:70 footage in the movie.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 04:44 pm
@oralloy,
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:21 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Interesting. Thanks for the info.

You're welcome.

One thing I should emphasize so that it isn't missed/misunderstood is that only about 30 minutes of the movie is in 70MM.

In general, the scenes where human actors are speaking lines were filmed with regular cameras, and the scenes that are pure special effects (like battles between spaceships) were done in 70MM.

15:70 IMAX cameras make a lot of noise when they are recording, so they will probably never be used to film dialog.

This means that the picture expands vertically when it gets to a special effects scene. But it isn't distracting, as they are making a transition between scenes at the moment the image expands or contracts.

I made a point of looking for it a couple times because I wanted to verify I was actually seeing 15:70 and not Digital, and the only time I noticed it was when I was thinking to look for it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:50 pm
@oralloy,

Nancy and I saw it...and were blown away. When I think of how amazed I was when I saw 2001, A Space Odyssey, I almost have to laugh. The technology has just gone ape...and I love it (especially because I am such a science fiction fan...and the technology really makes the genre work on the screen.)

Sorry I did not see it in Imax...but did see it in 3D.

The characters are a delight...and it gets better if you see some of the original cast in the television series, as we did the other night in a bar that had the TV series on. The new guys really capture the old characters beautifully.

TO ANYONE WHO HAS NOT YET SEEN IT: I enthusiastically second Oralloy's recommendation!

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:57 pm
I am a Trek fan since I was 6...seen all the series and all the films...Although fast paced and somewhat less philosophical I still like the new blood version ! Thumbs up !

PS - That being said, there will never be another Spock like the original Spock...
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 09:20 pm
I enjoyed it and went back the next week and saw it again. I hope that they keep in mind that "Star Trek" is not "Star Wars." "Star Trek" can have great special effects, but at its core, it's about ideas. I (mild spoiler) liked it that the first segment was about the Prime Directive, which is the soul of "Star Trek." "Star Trek," to continue to be Roddenberry's "Star Trek," must always contain two principles: (1) the human race will survive and move towards its highest ideals, and (2) everybody is welcome.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Star Trek Into Darkness
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/17/2019 at 11:07:57