my Star Trek obsession

[Thomas James]

I just saw the latest 35mm Star Trek movie at the theatre and it was a blurry mess any time there was fast action. To me 2K digital cinema is the only logical format because it allows projection at 48 frames per second.

[Andy_Alderslade]

I just saw the latest 35mm Star Trek movie at the theatre and it was a blurry mess any time there was fast action. To me 2K digital cinema is the only logical format because it allows projection at 48 frames per second.

 

That generally implies that essentially all cinema past and present is a blury mess because not a single theatrical film has been photographed and projected at 48 frames per second.

 

Plus your quest for motion smoothness is actually sacrificing things many in this business would deem as important perhaps even more important, like colour saturation for instance, where 35mm tends to be better.

[K Borowski]

But what do we know Andy. We only try to make a living in this industry. . .

 

The "customer" is always right, even when he isn't :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Just FYI Thomas, since you erroneously think only digital is capable of higher framerates: Ebert proposed all the way back in 2001 or 2002 that "Maxivision" be adopted in lieu of digital, 35mm 48-fps projection. It would be several orders of magnitude cheaper than DLP to boot, with 3-perf. films it could be made only 1-1/2 times more expensive, and it'd only cost in the low $1,000s per projector.

 

But, this is about converting all theatres to digital now, though, isn't it?

 

For Christ's sake, quit passive-voice preaching in every thread about 48FPS DLP and progressive scan HDTV.

 

Star Trek has nothing to do with 48FPS DLP, sorry :)

[Thomas James]

MaxiVision 48 is a fine format unfortunately it never succeeded because people who advocate film insist on 24 frames per second. People who advocate digital usually do not have a problem with higher frame rates unless they want their digital to look like film in which case they film the drama at 24 frames per second while reserving the action shots for 48 frames per second. Before the defects of 24 frames per second cinematography were hidden because people usually watched movies on crummy analog televisions but with the advent of high definition motion artifacts are much more noticable.

[K Borowski]

For Christ's sake, quit passive-voice preaching in every thread about 48FPS DLP and progressive scan HDTV.

 

Star Trek has nothing to do with 48FPS DLP, sorry :)

[Andy_Alderslade]

MaxiVision 48 is a fine format unfortunately it never succeeded because people who advocate film insist on 24 frames per second. People who advocate digital usually do not have a problem with higher frame rates unless they want their digital to look like film in which case they film the drama at 24 frames per second while reserving the action shots for 48 frames per second. Before the defects of 24 frames per second cinematography were hidden because people usually watched movies on crummy analog televisions but with the advent of high definition motion artifacts are much more noticable.

 

You seem to be implying that there is a conspiracy, the reality is a bit more simple - other people don't really care about it as much as you clearly do.

 

The irony is most digital cinema cameras (well the one's i've been on shoots with D21, Red, F900 etc) can't actually film 48fps or 50fps at full quality, there is usually a loss in quality involved, where today's film cameras can do it right out the box, with no loss.

 

And not all analogue televisions are crummy, they may not be able to do High Def, but many produce a better looking image than low to moderately priced LCDs.

[K Borowski]

And not all analogue televisions are crummy, they may not be able to do High Def, but many produce a better looking image than low to moderately priced LCDs.

 

Indeed, the opposite is true. Most CRT screens deliver much *better* quality and consistency than LCD screens do. For instance, if you look at this crummy LCD monitor here from an angle, the colors are desaturated. It is actually quite difficult, were I to be using this monitor for a graphics application to determine what angle of view is the "correct" angle.

 

Further, this push to go to LCD (which is cheaper to manufacture too, surprise surprise) has basically put even the high-end CRT monitors, which were (I'd argue still are) *necessary* for fine-tuned color matching applications out of production.

 

So now you are basically stuck with LCD. It is making improvements, but still doesnt' match the high-end monitors of even 15 years ago.

 

And as far as flicker, a lot of them can be made to go 60p. 60i was a byproduct of electron gun and data rate technology from the '50s, not from the modern day.

 

 

If you want to talk about something that is "crummy" Thomas, talk about the ubiquitous low-end LCD projectors that just use a really high frame rate (which you'd like, right?) and spin an RGB color wheel in front. Talk about artifacts from looking at that. . .

[Thomas James]

When I was reffering to analog televisions I was reffering to devices that only can only display a 480i interlaced signal and I was not reffering to CRT progressive scan computer monitors or CRT high definition televisions. Unfortunately these 480i analog interlaced televisions are artifact generating monsters and produce horrible picture quality. People who say high definition LCD monitors are inferior to 480i analog televisions usually try to display an interlaced 480i signal and end up with poor results because the display was not designed to handle 480i interlaced signals but rather progressive scan and high definition signals.

[Deborah Tudor]

To the poster seeking Cinefex back issues: There is an online order site for this journal's back issues at cinefex.com. Some of the oldest issues, like #1, which features the first Star Trek film, are out of print, but available as B&W copies.

[George Ebersole]

Yes, the irony is that "Wrath of Khan" was the lowest in budget, worst in sets, efx, made by Paramount's TV division -- yet it's the best Trek movie due to the script, acting, and direction. Sort of puts things in perspective.

Late to this long dead thread, but just in case it wasn't brought up before, I think Nicholas Meyer said on the commentary that he shot STII as a made for TV movie; budget and schedule. It's why the shots are pretty basic. I think Paramount tried to reuse this formula for their TNG theatrical films.

[Tom Jensen]

Late to this long dead thread..........

 

This thread, as well as Star Trek, will never die.

[George Ebersole]

Heh, well I have to admit that I am a bit of a Star Trek fan. ;)

 

When I first got my classic ST DVDs I was pretty thrilled to have them in my collection, and still am. The downshot is that you can see a couple of imperfections. I think a C-stand comes into view here and there, you can see bits of Burbank on one or two of the exterior shots. There's a small list of mistakes, but I still enjoyed episodes.

 

I agree with Mullen's observations on "The Motion Picture". To me the art direction is really superb, and a real effort went into making this an epic film. The overall look and shot composition, to me at least, really exceed all of the other Trek films cinematically, but the film itself lacked some story "umph" to put it over the top.

 

In terms of directing I don't think there was a whole lot to be done to improve the film. Story wise I think a couple more action sequences were needed to really make this film the "Star Wars" of 1979. However the film had an appropriate "Trek" story and "Trek" ending, and was decent in spite of all the heavy emphasis on miniature work.

 

Just my two bits.

[Chris D Walker]

Picking up from January:

 

Channel 4 over here in the UK has been showing all the Star Trek films, one every weekend, for six weeks now (The Motion Picture all the way to The Undiscovered Country). What I find strange is the tendency for the better photography to go hand in hand with the lesser films and vice versa.

 

Case in point:

 

The Motion Picture-

It was the first time I had seen it all the way through and wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. The cinematography and visual effects were great.

 

The Final Frontier-

There was a real unbalance in the tone of the story with bad plotting, but there was a great shot in the beginning of the film - a sci-fi Lawrence of Arabia.

 

Wrath of Khan-

The best of the original crew outings. A great score, decent visual effects and an excellent finale. The photography isn't up to scratch with the other films.

 

Best to worst, top to bottom:

Wrath of Khan

The Voyage Home

The Undiscovered Country

The Search for Spock

The Motion Picture

The Final Frontier

 

It's been interesting watching them all after reading what each film had to go through to get made, from a book called The Greatest Sci-fi Movies Never Made no less. Channel 4's now playing the Next Generation films starting with Generations, so I may post again when they're done in four weeks time.

 

For the record, my favourite series is Deep Space Nine.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Chris D Walker