Interesting how much they are trying to stay so near to the OT that they would even use exact same Kodak film stock.

Link

I'll just repost what I wrote on the thread below:



And this has nothing to do with film vs digital. He's free to use the tools he wants.

Thats what worries me. I think he is so afraid of ruining the franchise he is over doing it, which doesn't inspire confidence. Hopefully we will look back and see this as just one more decision that led to a masterpiece and not a failed attempt at appeasing the vocal minority.

You know there is a lack of news out there when you find yourself talking about the film they are going to use portray the movie. Im not that familiar when its comes to film vs digital, at the end of the day they both look the same to me.

I'm okay with it on the grounds that film is theoretically infinitely scannable while digital is (for now anyway) pretty much locked at whatever resolution at which it was originally captured... which in Episode II and III's case isn't very high, especially by modern standards.

Seems as though Disney wants Abrams to film part of the movie in IMAX. Expected. It would look fantastic, of course.

into darkness was shot on film with a few IMAX scenes here and there and that looks fantastic, one of the best for picture quality and the 3D blu-ray is one of the best 3D discs i have in terms of brightness etc (although it has not been announced, there is no way it wont be 3D!) i never had a doubt about it not looking good but the film stock thing is a nice touch (considering they could just colour correct it etc in post) my only niggle will be if they use the same lenses as trek as the anamorphic effect pisses me off with the squished heads from time to time! i have only noticed it in his trek movies (not really in any others) so hopefully its a trek quirk fingers crossed