[Lady Vaako]

Originally Posted by sir num nums

The movie should do fine, even though the "IMAX" version is only going to be in Digital IMAX, and that makes me mad.

What difference does it make, exactly?

[Jed Starkiller]

Originally Posted by Quark

Oh, that sucks. But think of it this way, at least the film itself isn't digital unlike the way Lucas made his prequel trilogies. haha

Why is it a bad thing for the film to be digital?

[That Metal Beastie]

Originally Posted by Jed Starkiller

Why is it a bad thing for the film to be digital?

There is a difference between looks of the two media. The gap is narrowing but not yet closed. Film purist prefer that medium but as with still photography film is on its way to becoming specialty work. The pluses of digital photography/cinematography outweigh the minuses.

[sir num nums]

IMAX Digital uses two Christie DLP Projectors
The image on screen is very nice.

The problem is that IMAX has just over 100 theatres that play Hollywood movies in the US.
So, if they do not make a 70mm version for the MPX locations, which they should, then
theatres like mine will not be able to play Star Trek in IMAX.

Eh, I guess a smaller screen in DLP will be ok

[MissionTrek08]

Originally Posted by sir num nums

The movie should do fine, even though the "IMAX" version is only going to be in Digital IMAX, and that makes me mad.

Since none of Abrams' film was actually produced in the IMAX format, I guess this is the most economical way to release it in IMAX theaters after converting the original 'print'.

[Jed Starkiller]

Originally Posted by That Metal Beastie

There is a difference between looks of the two media. The gap is narrowing but not yet closed. Film purist prefer that medium but as with still photography film is on its way to becoming specialty work. The pluses of digital photography/cinematography outweigh the minuses.

I understand that. I was trying to figure out what Quark had against it.

[Chekov]

I agree, I will be here until?? Been a tad busy lately but I stop by from time to time.

[DS9TREK]

Originally Posted by Jed Starkiller

Why is it a bad thing for the film to be digital?

People in general (and Americans in particular, I find) have a tendency to look down at anything shot on videotape. Which is why you get the makers of American productions like Star Wars, StarGate, Battlestar Galactica, ect, calling it "digital" out of shame.

[MonsieurHood]

No forum lasts forever, but hopefully this one will last a few years. After the film, I'll check in from time to time to see how things are going, but I've been posting intensely and paying rapt attention to keep abreast of this film and what it would be like. I did this with another series of films a few years back and I just can't keep up like I used to. Any of you who care will see me turn up again from time to time, but nothing like I've been doing since this thing started. From the reviews, Star Trek (XI) looks to be a well made, well acted, exciting and entertaining film. That's half of what I wanted it to be, I suppose getting half of what you want really isn't all that bad. But some of the proported changes to the essence of Star Trek are troubling to me, but i'll decide for myself if that's true come May 8th. If it turns out to be so, there will be little interest for me in any sequel. Because it's Star Trek that I loved, and if this film isn't part of that, then there's no need for me to follow this "new vision" any farther. I'll just watch the Trek I fondly remember, and leave it at that. I'm just too old and set in my ways to change now.