Hello all,
I was watching the making off this movie on the DVD and Blue ray, and I noticed that, when the special effects guys were shooting the scene where the Enterprise is leaving the drydock, I noticed that the ship and the drydock were not in front of a bluescreen, but were rather being shot in front of a black background.
First of all, 3 FX companies were involved on the movie: Robert Abel & Assoc. who pioneered back-lit animation and CGI in the 1970s. Apogee, started by Star Wars Alumni John Dykstra. And EEG (Entertainment Effects Group) a company started by two other Star Wars veterans, Douglas Trumbull and Richard Yuricich. Because Paramount soon realised that Abel's company was not Abel (pun intended) to complete all the effects shots alone, the other companies were enlisted, and the only remaining effects left in the movie by Abel, are the Warp Speed and Worm Hole streaking effects along with some visual display FX, and miniatures.
As someone has already mentioned, Trumbull is not a fan of so-called bluescreen, because of the degredation to the image caused by processing all the elements that need to be composited afterward, such as grain and hard edges. And because on the movie they did not have time to generate all the elements, and had to shoot a brightly coloured miniature which would risk bluescreen "spill" onto the model, effectively showing holes through it. So what they did was utilise an old technique perfected by Georges Méles at the turn of the 20th Century, but used their cutting edge equipment to enable it. EEG had a motion control rig, custom built for Close Encounters, which they used to shoot the Enterprise miniature against a screen covered in a new highly reflective material called Scotchlite, developed by 3M. A white light was directed at it which would put the model in silouhette. A matte pass was shot, so that it could be used to leave a clear space on unexposed film, inwhich the Enterprise would fit when they wound it back in the camera in order to film another pass. Then a "beauty" pass of the ship well lit, and a "lights only" pass etc, would be shot on the same film. But even then, they still had to matte in other elements like the shuttle in which Kirk and Scotty fly by the Enterprise. But at least those would take less time to complete. Therefore, the word "bluescreen" is a misnomer, as already mentioned above the screen was in fact white, but a luminous blue light was directed at it, ensuring a pure intense hue.
Watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok2YmiDPHVI to see that the screen behind the Enterprise model is white.
If you fwd to 7:49 you will actually see the FX guys on Empire switch the blue light on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIlYk7KQe-s
To also prove my point, compare the shot of Kirk and Scotty's fly by, with the shot of the Enterprise in entering the wormhole. You will notice it has hard edges, because it was shot "bluescreen" - as multi-pass shooting that scene would've been difficult.
Most of Star Trek was filmed in 70mm, including the effects. One reason that the blu ray looks so good!
Today, greenscreens are actually that colour.
reply
share
Kojiro_Vance
9 years ago
Thank you for your detailed answer!
English isn't my 1st language. I'm sorry for any mistakes in grammar, spelling...
reply
share
wwestar
9 years ago
Only the effects would have been shot in 65mm none of the film was.
reply
share
buckaroobanzai50
9 years ago
The whole film was shot in 70mm AND 35mmm. I watched the Blu Ray over xmas. On the commentary Michael Okuda who designed the displays said that the filming was tedious for the actors, because they had to film scenes in 35mm first, then in 70mm afterwards. Don't believe me? just get the Blu Ray. That's one reason PQ on the disc looks so good. Paramount decided to push the boat out with TMP and make it an event movie. But when they made Khan, they decided to cut costs as TMP was just too expensive. I know it is possible to blow-up 35mm to 70mm but the results are not always desirable.
reply
share
wwestar
9 years ago
As a member of the 70mm Society we keep a detailed record of every film ever shot in 70mm from any time in history and from every country.
Ryan's Daughter & Song of Norway 1970 were the last two films from the West to shoot in 65mm. The next film would be Tron 1982 to film in 65mm. No film from the west in between those years was shot on 65mm except for certain films utilizing it on certain visual effect sequences.
You can get all the info at in70mm.com
reply
share
Marmadukebagelhole
9 years ago
A handful of scenes of live action were shot on 65mm. The wormhole and the probe scenes for two , which of course also included extensive visual effects.
In general it would have been impossible to shoot much of the bridge scenes in 65mm, what with the low light levels necessary for rear projection displays to register on camera.
You can recognise the tell tale anamorphic drop off in focus for the majority of interiors, indicating that it was 35mm. You don't see this in the live action shots that have visual and optical effects.
I'm not even sure it's really possible to shoot 65 and 35mm simoultaneously without compromising one of them considerably.
There were films shot on two formats (particularly Todd-AO productions) but I think it was a case of one take for 65mm, one take for 35mm.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.
reply
share
wwestar
9 years ago
Beautifully put.
reply
share
Marmadukebagelhole
9 years ago
I love the stories about the production of Tron in 65mm. Particularly the fact that the gear still had sand in it from the Lawrence shoot.
And the way that the camera was secured for live action, location scenes requiring visual effects by nailing the rig about a foot deep into the floor. You could have driven a pick-up into it and it wouldn't have budged.
Anyone who can make a good movie with a camera that's been nailed into the foor is ok with me.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.
reply
share
wwestar
9 years ago
I think the sand story is a myth. The cameras were used for numerous productions after Lawrence. The idea that Panavision didn't clean them ever is ridiculous.
reply
share
Marmadukebagelhole
9 years ago
I'm not sure if they said the cameras had sand in them. Just some of the gear. And the sand could have came from anywhere. It's a cute story anyway, even if it's just a story.
The director did also state that the viewfinder was broken on one of the cameras they got for the shoot and they were required to just make the best gues for composition. Presumably that would have been a non-effects shot.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.
reply
share
MaximRecoil
8 years ago
Don't believe me? just get the Blu Ray. That's one reason PQ on the disc looks so good.
You don't need 65/70mm film to look good on Blu-ray. Blu-ray is only 1920×1080, and good 35mm negatives can easily resolve to about 4 times that resolution (3.5 to 4K).
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4619)
4 years ago
"That's one reason PQ on the disc looks so good."
The picture quality of the Blu-ray sucks. They applied way too much DNR, giving it a waxy look due to the loss of film grain / detail. It looks like any other movie from the era on Blu-ray that was shot on 35mm film and heavily DNR'd.
Had it been shot entirely or primarily on 70mm, they wouldn't have applied DNR to the Blu-ray transfer, because 70mm is already very fine-grained, which is why it was used in this and many other movies for special effects shots, i.e., to minimize the amount of film grain multiplication you get from compositional layering.
reply
share