News from the set [2]

Why dont they just go and build the entire Middle Earth set in each theatre and have the cast fly between them doing performances for a few months? That would be more realistic.

Now that would be cool. I like the sound of the new sound technology, I dont have a problem with better music quality and dolby surround and all that kind of stuff, that bits quite interesting. Totally not happy though with 48 frames thingy, who wants a more realistic fantasy film?, it defeats the whole purpose.

What really confused me was how they expect to have surround sound on tablets or mobile phones. I guess they just mean syncing the mobile devices to a system that's been installed in a room, but that seems a bit redundant. Don't we already have TVs for home viewing?

still, probably won't upgrade our theatre though, so not really that exited :/

The concerns being expressed here make a lot of sense. I don't want a resolution so high that I can see the netting under the wig, tell that that stone is actually polystyrene etc.

But I'm fairly certain that Jackson, Weta and WB don't, either, and that any such issues will be dealt with in proper post-production. The unfinished 10-minute CinemaCon reel, and the reaction to it, isn't the soundest grounding for us to be drawing any conclusions from, surely?

Anyway, I know that this is way off topic (and the threads here seem to be a little more disciplined that at the other place!), but I'd really like to hear what you all think. If you'd rather I started another thread somewhere, tell me!

And the question is this... There's a lot of scepticism here about what Jackson's doing cinematically, but if the (near) future of cinema isn't higher frame-rates and isn't three dimensions then...what is it?

I know that this is way off topic (and the threads here seem to be a little more disciplined that at the other place!)- Kendalf



Now I've got mirth back under control its good to see you back Kendalf! Onto your point.
You are right about the footage being unfinished Kendalf and there being time to sort it. However I have my reservations about this- from the reading I have been doing the reason it looks like it does is a direct product of shooting at 48fr- which is why it looks like BBC TV of the 1970's (which was shot on film at 50fr per second), only now its in a much, much higher resolution- so you get the same look and it seems from the reports too much detail.
This makes we wonder if it is something you can fix in post- and surely if after you shoot a film on this expensive new format (even with digital more info means bigger storage, processing- in otherwords money) to then have to go on post and redo to the whole film to sort the problems seems to me to make it a prohibitive means of filmaking.

I'm not convinced cinema has a future Kendalf.

I suppose I should have added "in my limited experience so far!"

As far as I'm aware, The Hobbit is going to be available as:

48fps in 3D
48fps in 2D
24fps in 3D
24fps in 2D

In my complete and utter ignorance, I'd assume that once you have filmed in the first of these, there's actually not that much work and expense involved in creating the other three (unlike filming in 2D and then trying to apply a third afterwards), so maybe it's not such a counter-productive means of filming. The "gold standard" can be made available to those who want it, but everyone else can be kept happy, too, for minimum expense.

As for the increased resolution, yes, I daresay it is going to necessitate a little "airbrushing" from Weta here and there but then it may be a price worth paying for the dramatically increased detail on the embossed leathers and embroidered dresses, the sparkling jewellery, architecture and landscapes etc. No?

holodeck

dramatically increased detail on the embossed leathers and embroidered
dresses, the sparkling jewellery, architecture and landscapes etc.- Kendalf

Not if the clothes look like costumes, the jewellery fake and the landscapes like models (where they use them-which was quite a lot in LotR's)- outdoor sweeping shots should look excellent, but nothing we havent seen before- the BBC having being shooting stuff like Life on Earth at those frame rates for years- there must be a reason they have choosen not to shoot their drama this way in all that time but to stick to lower rates).

"Holodeck"- David


Now you are talking.

I am posting an article from the guy who filmed Space Odyssey 2001 with Kubrick, Douglas Trumbull, and he says 48 frames something you can alter in post production.
from EW Weekly, Inside Movies, May 2nd.

A: I’ve also worked out another invention to counteract this weird soap-opera kind of feeling that people are complaining about with The Hobbit, for example. You can conceivably shoot a movie like The Hobbit or virtually any movie at 120 frames, and you can embed any high-frame rate you want within a 24-frame version of the movie. If there’s hockey puck, or a fist, or an exploding car, or some action on the screen that’s moving too fast and it’s blurring and looking crummy, you can ramp that part of it up to 30 frames, 48 frames, 60 frames, or 120 frames, only as needed. Just for the moment of that action. And for the sequences that people — I mean, I haven’t seen Peter’s thing yet — but for instance, people said the helicopter shots flying over the countryside are fabulous because they’re crisp and sharp and vivid, and that’s great.
It’s only when you have close-ups of Gollum or something that it looks creepy. Well, I think it’s possible now to give the director complete control over exactly what frame rate the movie is at any moment in time, virtually on any object in the screen. This is one of the revolutionary new opportunities that are being unleashed by digital technology because you can break the picture down one pixel at a time.

Q: So it’s theoretical that Peter Jackson could emerge from last week, go back into his laboratory and lower the frame-rates of the more placid scenes with Gollum while preserving the action scenes that are most enhanced by the quicker film speed.

A: He could. With the stroke of a key. He could change film rates all through the film. That’s technology that he probably has. See, he’s shooting with a special shutter so that if he deletes every other frame to get down to 24 frames, it will have enough blur to make his 24-frame version look okay. I would assume that most of the release of The Hobbit will ultimately be in 24 frames, particularly because Blu-ray players don’t run at 48 yet.

So in other words the look everyone is complaining about is what you get when you shoot that way and the only way to sort it so not do it and reduce the frames again- fine for multimillion Jackson but having to go through the film in post doing this- and as someone who does a bit of video editing its can take a while to do anything- thats man power and people on a lot of money an hour doing it- its still an extra cost just to get your slower scenes looking like they would if you hadn't bothered shooting it at 48 in the first place! Why not just shoot the talky bits at 24 then and shoot the action at 48?

yes I agree, but I think they are only going to alter it now they know people hate the look of it, otherwise I reckon they would have left it all in 48. Its nice to know that Rivendell wont look like a tacky set. I am actually excited by all this new stuff, but its bad news for the Hobbit, its just not the right film to do it in.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Why not just shoot the talky bits at 24 then and shoot the action at 48?

Just to make it more difficult for you to re-edit, Petty!

Mrs Figg wrote:I am posting an article from the guy who filmed Space Odyssey 2001 with Kubrick, Douglas Trumbull, and he says 48 frames something you can alter in post production.

That's somewhat reassuring. There will be many people test screening different edits before the final cut comes out, so I expect it should end up visually watchable before it makes it to theaters. I'm worrying more about axe heads, bunny sleds, and for all I know pink elephants on rollerskates.... {{if that makes it into the movie, Petty, it's your own damn fault for mentioning them}}

They are going to be huge bunnies too, they must have eaten your special carrots Dave.

Bun-E-Grow carrots

These special carrots arent the sort you can smoke are they?

Mrs Figg wrote:They are going to be huge bunnies too, they must have eaten your special carrots Dave.

Bun-E-Grow carrots

I can assure, you Mrs Figg, as a gentlehobbit of honor I would never allow my special carrots to be used for such nefarious purposes (Though come to think of it, I did send a shipment down to Admiral Orwell in Ozhobbitland a couple months ago.....You don't suppose he's been secretly breeding giant bunnies for PJ, do you????? )

Pettytyrant101 wrote:These special carrots arent the sort you can smoke are they?

Can't say. Never tried smoking 'em. Maybe though.....Here's a couple. Let me know how they work for you.


(I think this is the first interest I've ever seen you show in vegetables )

I think Petty means Camberwell Carrots.

Hold on! Carrots are vegetables?!

David H wrote:holodeck

I don't doubt it, eventually!

But, then, I wonder about what genres and what titles would lend themselves to such an experience? I think I could handle an all-enveloping holographic version of Sapphic Love 23...but Texas Chainsaw Massacre 19? Maybe not.

Lets not kid ourselves-the same popular thing that drove video, the internet, cameras and video on phones will drive holodecks- it'll be down to Quarks to rent "I was a Vulcan Sex Slave Part 7".

I always used to fancy Mr. Spock, talking of Vulcans.

Apprently you were not alone Mrs Figg. Many a lady swooned to Mr Spock, he had quite a following. (And of course Nurse Chapel in the show).