The Hobbit - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 944 Old 05-16-2012, 04:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

All projectors are ready for HFR, but they need a new HFR Integrated Media Block (IMB) server.
The whole point of showing clips from The Hobbit at Cinemacon was to demonstrate HFR for cinema owners, managers and projectionists, nothing else.

I saw some time ago a quote from a CEO of one of the largest cinema chains (can't find the link or remember the name) say they would upgrade 2500-2700 screens for HFR IMB's. That was only one chain (believe they used Christie projectors).

Barco and Sony is also "hardselling" HRF solutions.

The upgrade is about $10000.- a screen.

Reading various reports from the cinema industry, my impression is that we will see that a lot of screens that will be HFR enabled by December.



Almost more interest in HRF upgrades than 4K upgrades from cinema owners, (guessing HFR is less expensive than 4K DLP, and that 4K DLP is more expensive than Sony 4K) even though there will most likely only be two HFR movies in the next two years (Hobbit 1&2), but several 4K releases.

Sony had installed 13000 4K projectors worldwide at the end of April. Christie and Barco needs to push harder for 4K installs.

But the studios and film makers also have a big responsibility to make more 4K movies and 4K releases.

Spiderman (Sony) might get a 4K release, and maybe Gatsby, but Prometheus supposedly only get 2K release, even if it is shot in 5K like The Hobbit.

James Bond;"Skyfall" is a movie franchise that could have pushed more 4K into the cinemas, and so could Avengers, but they both chose to shoot the movies with 2 megapixel cameras.

A lot of producers and film makers seems to have settled into some kind of "lazy comfort zone" of 2K digital and is unwilling to push for better image quality by utilising the 4K tools that are available.

It is a rather sad situation at the moment and lower my respect for a good part of the "upper parts" of the movie maker society, like Directors and DoP's that don't push harder for improving image quality, but in many cases work against 4K by ignorance and spreading misinformation.


kind of like the networks and tv content providers not giving us the full pq that hdtvs are capable of displaying.

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 944 Old 05-16-2012, 09:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

James Bond;"Skyfall" is a movie franchise that could have pushed more 4K into the cinemas, and so could Avengers, but they both chose to shoot the movies with 2 megapixel cameras.

A lot of producers and film makers seems to have settled into some kind of "lazy comfort zone" of 2K digital and is unwilling to push for better image quality by utilising the 4K tools that are available.

It is a rather sad situation at the moment and lower my respect for a good part of the "upper parts" of the movie maker society, like Directors and DoP's that don't push harder for improving image quality, but in many cases work against 4K by ignorance and spreading misinformation.

Yes because we all know how important megapixels are to PQ. First of all single chip cmos cameras doesnt have 5K resolution if they have a 5K sensor. Because it can only use 50% of its cells to reproduce green, 25% red and 25% blue. The data is then interpolated to achive 5K.

Also image quality is more then just resolution. Several cameras have been using CCD instead CMOS. How do you judge PQ between different technologys? Color reproduction, signal to noise ratio, highlights etc.

Actual shooting conditions, go out and buy a DSLR and take some pictures with it. Resolution will be very different from picture to picture, because resolution is very dependet on your lens settings. So while you in theory can achive 4K resolution, real world shooting conditions can prevent you from taking advatange of 4K.

So in the end you have several cameras to choose between. They all have their pros and cons. The one you should use for your project is the one best create the look you want, it doesnt matter if the camera is 2K, 4K or even 16K. If it cant produce the look in 2K, it wont produce it in 4K either.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #543 of 944 Old 05-17-2012, 07:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Yes because we all know how important megapixels are to PQ.

Some people does understand how important megapixels are for better image quality, but some people clueless people obviously don't.
The "2K is good enough" argument is like saying; "that 70mm film 50 years ago was a useless mistake and so has IMAX been".
I don't think anybody would agree with that.
Quote:


First of all single chip cmos cameras doesnt have 5K resolution if they have a 5K sensor. Because it can only use 50% of its cells to reproduce green, 25% red and 25% blue. The data is then interpolated to achive 5K.

Is that some kind of argument against 5K cameras compared to 2K cameras?. The 2K cameras by the same argument end up with closer to 1K resolution in the end.
All the 5K+ cameras end up with more than 4K measurable resolution subsampled to true 4K.
If more than four times the resolution on the screen compared to what comes from a 2K camera doesn't make a difference in all parts of image quality (remember we talk large screen projection), then real life would look as pixelated as movie screen image.

Quote:


Also image quality is more then just resolution. Several cameras have been using CCD instead CMOS. How do you judge PQ between different technologys? Color reproduction, signal to noise ratio, highlights etc.

No camera manufacturer uses CCD any more for cameras where image quality is important. Even Sony, long time "CMOS basher" ditched CCD for their latest cinema camera. NHK's newest 8K broadcast camera is also CMOS.
CCD is dead in the world of high quality cameras. The reason is obvious.

Quote:


Actual shooting conditions, go out and buy a DSLR and take some pictures with it. Resolution will be very different from picture to picture, because resolution is very dependet on your lens settings. So while you in theory can achive 4K resolution, real world shooting conditions can prevent you from taking advatange of 4K.

Having owned 2 megapixel camera in the -90's and now own 18 megapixel camera, and between those both film cameras and other digital megapixel cameras. Scanned a lot of photo film. Can access my 2 megapixel photos from the -90's.
Even if higher megapixel photos only can be seen downsampled to 2MP (PC/TV monitor) I promise you that higher megapixel win in all parameters. Both in Color reproduction, detail reproduction and sharpness, and in flexibility when one want to do adjustments on the image.
The 2MP camera image fall apart as soon as some adjustments are applied.

The only people still using 2MP cameras today are the people that make images for big screen display, like movie makers and broadcast.
Everybody else, people that usually only see their images in small sizes, from high fashion and advertising photography to people with "point'n shoot" and camera phones have higher megapixels than the "big screen display shooters".
This show that something is very wrong in the world of movie making.

Quote:


So in the end you have several cameras to choose between. They all have their pros and cons. The one you should use for your project is the one best create the look you want, it doesnt matter if the camera is 2K, 4K or even 16K. If it cant produce the look in 2K, it wont produce it in 4K either.

Of course, if you think 2K is the "end of the road", then why use 2K?
0.5K should be as good if that kind of argument had any basis in reality.
If you think that 2K can produce the same look as 4K then it must be that you "dumb down" the 4K look to look like 2K.
The versatility and flexibility to create something in 4K that you can't produce in 2K is a fact. The 2K image will fall apart long before the 4K look is achieved.

iPhone4 screen is 329 PPI
50" HDTV is 44 PPI
50" 4K TV is 88 PPI
a 15 meter wide cinema screen in 2K is 3.15 PPI
a 15 meter wide cinema screen in 4K is 6.29 PPI
If that difference in Pixel per Inch does not demonstrate the easy understandable logic of the impact resolution (MP/PPI) has on image quality, nothing will.
Ten years from now the discussion will be all about "is 8K good enough", and 2K will be seen as the big historical mistake it was to use it for movie making.

But let's not derail this thread further, this argument (2K vs. 4K) is discussed many other places on the forum.

Some part of this "Hobbit" thread argues HFR vs. 24fps.

Watch the first part of this video and the small glimpse of a split screen demo between a IMAX 70mm film projection and a 11K scan of the film downsampled to 4K and projected digitally side by side. They are still both 24fps, but it clearly demonstrate what your brain has to "hide" in a film projection compared to the digital version at higher refresh-rate, and how this will be further improved by higher framerate.

(at 0:44)
coolscan is offline  
post #544 of 944 Old 05-17-2012, 08:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

All the 5K+ cameras end up with more than 4K measurable resolution subsampled to true 4K.

Isn't that only in luminance - not necessarily >=4K for every colour (since don't bayer sensors only have half the red/blue as they do green photosites)?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #545 of 944 Old 05-17-2012, 08:57 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
The Truth About 2K, 4K and The Future of Pixels

http://magazine.creativecow.net/arti...ture-of-pixels
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #546 of 944 Old 05-17-2012, 09:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Some people does understand how important megapixels are for better image quality, but some people clueless people obviously don't.

Actually resolution comes in as number 4 on the list on what makes good PQ. And more pixels comes with a downside, Noise.

Quote:


The "2K is good enough" argument is like saying; "that 70mm film 50 years ago was a useless mistake and so has IMAX been".
I don't think anybody would agree with that.

Is resolution the only advantage 70mm and Imax has?

Quote:


Is that some kind of argument against 5K cameras compared to 2K cameras?. The 2K cameras by the same argument end up with closer to 1K resolution in the end.

That depends on how they build the 2K camera, and what format it records to.


Quote:


All the 5K+ cameras end up with more than 4K measurable resolution subsampled to true 4K.

Only in luma, not in chroma.

Quote:


If more than four times the resolution on the screen compared to what comes from a 2K camera doesn't make a difference in all parts of image quality (remember we talk large screen projection), then real life would look as pixelated as movie screen image.

Real life is not projected true a lens on a silverscreen.

Quote:


No camera manufacturer uses CCD any more for cameras where image quality is important. Even Sony, long time "CMOS basher" ditched CCD for their latest cinema camera. NHK's newest 8K broadcast camera is also CMOS.
CCD is dead in the world of high quality cameras. The reason is obvious.

There are several reason to go with cmos technology. But the technology hasnt been without problem, like the lack of global shutters, or the terrible color reproduction that red one had.


Quote:


Having owned 2 megapixel camera in the -90's and now own 18 megapixel camera, and between those both film cameras and other digital megapixel cameras. Scanned a lot of photo film. Can access my 2 megapixel photos from the -90's.
Even if higher megapixel photos only can be seen downsampled to 2MP (PC/TV monitor) I promise you that higher megapixel win in all parameters. Both in Color reproduction, detail reproduction and sharpness, and in flexibility when one want to do adjustments on the image.
The 2MP camera image fall apart as soon as some adjustments are applied.

So your modern 18mp camera beats your 2mp camera from the 90s. That was suprising, even more that you compare them on a 2K monitor.

Quote:


The only people still using 2MP cameras today are the people that make images for big screen display, like movie makers and broadcast.
Everybody else, people that usually only see their images in small sizes, from high fashion and advertising photography to people with "point'n shoot" and camera phones have higher megapixels than the "big screen display shooters".
This show that something is very wrong in the world of movie making.

No it shows that consumers have no clue what they buy. Its easier to compare megapixels on smartphones, then it is to compare the lens on camera.

Quote:


Of course, if you think 2K is the "end of the road", then why use 2K?
0.5K should be as good if that kind of argument had any basis in reality.
If you think that 2K can produce the same look as 4K then it must be that you "dumb down" the 4K look to look like 2K.
The versatility and flexibility to create something in 4K that you can't produce in 2K is a fact. The 2K image will fall apart long before the 4K look is achieved.

Star trek looked fine on the big screen with its 2K master. Can you show me any digital camera that can produce the same PQ?

Quote:


iPhone4 screen is 329 PPI
50" HDTV is 44 PPI
50" 4K TV is 88 PPI
a 15 meter wide cinema screen in 2K is 1.3 PPI
a 15 meter wide cinema screen in 4K is 2.60 PPI
If that difference in Pixel per Inch does not demonstrate the easy understandable logic of the impact resolution (MP/PPI) has on image quality, nothing will.

You forgot one factor, screen distance. If you sit as close to the silverscreen in a theater, as you sit to your iphone some dude will smack you down.

Quote:


Ten years from now the discussion will be all about "is 8K good enough", and 2K will be seen as the big historical mistake it was to use it for movie making.

In ten years the discussion will be why they arnt making any good movies anymore, wait a sec...

Quote:


But let's not derail this thread further, this argument (2K vs. 4K) is discussed many other places on the forum.

That was a long post to say that.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #547 of 944 Old 05-17-2012, 03:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Isn't that only in luminance - not necessarily >=4K for every colour (since don't bayer sensors only have half the red/blue as they do green photosites)?

That as you know, becomes a long and technical discussion which is discussed in detail on many forums.
It is not really an argument that can be used comparing 2K to 4K as the same resolution loss will happen whether it is a 2K sensor or a 4K sensor, and the resolution loss is even larger with CCD because of the misalignment of the sensors.

If you really want to dig into and read detailed discussions on this you can start here, and read about resolution and measurements. Becomes interesting at the linked page 7; http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdc...-vs-red-7.html
Also some here from the Red forum about Demosaicing; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...cing-Questions
Here's even a discussion of Red vs Genesis vs Alexa if it is of interest; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...nesis-vs-Alexa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The Truth About 2K, 4K and The Future of Pixels

http://magazine.creativecow.net/arti...ture-of-pixels

You continue posting this old interview from 2009 every time there is a resolution discussion like as if the title is a fact.
The opinions in this piece is so full of misrepresentations and dubious claims that nobody regard is as having much value.
The guy is trying to defend his involvement in development of the single CCD camera, the Panavision Genesis/Sony F35, by bashing CMOS and has been on this "quest" since 2004. He even supposedly talked Sony from making it a 4K camera, which they wanted.
Sony defended CCD for a long time and used him as a "technical alibi" but later saw their error, developed and now sells the Sony F65 "20MP" CMOS camera.

Let him stand today in a 2K vs. 4K split-screen projection and defend his standpoints.

It is very strange for me to see the amount of resistance to 4K and higher resolution both here and on the forums film makers frequent.
When we where promised High Definition everybody seemed to be excited, but now when we are promised even better quality, the reactions seems almost proportionally opposite.
It is surreal!

PS; 15th of April NHK did a 8K terrestrial (UHF) broadcast of 4.2 kilometre distance successfully at 183.6Mbps. via google translate; http://translate.google.com/translat...ml%3Fref%3Drss

Everybody that want to stick to HD TV and 2K film in the future, you are very welcome to it.
Nobody will take your HD TV's away from you. Just remember to stack up on them, they might be impossible to buy at some point.
coolscan is offline  
post #548 of 944 Old 05-17-2012, 06:57 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

That as you know, becomes a long and technical discussion which is discussed in detail on many forums.
It is not really an argument that can be used comparing 2K to 4K as the same resolution loss will happen whether it is a 2K sensor or a 4K sensor, and the resolution loss is even larger with CCD because of the misalignment of the sensors.

If you really want to dig into and read detailed discussions on this you can start here, and read about resolution and measurements. Becomes interesting at the linked page 7; http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdc...-vs-red-7.html
Also some here from the Red forum about Demosaicing; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...cing-Questions
Here's even a discussion of Red vs Genesis vs Alexa if it is of interest; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...nesis-vs-Alexa


You continue posting this old interview from 2009 every time there is a resolution discussion like as if the title is a fact.
The opinions in this piece is so full of misrepresentations and dubious claims that nobody regard is as having much value.
The guy is trying to defend his involvement in development of the single CCD camera, the Panavision Genesis/Sony F35, by bashing CMOS and has been on this "quest" since 2004. He even supposedly talked Sony from making it a 4K camera, which they wanted.
Sony defended CCD for a long time and used him as a "technical alibi" but later saw their error, developed and now sells the Sony F65 "20MP" CMOS camera.

Let him stand today in a 2K vs. 4K split-screen projection and defend his standpoints.

It is very strange for me to see the amount of resistance to 4K and higher resolution both here and on the forums film makers frequent.
When we where promised High Definition everybody seemed to be excited, but now when we are promised even better quality, the reactions seems almost proportionally opposite.
It is surreal!

PS; 15th of April NHK did a 8K terrestrial (UHF) broadcast of 4.2 kilometre distance successfully at 183.6Mbps. via google translate; http://translate.google.com/translat...ml%3Fref%3Drss

Everybody that want to stick to HD TV and 2K film in the future, you are very welcome to it.
Nobody will take your HD TV's away from you. Just remember to stack up on them, they might be impossible to buy at some point.

The problem with 4K in theaters - not all patrons will see the increase in resolution versus 2K - it depends on where you sit in the theater. It has already been proven there is a "sweet spot" and sitting outside of that shows very little if any increase in resolution.

And BTW - 4K does NOT have 4X the resolution of 2K. It has 4X the pixels. Movies are made up of moving images, not a single static image like one taken with a SLR camera. HD - 2MP has 6X the pixel count per image of DVD, but it's resolution is only 2X; 900 lines versus 450 lines. The difference between 2K and 4K is even less.

Digital Cinema's Special K

http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/node/44657


4K for the home:

This is what native 4K home cinema looks like on Sony's VPL-VW1000ES projector

Quote:


When viewing from six meters away, the difference between native and upscaled was there but it was subtle -- it was just a sense of the image being sharper and more natural at the edges of objects.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/s...tor-native-4k/

How are you going to get people to invest big bucks in 4K for the home if all they see is a "subtle" difference?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #549 of 944 Old 05-17-2012, 10:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

It is very strange for me to see the amount of resistance to 4K and higher resolution both here and on the forums film makers frequent.
When we where promised High Definition everybody seemed to be excited, but now when we are promised even better quality, the reactions seems almost proportionally opposite.
It is surreal!

I have nothing against 4K, 8K etc as long as other aspects of the image doesnt get hurt for the quest for more pixels.

You must look at the big picture. PQ is not just about pixels. Filmmaking is not just about PQ.

Lets say some director wants to shoot a movie, were he is going to use over and undercrank for some shoots. How many frames does the different cameras give him?

How do they handle highlights?

How do they handle colors?

How easy are them to use?

Low light?

Its not just a descision of 2K and 4K, its about the whole package.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #550 of 944 Old 05-19-2012, 04:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 255
On the subject of frame rate, video and the "soap opera look," my son and I have been going through the Twilight Zone original series on Blu-Ray. Anyone who owns this series knows how amazing it looks. On our big projection screen the series, shot originally on film, is razor sharp with incredible detail.

Then suddenly as we chose the next episode (part way through season 2) it looked decidedly different...just awful...and I realised we were watching video. Then I remembered "Aw damn! That's right, at some point they switched to shooting on video in this series."

It was just about unwatchable to me. What was interesting was that the video source had substantially less image detail and clarity, yet nonetheless looked "more real" in just the type of way that subverted it's believability. It was no longer a convincing other world. It was unvarnished, not artistic looking, actors on a set. Motion was now smoother, in that video-vs-film fashion. So despite the fact the film-source material was MUCH more detailed and sharp, it was actually the higher frame rate video source that felt "too real" and thus not convincing and cheap.

Weird stuff. It was quite hard to sit through and the next episode we watched was back to film. Aaaahhhh...
R Harkness is offline  
post #551 of 944 Old 05-20-2012, 12:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

What was interesting was that the video source had substantially less image detail and clarity, yet nonetheless looked "more real" in just the type of way that subverted it's believability.

You traded visual resolution for temporal resolution (one second of time sliced into 60 samples instead of 24 samples). Now imagine if the visual resolution had stayed the same as the film-based episodes of Twilight Zone, but you also got the increased temporal resolution. If the image quality didn't decrease, would the smoother motion still bother you?

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #552 of 944 Old 05-20-2012, 07:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You traded visual resolution for temporal resolution (one second of time sliced into 60 samples instead of 24 samples).

Yes, that was the point of my post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Now imagine if the visual resolution had stayed the same as the film-based episodes of Twilight Zone, but you also got the increased temporal resolution. If the image quality didn't decrease, would the smoother motion still bother you?

My suspicion is that the "too real" effect would have gotten even worse - as it does with Blu-Ray movies using frame interpolation.
R Harkness is offline  
post #553 of 944 Old 05-28-2012, 11:13 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Editorial: Despite shaky 48 fps Hobbit preview, high frame rates will take off

Quote:


With opinion sharply divided on high frame rates, Jackson risking it for Hobbit comes back to the film also being in 3D. The eyestrain and queasiness from 3D is caused in part by 24 fps, and Jackson avowed that he and his crew haven't experienced any of that, even after "thousands of hours" of watching 3D Hobbit footage at 48 fps. Advocates also claim that it's pointless for purists to compare HFR with 24 fps as it's mainly intended for 3D and not regular cinema. Since HFR and 3D have only been together in a handful of IMAX films and theme-park rides, seeing both must have been a shock to CinemaCon viewers, and the rest of us might also need time to adjust -- probably in direct proportion to our film-going experience. As for 2D cinema, filmmakers are likely to avoid HFR like the plague for narrative-style films which don't feature scenic vistas, action or special effects. Jackson himself has said that it's not the best choice for every film, and you'll be able to watch a 24 fps version of Hobbit -- or future HFR films -- in 3D or 2D, if you want.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/28/e...h-frame-rates/

BOLD: I am not aware of any HFR IMAX 3D films. IMAX HD (48 FPS) was a 2D presentation (1992's MOMENTUM - 20 minutes) . IMO, the "theme-park ride" he is referring to is T2: Battle Across Time which was shot and shown in 3D 70mm @ 30 FPS - not really "HFR."
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #554 of 944 Old 06-06-2012, 06:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 99
THE HOBBIT, Production Video #7

Just the scale of pre-planning and logistics on this movie is mind blowing in itself. Then you are going to make a functional and good movie(s) out of it. Impressive feat!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey release date is on December 13, but World premiere will be November 28 in Wellington, NZ.

http://youtu.be/YCpxMOvMgns

coolscan is offline  
post #555 of 944 Old 07-06-2012, 01:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Blasst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: So.California
Posts: 3,493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Principal Photography Finished!
cd01d97f.jpg

http://screenrant.com/hobbit-movies-production-comic-con-sandy-185023/

The Mod Squad: New vs. Classic TV Series Opening https://vimeo.com/63119329
Blasst is online now  
post #556 of 944 Old 07-06-2012, 03:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
GREAT!

Now release the damn thing!biggrin.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #557 of 944 Old 07-06-2012, 04:14 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

GREAT!
Now release the damn thing!biggrin.gif

Sure - tomorrow . . . no post production work. No editing . . . you'll love it! eek.gif

December 14, 2012.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #558 of 944 Old 07-06-2012, 05:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Sure - tomorrow . . . no post production work. No editing . . . you'll love it! eek.gif
December 14, 2012.
PJ doesn't need no stinkin' post...and he surely doesn't need to edit.tongue.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #559 of 944 Old 07-06-2012, 05:36 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

PJ doesn't need no stinkin' post...and he surely doesn't need to edit.tongue.gif

If he doesn't want to be laughed off the face of the planet . . . he does.tongue.gif
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #560 of 944 Old 07-06-2012, 07:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

If he doesn't want to be laughed off the face of the planet . . . he does.tongue.gif

If that were the case, why did he make King Kong? wink.gif

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #561 of 944 Old 07-07-2012, 12:35 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

If that were the case, why did he make King Kong? wink.gif

Seems to have done well at the BO:

Domestic: $218,080,025 39.6%
+ Foreign: $332,437,332 60.4%

= Worldwide: $550,517,357
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #562 of 944 Old 07-07-2012, 03:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 99
New poster.

(click-able thumbnail - for full size)

aay3Wma2.jpg
coolscan is offline  
post #563 of 944 Old 07-07-2012, 04:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Blasst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: So.California
Posts: 3,493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 26
That looks real nice coolscan!

The Mod Squad: New vs. Classic TV Series Opening https://vimeo.com/63119329
Blasst is online now  
post #564 of 944 Old 07-09-2012, 08:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
darthrsg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Post America America
Posts: 8,458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 697
I watched the superior version yesterday morning. I hope this remake is good. Rankin/Bass are masters.
darthrsg is online now  
post #565 of 944 Old 07-10-2012, 03:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 99
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey; 'The Scroll' (8871 x 1195 pixel)

(right click - open in new tab for full size - click on image)
aaxpKDl3.jpg

Another link; http://www.ew.com/ew/special/0,,20399642_20610399,00.html
coolscan is offline  
post #566 of 944 Old 07-11-2012, 04:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 47
i can see the soe already


lol

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
post #567 of 944 Old 07-14-2012, 11:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 593
http://news.yahoo.com/comic-con-crowd-goes-crazy-hobbit-footage-235957566.html

"At the Cinema Con theater owner's convention in April, Jackson got a mixed reception for preview footage of "The Hobbit" shown at 48 frames a second. Some observers thought the images were too clear, so realistic that it took away from the magic of the film medium.

"At Comic-Con, Jackson chose to show his footage at the traditional 24 frames a second, saying the best way to experience the higher projection speed is by watching an entire movie at 48 frames a second, not just excerpts."

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #568 of 944 Old 07-15-2012, 12:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

"At Comic-Con, Jackson chose to show his footage at the traditional 24 frames a second, saying the best way to experience the higher projection speed is by watching an entire movie at 48 frames a second, not just excerpts."[/i]

He didnt had that opinion the first time, since he went a head and showed the clips in 48fps despite that it wasnt the best way of experience 48fps. I guess they wernt prepared for the backlash it would generate.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #569 of 944 Old 07-15-2012, 12:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

He didnt had that opinion the first time, since he went a head and showed the clips in 48fps despite that it wasnt the best way of experience 48fps. I guess they wernt prepared for the backlash it would generate.
PJ has a habit of doing stuff like that....wink.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #570 of 944 Old 07-15-2012, 07:33 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

http://news.yahoo.com/comic-con-crowd-goes-crazy-hobbit-footage-235957566.html
"At the Cinema Con theater owner's convention in April, Jackson got a mixed reception for preview footage of "The Hobbit" shown at 48 frames a second. Some observers thought the images were too clear, so realistic that it took away from the magic of the film medium.
"At Comic-Con, Jackson chose to show his footage at the traditional 24 frames a second, saying the best way to experience the higher projection speed is by watching an entire movie at 48 frames a second, not just excerpts."

Your quote doesn't include this
Quote:
Warner Bros. didn’t screen The Hobbit footage in 3D nor at 48 frames-per-second (a speed Hall H wasn’t equipped for).
Lee Stewart is offline  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

Tags
Blu Ray Movies , The Lord Of The Rings The Motion Picture Trilogy The Fellowship Of The Ring The Two Towers The Retur

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off