or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 5

post #121 of 944
Mentioning Avatar in the same sentence as any LOTR film is the REAL abomination.
post #122 of 944
Who is willing to make a guess on the Box Office?
post #123 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Who is willing to make a guess on the Box Office?

$430 mil domestic
post #124 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by gocabonow View Post

$430 mil

$1.00
post #125 of 944
1.5 billion
post #126 of 944
OK, looks like we have quite a spread: a buck () to 1.5 billion of 'em.

Therefore, I predict we will be right on the money by the time disks are released and we can check with IDMB.
post #127 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

$1.00

aggressively played
post #128 of 944
something around 700 millions worldwide maybe?
post #129 of 944
Cool photo of PJ.

post #130 of 944
^^^^^ And who says money doesn't change a person!?!
post #131 of 944
Great picture. Funny thing is that he looks younger in 2011.

Cary
post #132 of 944
2012 needs to hurry up. Gotta see this before the world ends.
post #133 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmccorm View Post

Great picture. Funny thing is that he looks younger in 2011.

Cary

And if he shaved the beard and mustache he'd look even younger.
post #134 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatteoMS View Post

2012 needs to hurry up. Gotta see this before the world ends.

Lol I like that.
post #135 of 944
Interesting that no one seems to be talking about one of the most controversial aspects of this film... that it will be shot at 48 fps (something both James Cameron and Roger Ebert have been huge proponents of for years).

Here is his lengthy explanation:

We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920′s). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”

Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We’ve been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we’ve actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We’re getting spoilt!

Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I suspect it was the minimum speed required to get some audio fidelity out of the first optical sound tracks. They would have settled on the minimum speed because of the cost of the film stock. 35mm film is expensive, and the cost per foot (to buy the negative stock, develop it and print it), has been a fairly significant part of any film budget.

So we have lived with 24 fps for 9 decades–not because it’s the best film speed (it’s not by any stretch), but because it was the cheapest speed to achieve basic acceptable results back in 1927 or whenever it was adopted.

None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for “normal” films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you’ve experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.

Now that the world’s cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.


And he had this to say those who criticize the decision:

Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew–many of whom are film purists–are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It’s similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates. Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it’s predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me–if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!


You can also read what James Cameron had to say about 48 fps being "the future of cinema" when he gave a tech demo @ Cinema Con last month:

http://www.slashfilm.com/cameron/
post #136 of 944
^ Didn't know about that. This thread is about to get good...
post #137 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Love The Hobbit. Read it more times than I can count. But it is a book that can easily be made into one single film of under three hours. What they are doing are taking other pieces of Silmarillion, etc. and piecing together three films. Lightning rarely strikes twice, so I would rather they just do The Hobbit, make a great great single film and be done with this.

Just my opinion. I hope they prove me wrong wrong wrong.

Jackson will have little involvement in this. He is only a head figure. It's Deltoro's baby.

My Aunt would read it over the course of 2 weeks every summer on vacations we shared at Black lake NY ( 7 consecutive years) I bought my first copy for myself at 12 yrs old (29 yrs ago) I have a collection of copies now, I see new additions with new cover art and I have to have it. Bought a fine bound edition for my sons. I would love a leather bound but the one I found on line was in New zealand, signed and dedicated and went for $75,000.00
MAN I HOPE THEY DON'T MESS THIS UP !
post #138 of 944
48fps???

Bring it on!

I can't stand motion blur and have always hoped for an end to 24fps.
post #139 of 944
48 fps will effectively half the amount of space on a Blu-ray disc. I hope everyone likes compression!
post #140 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoThru22 View Post

48 fps will effectively half the amount of space on a Blu-ray disc. I hope everyone likes compression!

No reason to carry it over to BD. Can be a cinema only process/product. Just like higher then 8 bit color space is or 4K resolution.
post #141 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoThru22 View Post

48 fps will effectively half the amount of space on a Blu-ray disc. I hope everyone likes compression!

Maybe it's time to bring out those new higher capacity BDs??
post #142 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Maybe it's time to bring out those new higher capacity BDs??

LOL - why - you got a BD player that will play one? BD-XL discs require a BD-XL player. You can't play a BD-XL disc on a regular BD player.
post #143 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You can't play a BD-XL disc on a regular BD player.

Already aware of that, Lee.

I have 4 BD players, attached to 4 different displays.
If something better comes along, I don't mind replacing some hardware.
post #144 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Already aware of that, Lee.

I have 4 BD players, attached to 4 different displays.
If something better comes along, I don't mind replacing some hardware.

Including your HDTV?
post #145 of 944
48fps. Could end up looking like that SmoothMotion feature on modern TVs. Not quite as smooth as 60fps (video), but almost.
post #146 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
Including your HDTV?
Sure, as long as I get what I want.
post #147 of 944
post #148 of 944
^I guess this photo puts to rest the rumors....
post #149 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

something around 700 millions worldwide maybe?

Just quoting your post to say I am a HUGE fan of Zdzislaw Belsinski!
post #150 of 944
PJ's vlog is encouraging. What a huge team works on movies such as these!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home