Peter Jackson's The Hobbit shot in 48fps/James Cameron predicts 100% 3D in next 5 yrs
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/...inema-director

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/...ameron-3d-film

yawn.

The 48fps is especially interesting to me. Isn't that how they shot the fight scenes in Gladiator/Saving Private Ryan, and then just projected it in 24fps... am I right about that?

And if you're gonna raise the fps... why not just shoot digital? This is sort of confusing to me.

I dunno, Cameron has some credibility when it comes to new film technology. Terminator 2 was at the forefront of the big CGI shift.

And even though Avatar was a lamer sack of piss than the entire LOTR trilogy, it was a game-changer in how it applied 3D technology to the depth of field, rather than gimmicks.

I mean, obviously the classics will always remain in 2D, but there is a lot of potential to 3D. Like Argento's 3D Dracula, and Herzog's 3D cave drawing documentary... I'd love to see those.

I've never seen a 3D movie that looked more realistic than a well done 2D movie. Even Avatar looked really cartoon-y and fake and way less believable than Yoda.

open letter to Peter Jackson:

Peter,

Please just make horror movies. Nerd.

Sincerely,

--NR

I think CGI and the like just make things easier and so devalue the movie a little.

If you allow me to make an analogy, it is a bit like when I make music. Yeah sure I could just get a synthesiser and hold down a few keys for 10 minutes but I'd rather take my guitar and build something up myself and replicate sounds that a guitar isn't supposed to make. The creativity I have put personally into the sound is what makes it so special to me listening back even though I could easily do the exact same with the easier option.

like how in the original Nighmare On Elm Street, when Freddy pushes his face thru the bedroom wall, but they REALLY did it - Robrert England was pushing has face thru a stretchy bit of wall -- it looked scary! But in the remake it looked like a video game.

I don't think this analogy is the one he wants: "and this is like "the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs"."

We all know how that went..

I prefer Ralph Bakshi.

Yeah, exactly. I'd rather the blood was raspberry jam and cream like in EVIL DEAD than some digital effect added in by the click of a button in post-production.

100% derek.

why 3D sucks

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

Because kids will be scared and pee in their pants when a dragon comes off the screen, right in front of their nose.
Cause old people might get a heart attack.
Cause it's very expensive.
Cause it's useless for movies with no car chase, epic battles, action scenes in general.

what about tits?

but no, it's cuz the brain can't handle the difference between focus and convergence. read the article, it's pretty cool.

Cameron can go fuck himself with the 100% 3D shit. It is nothing but a proverbial fancier suit when the old suit was just fine imho. 3D movies are like Liberace to me.

I don't mind 3D for movies that are supposed to be "intense", like action, sci-fi, or horror, but 3D comedies? 3D period dramas? Pointless.

agreed.

MBV3D was a lot of fun. But why does everything need to be 3D.

Because people like the gimmick.

And too often people prove themselves morons

because it keeps the indies out of play and it makes more money for the hollywood fatcats

"oooh... 3D"

my dad gets headaches from it

i predict massive failure

3D can lick my balls &

it's time for another indie rebellion-- hollywood gets worse every fucking year with their jerry bruckheimer recycled bullshit and that assclown james cameron. then again, there are bazillions of stupid people ready to suck the hollywood cock of death. so maybe they will keep going forever.

I've been looking forward to this movie since I first heard about the plans of shooting it, like 7 years ago.

and oh, 3D sucks indeed.
dont understand whats so fucking cool about it. Your eyes hurt after a while, you cant watch it at home of with friends unless you all dont get stupid fuckingglasses all of ya. The list can be made long. Film should be easy to watch.

well there are now 3D TVs but they look like ass. i saw one at costco a couple of months ago: it looks like paper cutouts in front of a background, like a cheesy puppet theatre made from old magazines.

3D tvs won't be popular unless they make it work without the glasses. Also it needs to be able to be viewed good from any angle the owner or guest are watching from. I forgot which company made a glassless tv but it was only 22 inches and that is way too small.

fuck all of this shit. where's the holographic display I was promised? or smell-o-vision? what if we want to actually smell the hobbit's feet? I was PROMISED.

don't even get me started on flying cars.

yeah, but who the fuck can afford one of those and who wants it??

i seriously dont like where technology is going. Just because its more advanced doesnät make it better..uuhhhh:fuckyou:

Cars can't fly, but planes can roll. :rolleyes: :confused:
The present, formerly known as the future, is quite as expected 50 years ago, somehow.
You have videophones (webcams), so that big brother can spy you in your privacy (I've seen that in a movie).

Asimov's Multivac=Internet.

What do you miss?

The movie industry went nuts over 3-D in the 1950s. No one was impressed then, and no one is impressed now.

THANK YOU!

He is god.

WIZARDS, FRITZ, his LOTR, etc.

Also, many of the scenes in my films are in like 300fps or something. I once compressed 30 minutes of footage into about 10 seconds. That was like 3000fps. Haha. But in the end they end up only being like 15fps, because all the footage has to match to be joined together. But if it was even the standard 24fps, I don't think anyone can tell. The human eye can't even really tell the difference between 24 and 48 in something like this...

Something I don't get with 3D in terms of realism is that it doesn't resemble the world as we see it. I'm looking out of my window and obviously seeing things in 3 dimensions but it looks totally different from the artificial distance between objects that 3D creates. That's why I struggle to see how it'll translate to the types of movies that don't rely on quite fantastical special effects, which makes it totally different from the introduction of sound and colour in the cinema, which are as appropriate for a John Cassavetes movie as they are a James Cameron one.

I think 3D is downright annoying, honestly. OH SHIT, THINGS POPPING OUT AT ME. Big fucking deal.

Thanks for your post, though, demonrail, now I'm imagining classic moments from movie history in 3D... images Cassavettes "Faces" in 3D, all the characters screaming and laughing and ranting COMING OUT OF THE SCREEN. OH SHIT.

I dunno, it'd be kinda cool to see some of Godard's PIERROT LE FOU in 3D. Imagine Belmondo and Karina driving that car through your television screen, into your retina. WEEK END, also .. that traffic jam, in 3D? Awwwwww shit dawg!

LAST TANGO IN PARIS... a nice big butterstick up the ass. A 3D ass.

Let's not forget Keitel's performance from BAD LIEUTENANT, sobbing and screaming and making airplane noises while he's completely naked, his tiny dick popping out of the screen in 3D.


...

Why don't they work on a Virtual Anna Karina or something... something practical?

I can't stand James Cameron, Peter Jackson, and George Lucas.

They get so obsessed with the technology of film and special effects that they forget that stories are what make films good.

I don't really care to see movies in 3D. The only movie that I saw that was enhanced by the 3D was Jackass 3D.

really? only the first and last segments of jackass were even in 3d!

They should make 3d porn for facials haha

and who cares about this?

I was psyched that del torro was going to make this film, but I guess he got off board and now jackson is doing it? why am I not surprised?

and dragons havent looked cool in movies since I was a kid...

Im sure it wont be THAT cool.

Ian Mckellan as Gandolf is always awesome though.

coraline was nice in 3d but that's cuz neil gaiman wrote it, the fx were a nice addition but not essential.

This is my favorite movie. It works well in 3D because the story is really good. Avatar and all other 3D movies just focus on technology and not on the storyline. Btw 3D works really well while stoned or maybe shrooms and acid.

From reading this thread, it's clear to me that most of you (excluding Dr. Eugene Felikson, !@#$%! and demonrail666) don't have much a clue or interest in 3d technology. Fair enough.

I for one embrace it. The reason why a lot of filmmakers have chosen to take this path is because technology is advancing at such a rapid pace that noone can actually
predict what the future of 3d will bring. To shoot a film in this way has it's advantages. If we get to the point where the convergence/focus issues can be miraculously resolved,
old stock will be remastered to look a lot more realistic and natural to the eye, than it does now.

For much the same reason why a smart filmmaker would shoot his black and white noir film in colour and later have the freedom to saturate it in post, many progressive filmmakers have realized
that it gives them more options further down the line. Afterall, films shot in 3d don't have to land up that way on the big screen. It only gives filmmakers more latitude to decide
what they do with their footage later on.

With new advancements in HDR and 'Magic Motion', things will only get better.

To have a true understanding of film, filmmakers need to embrace and understand the different aspects of filmmaking and the technologies that come with it.
After all, a lot more is required from a filmmaker than just 'creativity' and a 'good story'. The sooner wannabe 'filmmakers' realize it, the better.

Trust me, you don't want to get left behind in this business.

For Dr. Eugene Felikson and anyone else interested in the making of The Hobbit.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807&oid=141884481557&com ments

SYG never took math :(


I think the main advantage right now is a business/marketing one-- you have an exclusive product and you can shut out competitors that lack the resources and technology to do the same. This doesn't mean the product is good, however, it just means that you control a commodity.


That's a HUUUUGE "if". That would be a holographic image rather than what we're doing today. Holographic mages would indeed be amazing, but they would likely require completely different filming and projection technology. I would love to see holographic film, though i wonder if it wouldn't be restricted to room-size scenarios-- how the hell do you fit in the horizon line into a limited space? But anyway, that's another thing altogether.

What we have right now isn't amazing-- it's a gimmick that sometimes is nice and sometimes sucks ass.

The fact is that we've had access to 3D film and stereoscopic images for over 50 years. It was a fad in the 50s and it went away. I think this fad will also pass because it brings nothing new to the table-- it's the same old shit in a brand new package. Once the novelty wears out there is nothing behind it.


That would still require a stereoscopic image that's not there, but I image one could be extrapolated and rendered by computer without excessive hassle. Actually you'd need 2 extra images to recreate the original one in the middle in 3D.


wait, i don't get how this is possible. you can't "saturate" black and white-- you can colorize it, like ted turner did with old movies, but if there's no color information there is nothing to saturate. the opposite trick is useful however-- to shoot in color and later DEsaturate-- desaturate all or maybe just one channel for a "pleasantville" effect. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

That i suppose is true in some level, but you also kill your finances, use double the film stock (if shooting film) and have to use pricier cameras. When you consider the cost and risks of making movies, suddenly the idea of burning a ton of money out of the gate for no particular purpose ceases to be appealing.


HDR is very promising because it offers to reproduce the way we see the world, without clipping whites and crushing blacks the way video does today, but that's completely separate from the 3D problem. Better motion capture is a good thing too, anything better than the creepy looking shit like "polar express" (yuck), but again it's a separate problem from 3D or dynamic range.


hell yes. goes without saying. but to understand the technology also means to know its limitations.


Yes, true, but when the good story isn't there the result is utter shit, like avatar. I know that movie was a commercial and technological success, but I find it unwatchable, except as a scientific curiosity ("oh, wow, look how they did that") which places me completely outside the universe of the movie.

Just the other day i watched "My Dinner With Andre" for the first time, and one of the great things about it was that it filled my mind with pictures while the movie itself was just 2 dudes talking. That's what a good story can do.


I have a friend who shoots in 16mm. Beautiful experimental stuff, some of it hand-painted, but at $50 for every 2 minutes of raw footage-- OUCH! Still, only way to get that stuff done. We've had HD video for years now, but most festivals still lack the capability for HD projection, so you end up downrezing and compressing your HD movie for consumption. BR is not as widespread as one would expect and how many people have the capability to watch HD video files? DVD is still the main distribution medium for movies even though it's theoretically "obsolete". Shit, even a lot of TV is still SD, in spite of all the advances.

2D films are here to stay, just like we still have books and paintings that don't need to be replaced with instructional videos or photography. 3D will remain a specialty market for a very long time, at least until we discover a way to make true holographic movies. 3D TVs look like utter shit and I don't believe the hype. Cameron making those pronouncements is just trying to psych out the competition and drum up business for his products. Fuck him. Fuck Peter Jackson too-- Lord of the Ringworms was fucking boring! Del Toro is a much more imaginative director-- Pan's Labyrinth used effects and technology to a great end.

I hope no one will turn old movies to 3d..

Lot's of old movies have been re-colorized, and it sucks.
Sometimes it's alright, sometimes it's ugly, but I have no problem with b&w anytime.

And extra speech on mute movies, or commercials ban aren't welcome either.