|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best 3D Blu-ray Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $11.99 | ![]() $8.99 | ![]() $17.99 | ![]() $14.99 | ![]() $9.37 | ![]() $9.55 | ![]() $27.49 1 day ago
| ![]() $18.50 18 hrs ago
| ![]() $29.99 | ![]() $9.55 | ![]() $19.78 |
![]() |
#1 |
Special Member
![]() Feb 2008
Region B
|
![]()
Theatrical 474m:
![]() ![]() The Hobbit: The Motion Picture Trilogy 3D Blu-ray The Hobbit 3D: The Motion Picture Trilogy Blu-ray ![]() The Hobbit Trilogy 3D Blu-ray ![]() The Hobbit Trilogy 3D Blu-ray ![]() The Hobbit Trilogy 3D Blu-ray ![]() The Hobbit 3D: The Motion Picture Trilogy Blu-ray ![]() etc Extended 532m: ![]() ![]() The Hobbit: The Motion Picture Trilogy 3D Blu-ray The Hobbit: The Motion Picture Trilogy 3D Blu-ray ![]() The Hobbit Trilogy 3D Blu-ray ![]() The Hobbit Trilogy 3D Extended Edition Blu-ray ![]() The Hobbit Trilogy 3D Blu-ray ![]() etc Andrew Lesnie, The Hobbit cinematographer says they're shooting the new Hobbit film at 47.96 fps: http://if.com.au/2011/04/04/article/...EGCDWWZHJ.html Though at CinemaCon James Cameron said they weren't - maybe he was wrong or this article is wrong ![]() Last edited by Deciazulado; 01-25-2022 at 01:23 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Active Member
Sep 2007
|
![]()
apparently it is a 2nd generation red cameral check out red.com you will see some of the films that have used the first gen one and read some tech specks on the new one.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]()
Peter Jackson on Shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps
Source: Peter Jackson April 12, 2011 http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movie...#ixzz1JLbFIKly Peter Jackson has updated his Facebook page with a post talking about why they are shooting The Hobbit films at 48 frames per second (fps) versus the usual 24 fps. You can read the post below: Time for an update. Actually, we've been intending to kick off with a video, which is almost done, so look out for that in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I'd address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this. 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. 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! |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Special Member
![]() Feb 2008
Region B
|
![]() Quote:
If they're using a shorter shutter, the blur in each frame will be less but the strobing on the 24 fps version will be more than it is now - if they use every other frame from the 48 fps version to create the 24 fps version. I wonder if they used a shutter of around 1/96th of second if they would average every 2 frames together to create the 24 fps version? Last edited by 4K2K; 04-13-2011 at 05:47 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Senior Member
|
![]()
When I saw this news, my first though was, "Oh, no. Now the ENTIRE film will be in slow-motion!"
![]() I would hope they wouldn't use greater than 180 degree shutter. I have to think Jackson and company have this thing well thought out, all the way down to BD and DVD release (which of course don't support 48 fps). |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Active Member
|
![]()
well this is a hex on everyone's systems.....there are no home displays that are capable of showing 1080p 3d at more than 24fps because no one has included the chipset in their tvs/projectors to handle anything more than that (even though 1080p, 120hz 3d is in the hdmi 1.4 spec, nobody uses it, and computer monitors don't count). People would need an entire new hardware set for this @1080p...or it may force people to go to the theater. I'm wondering if this will lead to the SUPER-combo pack with regular blu, 24fps 3d blu @1080p, and 48fps/60hz 3d blu @ 720p...among digital and dvd copies
i'm also skeptical of the higher frame-rate cuz while it would look more "real", it (theoretically) would take you out of the movie "world" and make it look like home video where you're conscious of the camera. some people (like me) have this type of issue with digitally filmed stuff as it is (not a big problem for me though). but i also haven't seen the footage or anything... Last edited by aaaa6344; 04-14-2011 at 08:47 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Blu-ray Ninja
|
![]()
Wonder if anyone has asked Mr. Jackson how he plans to transfer the 48fps HOBBIT film for an eventual High Definition transfer to Blu-ray?
![]() Per Hollywood Insider Penton-Man: Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Active Member
|
![]()
well that is interesting...if 48fps is that unusable in the home market (which includes broadcast tv and online streaming i guess), maybe there'll be a backlash against it. they can't be SOLELY thinking about making these movies for theaters cuz they make so much money everywhere else. i wonder if one option would be to just speed it up to 50fps and distribute it in that format, at least in europe and stuff. then people could just import them and it would play fine haha (at least on my set up)
![]() Last edited by aaaa6344; 04-15-2011 at 01:47 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
New Member
|
![]() Quote:
I could not agree more, my friend. I don't like how Jackson says a higher frame rate is "Better". It's all subjective. I think what he means is he just personally prefers that look & it suits what he's trying to achieve. As for me, I prefer the 'romantic' look to film, I'm sure Spielberg would understand... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Power Member
![]() Aug 2007
North Potomac, MD
|
![]()
Hobbit 3D production:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Senior Member
|
![]()
Well, it's the exact trailer online right now except it's in 3D. This was shown before Tin Tin 3D.
Also so Titantic 3D and Phantom Menace 3D. Kinda disappointed with PM. But you can clearly see the differences with movies shot in 3D instead of post 3D convert. |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Special Member
|
![]()
Peter Jackson is a master of cinematography. Even if you don't care for the story, the visuals alone would be worth seeing in 3D. Lush landscapes, battles, and everything between. He is filming at 48, it will look better than anything else we have seen before.
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|