|
Author
|
Topic: The Hobbit and cold digital ...
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted November 30, 2012 12:46 PM
Well, I certainly look forward to seeing the Hobbit and fortunately, we have a theater that still runs 35MM, so we'll no doubt get a 35MM print of it. I'm so thankful, and I better enjoy it while I can because, no doubt, that will change, sooner or later.
It seems odd to think that we'd come to this point in entertainment, that everything would become digital. Now, I know that there are those who look forward to the 48 fps digital version of "The Hobbit", but if I wanted to watch a videotape of the hobbit, no matter how fancy, I'd just sit in front of my TV.
It's already been stated that those who saw the advance screening stated that the 48 fps display made the costumes and special effects look a little fake and the sets looked like, well, sets (which should never happen in a theatrical presentation), but i think that the Jacksom's of the cinema seem to have forgotten that there is a real need for celluloid film, a need that is essential to the overall presentation of a film like the Hobbit, and it's something that I think couldn't have been valued until it was lost, until there was an ability to compare 48fps to 24fps.
I should hope that the Jackson's of the world will still contunie to shoot with actual film or, at least, film with digital and "downgrade" (which it really isn't) to 35MM prints of thier films.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in the long run, they'll step back and acknowledge, "Ya know, It really does look better on film!"
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted November 30, 2012 01:42 PM
Somehow Osi I don't think that they would ever admit it.Instead
we'll get the response in interviews that film is good but the
modern audience won't accept the odd artifacts that film has,
the modern audience is much more sophisticated,that is if they
can ever raise their heads from their mobile phones to actually
watch anything.If I come across as bitter,it's because I am,the
so called modern audience embraced video with both hands and
effectively dealt our hobby a death blow, so much for their
knowledge and appreciation of picture quality.Joe public will
sit there and be spoon fed whatever the big boys feed them
because a lot of them don't know any better, if they can sit
and watch films etc on a minute screen on their telephones,
it just flies in the face.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted November 30, 2012 01:50 PM
Hi Osi.
I know you and I often don't agree on certain things! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Regarding film vs. digital, this is an argument, nay, discussion, that will rage and rage, I'm sure.
From my perspective, I still prefer vinyl records to any other sound reproduction media...honestly, nothing else has surpassed that technology.
But, I admit, it can crackle and pop.
Unless you have a really nice turntable; then it tends not to. Just play beautiful music.
So, let us say that I am through and through an "analogue" fan.
I love film dearly, but the fact is that these days it is no longer film vs. "video".
Digital technology is vast and varied.
Like any other technology, it can be presented very badly and, given the chance, very nicely.
Much like film.
Present film poorly and it is just what every aficiando of digital wants you to experience...scratched, unsteady images with awful sound...present it well, as we do here, and it can be a joy.
Digital...present it poorly, etc...etc...
It isn't all bad.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted November 30, 2012 04:44 PM
The other night I showed "Moulin Rouge" in my home cinema with a huge audience of me + 3.
Blu-Ray..state of the art..
Now everyone really enjoyed it, but afterwards, the discussion wasn't quite what I expected... I thought everyone would say, "wasn't it great on the big screen"., etc. etc.
No...
"This is great, I could bring 'round my DVD of this and that...blah, blah..."
Like it was just a big TV. And you can bring around any old DVD, etc.
I give up.
I think people do appreciate quality when they experience it. I also think they don't quite appreciate what it is when it is on offer.
But they aren't to blame. Instead, they wonder why a certain film doesn't seem quite the same when they see it on the TV, an aeroplane, a moblile phone...
Keep up the good work guys, be it film or digital.
We like to present, er, "films" the best they can be.
Personally, I think the experience of a good, quality, BIG screen presentation, with good sound, can make make the difference between an average movie and a great one.
Even I gasped the other night, and I've see the thing a hundred times!
Thing is, I've worked hard at presenting the best film and digital over the years, and everyone really enjoyed the other night, because, I think, the presentation was the best I could get it. They really did gasp and, yes, even cry, because it was so much better than shoving it on a televison; even if they didn't realise it.
We guys are the future of presentation! Be it film or digital!
EDIT: Ricky; ATMOS!!! Cool! Let us know...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thomas Murin, Jr.
Master Film Handler
Posts: 260
From: Lanoka Harbor, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 2009
|
posted November 30, 2012 05:35 PM
Osi, Peter Jackson was present at the screening of the innital footage of the film and stated that the footage was "raw, direct from the digital files". That footage has no color grading, FX , ANYTHING.
Here's what the final, finished footage looks like:
TRAILER 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEOM13UyZ0A
TRAILER 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1SJ7yaa7cI
The 48fps footage will likely look nothing like the preview footage and more like the above.
Also, this is hardly a remake of LOTR as it takes place long before the events in that trilogy.
--------------------
My crummy Deviant Art account. Read my poetic tribute to the internet comic strip Ozy & Millie and view my crappy attempts at art.
http://cougartiger.deviantart.com/
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graham Ritchie
Film God
Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted November 30, 2012 05:55 PM
It will be interesting to hear what folk think about it in 3D at that high frame rate...so who is going?
I will give this a miss, as I am not really a Hobbit fan, but as far as digital presentation is concerned the last one I watched at the cinema was "The Sound Of Music" and it looked really good. It did not come across as a "cold digital image" in fact the colours looked strong and warm.
Film or digital, it all comes down to how it is handled and presented. Last night I used a video projector for "Tap" before hitting the screen I cue it to the start of the movie on a small TV, nothing must show on screen until the lights dim, and then and only then the movie starts. With the masking already set it went fine and the image of the DVD was very good as with the sound, they rented it.
Although in saying that, I spent a bit of time with those kids in the garage talking about film and each had to cut a 24frame strip of 35mm to take home ![[Cool]](cool.gif) they also looked over the projectors, the Ernie and all, so the evening went down very well.
Graham.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted November 30, 2012 10:23 PM
I've been thinking about how to present this for today, and some of this may sound redundant, so please bear with me.
I'm, at heart, a romanticist, so I like putting myself in enviorments.
When I screen on my projection TV a Laurel and hardy Laserdisc or DVD, I watch it and while it looks OK, I don't feel drawn in ...
Now, when I play the same film, except on actual film, lets say "Double Whoopee" is the choice, the actual celluloid takes me back and I'm suddenly in 1929 with that audience on the cusp of sound pictures, watching the lads do they're thing and laughing right along with them.
It's a connection with humanity, be it today or 80 years ago, with an element that is a shared history.
Perhaps that is what I'm trying to say ...
Now, on the other hand, after all of us "cine-dinosaurs" are long dead, and all that remains is digital, perhaps today and tomorrows crowd will have that same nolstalgia, but I kind of doubt it.
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Murin, Jr.
Master Film Handler
Posts: 260
From: Lanoka Harbor, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 2009
|
posted December 01, 2012 12:20 PM
Osi, I get what you're saying and I'm sure many here would agree with you.
However, I'm all about the movie. I don't care what medium the movie is being delivered on, I always get drawn in. Laserdisc, Betamax, DVD, Blu-Ray. TV, digital or film projection, it does not matter to me.
I've also never found theatrical digital projection to be "cold". The ones I've seen all looked like 35mm film. They sure didn't look anything like "video".
As for 48fps, it's really a moot point right now. Only a handful of theaters in the world are capable of showing it right now. It'll be years before there are enough theaters for it to make any kind of impact.
Untill then, just sit back, relax and enjoy the show!
--------------------
My crummy Deviant Art account. Read my poetic tribute to the internet comic strip Ozy & Millie and view my crappy attempts at art.
http://cougartiger.deviantart.com/
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
