8mm Forum: The Hobbit and cold digital ...

This is topic The Hobbit and cold digital ... in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002368

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on 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!"

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on 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.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on November 30, 2012, 01:50 PM:

Hi Osi.

I know you and I often don't agree on certain things! [Smile]

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.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on November 30, 2012, 02:11 PM:

quote:
...but the
modern audience won't accept the odd artifacts that film has,
the modern audience is much more sophisticated...

The modern audience don't really give a toss what medium is used. Film or digital - they don't know the difference.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on November 30, 2012, 02:48 PM:

I think most people don't actually notice the stuff on screen we obsess on.

I've seen some absolutely awful stuff: lines, specks, bad focus...basically you name it. Then after the show I ask the people I'm with: "Did you see that?"

They reply "See what?"

I guess when you have a hobby where something gone wrong means you can ruin an expensive film makes you a little sensitive to what happens on screen.

I agree about the medium not mattering. It's like my wife with what makes her car go: pistons, rods, crank...a squirrel on a wheel...a billion rubber bands wound up with a crank....whatEVER!

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on November 30, 2012, 03:05 PM:

The vast majority of the general public have assumed their movies are on "some kinda DVD" for years now.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on November 30, 2012, 03:55 PM:

If they even think about it!

When I was a little kid I got in a great deal of trouble because I wondered how things worked and I knew where Dad kept his screwdrivers.

-most people never did.

Posted by Ricky Daniels (Member # 95) on November 30, 2012, 04:32 PM:

Got an invite to a Dolby screening in the West End later in December... in Digital 3D and DOLBY ATMOS... can't ait to hear it let alone see it!

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on November 30, 2012, 04:44 PM:

Osi, Ricky-Let us know what you think of the film after you sit thru the 2 hours and 40 minutes, yes that's the final running time, of what I feel is a 3D digital remake of LOTR. Just can't see sitting thru something like for that long. I wish Jackson could have made HALO instead. Or something totally different.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on 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...

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on November 30, 2012, 04:50 PM:

Im screening it here on 35mm from the 12th, I have noticed that alot of the discussions on the high frame rate talk about it as being "hi def" in the common folks words, one reporter said that it would be like quote"Watching your amazing digital tv set from home but being several hundred times bigger"

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on 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.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on 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. [Smile]

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]

they also looked over the projectors, the Ernie and all, so the evening went down very well. [Smile]

Graham.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on 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.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 01, 2012, 02:58 AM:

quote:
It's a connection with humanity, be it today or 80 years ago, with an element that is a shared history.

Maybe it is, but the general public don't give a hoot about that, and they are the people who drive the movie industry.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 01, 2012, 12:16 PM:

Alas, sad but true, Micheal, and good to hear from ya!

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on 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!

Posted by Laksmi Breathwaite (Member # 2320) on December 02, 2012, 02:48 AM:

I agree with OSI! Ray Harryhausen told me once when I was at his house in London I went for a visit. He said that digital effects or animation CGI was good but we both agree it looks to cold and with no soul and the magic was gone. It looks to real. It is really disappointing to hear that a animal or something is CGI and not real even when it looks real. It looks so real like to compare a painting to a photo. Everyone likes the Mona Lisa but what if you had this great photo of a woman would people care as much or give a hoot. Man's creative work like sculptures or oil paintings are like film and hands on stop motion animation. It is something to admirer mans handy work or God's if you care to believe in God. Some people say that God is dead and Tech is real we can see science. But were will it all end . I asked Peter Jackson once at a meeting at the Directors guild in Hollywood about doing movies about, life after death,why are we here,where are we going,philosophy, important questions? I gave him a script for the great Indian epic the Ramayana . A story of the prince half God Rama who had to fight a ten headed demon to save his princess with the help of a monkey army. Now that would have made a great movie fresh and new. And he said he had to do subjects that could get financing. I told him that George Lucas did Star Wars inspired by Joesph Cambell the historian who loved the Ramayana from India. And came up with the Force . Remember when Darth Vader in the movie said that these Technological advancements were no match for the power of the Force.I agree with Vader Long Live Film and may the Force be with you . And long live the Human spirit and the Arts.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 02, 2012, 09:04 AM:

You madesome great insightful points, Laksmi. Boy! Have you gotten around! ove to meet the "Hobbit dude"!

Hey, were actually back to the Hobbit!

I am so glad that someone like Peter Jackson, who has an absolute LOVE for the text, is the one helming and directing the projects. Could you imagine the Bruckheimers of Hollywood doing the Hobbit?

Posted by Laksmi Breathwaite (Member # 2320) on December 03, 2012, 02:01 AM:

Thanks Osi , Here is a pic of me and the Hobbit Dude hanging out. He He [Razz]

And may the Force be with this Guy

I really miss Moses who went up to the mountain, and the Avatar guy who has a spiritual mesasage to tell .

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 05, 2012, 01:23 PM:

Man, I envy you, the Heston himself!

... and Jackson! I bet there were some probably thinking, "aww. he's just putting you on"

Nope, not a chance of that!

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on December 06, 2012, 06:04 PM:

A quote from Sir Peter back in 09 on the making of THE HOBBIT
"Jackson mentioned that the "Hobbit" films will not be released in 3D. "Guillermo wants to shoot in 35mm, old-fashioned film, which suits me, because he wants to keep it in the same space as the original trilogy."

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on December 07, 2012, 04:55 PM:

quote:
A quote from Sir Peter back in 09 on the making of THE HOBBIT "Jackson mentioned that the "Hobbit" films will not be released in 3D. "Guillermo wants to shoot in 35mm, old-fashioned film, which suits me, because he wants to keep it in the same space as the original trilogy."

Patrick, that quote was from when Del Toro was going to direct. The quote makes it clear that DEL TORO wanted to shoot 2D and 35mm NOT Jackson. He was just going along with what Del Toro wanted.

When Peter Jackson was forced to direct after Del Toro dropped out, he clearly decided to go 3D and 48fps after meeting with James Cameron.

I see nothing wrong here.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 07, 2012, 07:33 PM:

Just coming back to this as we teater upon the UK release; one thing we haven't discussed (EDIT: Sorry Graham, you have, in your wisdom, already mentioned this!) is the impact of 48 fps upon the 3D presentation...

Reviews from them wot have seen it please....

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on December 14, 2012, 06:37 PM:

Wow! Even Leonard Maltin didn't like it:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 14, 2012, 06:55 PM:

Well Leonard Maltin is a well respected film historian/critic and
I respect his views.Peter Jackson does make good films,but do
they have to be so long.His KONG was a great film,but the '33
version told the tale in half the time.I watched the RING trilogy
once and don't have a burning desire to revisit just yet, this new
venture sounds like much the same territory.Perhaps he'll find
out,much like Lucas with the prequels, that the craze has gone.

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on December 14, 2012, 07:48 PM:

Even though Episodes 1-3 of SW were not as well liked as the originals they still made an enormous amount of money. According to boxofficemojo.com Ep. 1 made $1B, Ep. 2 made $650M and Ep 3 made $850M worldwide. And they weren't 3 hours long. Ep 1 & 2 were 2hr13 and Ep 3 2hr26. I was actually waiting for reviews since I had heard it was very long to decide if I wanted to see it or not. Had it been around 2 hours I might have made the journey to Middle Earth again but it sounds like a painful excursion. I loved LOTR and have watched them several times including the extended versions.

On another note. Now that it is digital distribution the studios are not printing thousands of feet of print film for every minute. I remember back in the optical days studios were complaining about the amount of credits on the end crawls to try and make it as short as possible just to save on printing costs. Now look at it since it's digital seems that is no longer the case.

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on December 14, 2012, 09:10 PM:

Started showing it here on Wednesday in 35mm, 9 reels, I thought it would of been struck here in NZ like Jackson's other titles but was surprised to see it come in from the USA, the film itself looks like a TV movie or a daytime soap opera which is a shame, apart from that the patrons are enjoying it, however not as many coming to it as I thought.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 14, 2012, 09:11 PM:

That's a very good point Larry, remember when Derann took this decision with some of their feature releases,to keep costs down you could buy versions with short credits.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 16, 2012, 06:49 PM:

Well, you cant get much further away from all the digital "bla bla bla" presentation than this.

Yesterday I called in to see Pat running "The Hobbit" on 35mm at the Waikari Hall. I understand it was built back in the 1920s, its an old but nice building, Waikari is a small rural "mostly farming" town.. not much there.

Even though I am not a "Hobbit" fan [Frown]

I did sit through the first half of the film at the back of the hall until the intermission. Both Scope picture "looked fine" and sound was good. The hall has a flat wooden floor and has only very basic movable seating.... some do bring there own seats though [Big Grin]

.

I started thinking, here I was sitting in a hall, with no digital sound, just mono, watching an image on a temporary screen as the local school uses the hall as well, no air conditioning, no fancy seats with cup holders....and you no something... the people I talked to before and after the film all enjoyed it. [Smile]

The future for the place might be uncertain, but it was a nice way to spend an afternoon.

Sitting there during that first half, and thinking thats how it used to be shown, for many of the elderly it must be a step back in time, when they went to watch films when they were young.

...35mm intermission tag was at the end of the first reel.

Graham.

Posted by Laksmi Breathwaite (Member # 2320) on December 16, 2012, 11:10 PM:

I saw the film I liked it but I don't see why it had to be so long. and all the other future movies. I don't see it being the film with awards like LOTR. It has no love interest. Where is all the romance of the sexy female Hobbits or Dwarves??? The only woman in the film was the sexy Elf queen . I liked what Maltin said"The point of The Hobbit is to show how this unassuming fellow finds his inner courage. That shouldn’t take three feature films, let alone a first installment that runs two hours and 45 minutes. We get the point early on. Instead, Bilbo and the dwarves—whom I found indistinguishable from one another—embark on their perilous quest, only to encounter a group of hideously ugly monsters".

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on December 17, 2012, 06:04 AM:

Can you clarify for me what method of projection is the 48fps please?
Are the 35mm projectors running at that?
Are all digital projectors running at that 2D and 3D?
I use 3 cinemas for my cinema trips, 2 have 2K digital and 1 has 4K digital and all use the XPAND 3D system.
1 of them can also do Dual 70mm horizontal Imax.

[ December 17, 2012, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: David Park ]

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on December 17, 2012, 06:40 PM:

the 35mm is 24fps non 3d in scope

Posted by Ronald Kwiatkowski (Member # 3349) on December 17, 2012, 07:56 PM:

I already noticed on some newer TV sets the awfulness of ridiculously high frame rates. Everything looks like a high speed shutter football game. There's nothing visually theatrical about it anymore, it's just cold, overly sharp and hectic. All my glorious Hollywood heroes now look like uncontrolled, wiggling plastic puppets. I hate it. Quite a personal view, of course...

Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on December 17, 2012, 09:58 PM:

Ronald,

That's why I have a Panasonic plasma set... [Wink]

None of that nonsense with over-compensated frame fill-ins, and great black levels. If it has to be Blu-Ray, it still should look as much like film as it can.

Claus.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2