PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit Production Video #4



Nicolas Jordan
11-04-2011, 10:50 AM
Peter talks more about how The Hobbit is being shot and the camera equipment that is being used.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZKLY7WdPMg

erikals
11-04-2011, 12:38 PM
now that's a green forest...!

rcallicotte
11-04-2011, 01:26 PM
Thanks for the updates. Cool to see this en route.

biliousfrog
11-04-2011, 01:33 PM
48fps?...can't wait to hear the back-tracking from all those that claimed that 24fps is the only frame-rate worth using.

wibly wobly
11-05-2011, 08:33 AM
I can't imagine the amount of data they're dealing with on this show. 5k @ 48fps in stereo. That must be a mind boggling amount of storage they need, especially if they're shooting it like the first trilogy. IE lots and lots of cut footage. I suspect it'll be fun re-introducing the motion blur for the 24fps crowds on Bluray and DVD.

bazsa73
11-05-2011, 11:34 AM
too much tech, why is the greenscreen in the forest shot, they should do it in a real forest

Clemens
11-05-2011, 02:12 PM
Would be interesting to know on which shutter they shoot. 1/100th second, when using 180 shutter must be looking like Saving Private Ryan...

JCG
11-05-2011, 04:58 PM
Wow, there is really no comparison between the sense of threat you feel when looking at the drawing with and without 3D glasses. At least for that one drawing, it was definitely not a gimmick.

probiner
11-05-2011, 05:37 PM
Fantastic, ty for the link


too much tech, why is the greenscreen in the forest shot, they should do it in a real forest
I guess they would be more exposed to weather and light exchange and have more fuss to have all that equipment around.

jasonwestmas
11-05-2011, 07:27 PM
The FPS thing is actually more exciting to me than the "3D" simulation thing.

jasonwestmas
11-05-2011, 07:28 PM
Fantastic, ty for the link


I guess they would be more exposed to weather and light exchange and have more fuss to have all that equipment around.

yeah it'd be 3 times the amount of work to change locations that much.

COBRASoft
11-05-2011, 07:49 PM
Looks very nice! Those REDs are amazing :D.

safetyman
11-06-2011, 06:47 AM
yeah it'd be 3 times the amount of work to change locations that much.

Plus, they can put whatever they want into/behind the forrest, like dragons and monsters!

jasonwestmas
11-06-2011, 07:20 AM
Plus, they can put whatever they want into/behind the forrest, like dragons and monsters!

lol yeah. I don't know the whole process but I'm pretty sure it's way easier to use green screens indoors verses trying to comp indoor shots into outdoor shots for the CG characters. Plus the environments look really surreal anyway so they're gonna have to be made up by artists.

Dexter2999
11-06-2011, 07:46 AM
48fps?...can't wait to hear the back-tracking from all those that claimed that 24fps is the only frame-rate worth using.

24fps has really always been about the fact that it is the lowest acceptable rate. Which meant it was also the lowest cost in terms of shooting stock and processing. Also (and possibly the biggest issue) is that theater projectors have been a standard 24fps for more than 60 years. Since all theater equipment is locked in at that playback rate it pretty much eliminates any alternatives.

Like they said in the clip the human eye can see at 60fps which was attempted with SHOWSCAN but it found only limited success in amusement park style attractions with its special equipment needs.

48fps is in my opinion only being used for two reasons. One it still keeps the cost down in terms of post production and it provides an easy number from which they can get back to 24fps for distribution to theaters that are not digital and home theater considerations as most (not all) HD is currently 24P. (48/2=24...easy instead of 60fps/?=24....not easy)

jasonwestmas
11-06-2011, 07:51 AM
24fps for distribution to theaters that are not digital and home theater considerations as most (not all) HD is currently 24P. (48/2=24...easy instead of 60fps/?=24....not easy)

So some HD "blueray" players are higher than 24 fps?

Dexter2999
11-06-2011, 08:13 AM
The 3D ones are. They have to be so you can still get 24fps per eye.

bazsa73
11-06-2011, 09:01 AM
I hate composited look.

probiner
11-06-2011, 09:27 AM
I hate composited look.

I actually think that this would be a nice topic. Especially if you have some examples in mind (especially with good compositing).

I wonder for example if the in terms of timming, of the compositing overuse or mindset don't somehow contribute to a very fast flow of shots, that sometimes banalizes subjects and situations that could have been treated differently, instead of just being there to show up and convince, and move on to the next thing.
Thoughts?

jasonwestmas
11-06-2011, 10:42 AM
I actually think that this would be a nice topic. Especially if you have some examples in mind (especially with good compositing).

I wonder for example if the in terms of timming, of the compositing overuse or mindset don't somehow contribute to a very fast flow of shots, that sometimes banalizes subjects and situations that could have been treated differently, instead of just being there to show up and convince, and move on to the next thing.
Thoughts?

Also we need to consider that not everything is composited in. Even though the trees and other vegetation are fake fantasy creations, they are real 3d objects and shot within the same room as the actors. Background mattes are nothing new either whether they are filming outside or not.

My point being that using composite images wisely and only when necessary is what makes something more believable to the eye.

Dexter2999
11-06-2011, 01:51 PM
Well, IMO, Peter Jackson is probably foremost in the field in this area. He still favors miniature sets in certain situations over digital versions. I think he knows when to use the right tool for the right job.

And as for composited aspects, the multipass shooting he did for the perspective/scale shots for LOR trilogy was fairly flawless in the theaters and my standard DVD version ( I have heard negative reviews concerning the Blu-ray transfers.)

wibly wobly
11-07-2011, 07:59 AM
I remember before The Phantom Menace came out and Lucas was waving his arms around about how awesome digital projectors were, someone was trying to get some attention with his very low cost hack to the current (at the time) 24 fps film projectors to operate at 48 fps. From what I read, it was dirt cheap to change, run / work with and the results were amazing. You could do things like pan across a white picket fence and it would hold up just fine when before it would tend to make a mess of the image. I should see if I can dig it up. It was interesting.

I'm pretty sure this was the system.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Maxivision

Nangleator
11-07-2011, 11:52 AM
Concept artists drawing in red and blue pencils side-by-side for a 3D image... wow.

MrWyatt
11-07-2011, 01:23 PM
Concept artists drawing in red and blue pencils side-by-side for a 3D image... wow.

Yeah I think this was a hoax. It must be because it is so rediculous.

erikals
11-07-2011, 01:45 PM
i thought it was kinda weird, it did work though, i tested the drawing they showed...

jasonwestmas
11-07-2011, 01:49 PM
Concept artists drawing in red and blue pencils side-by-side for a 3D image... wow.

It's called using a light table. ;) Unless they are some kind of freaky weird people who refuse to use anything electrical.

Nangleator
11-07-2011, 01:56 PM
I wouldn't be impressed by someone turning Photoshop sketches into layers and adding depth to them, but two different people drawing with pencil, the same characters in the same style, same environment, elements offset from each other the exact amount...

...but if any two guys could do it, it would be those two.

jasonwestmas
11-07-2011, 02:03 PM
I wouldn't be impressed by someone turning Photoshop sketches into layers and adding depth to them, but two different people drawing with pencil, the same characters in the same style, same environment, elements offset from each other the exact amount...

...but if any two guys could do it, it would be those two.

I guess as a circus act it's impressive. =)

Nicolas Jordan
11-07-2011, 02:38 PM
Yeah I think this was a hoax. It must be because it is so rediculous.

I would have to agree it is ridiculous to actually have concept art being done in 3D. The only reason I can think they would do this is because it may be a fun challenge for the artists.

erikals
11-07-2011, 03:45 PM
weird, but it's probably a publicity stunt, which will be used later on.

i thought it was nice...

Ernest
11-07-2011, 04:24 PM
Yeah I think this was a hoax. It must be because it is so rediculous.

It was only rediculous on one side. On the other, it was blueiculous.

Dexter2999
11-07-2011, 04:54 PM
It was only rediculous on one side. On the other, it was blueiculous.

funny

Nangleator
11-07-2011, 05:05 PM
Just watched it again. It's hard to tell the difference between the talent in makeup and the crew.

Also, what's Frodo doing there? Just visiting the production?

jasonwestmas
11-07-2011, 07:03 PM
Jackson is bridging the LOTR movies into the Hobbit pre-quil and needed some characters from those movies to do so.

Silkrooster
11-07-2011, 11:33 PM
I can't imagine the amount of data they're dealing with on this show. 5k @ 48fps in stereo. That must be a mind boggling amount of storage they need, especially if they're shooting it like the first trilogy. IE lots and lots of cut footage. I suspect it'll be fun re-introducing the motion blur for the 24fps crowds on Bluray and DVD.

5K? I thought 4K was the highest resolution available.

Silkrooster
11-07-2011, 11:37 PM
It's called using a light table. ;) Unless they are some kind of freaky weird people who refuse to use anything electrical.

You shouldn't pick on the Amish like that. Just kidding...:D

jasonwestmas
11-07-2011, 11:53 PM
You shouldn't pick on the Amish like that. Just kidding...:D

Naw you're probably right, I shouldn't talk like that, it's out of character for me anyway. Just weird to have all that high tech film stuff and then the illustration puritans there in the background. ;)

Dexter2999
11-08-2011, 12:07 AM
The new RCpodcast mentions this bit and Mike Seymore was very serious about his fear that people (Producers) won't see that for the joke it was. He is dreading the rash of inexperienced producers demanding stereoscopic sketches like in the video.

jasonwestmas
11-08-2011, 12:54 AM
The new RCpodcast mentions this bit and Mike Seymore was very serious about his fear that people (Producers) won't see that for the joke it was. He is dreading the rash of inexperienced producers demanding stereoscopic sketches like in the video.

oh my, stop the press:stop: