Are 3D movies toast? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Zoo Station
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-29-2011, 01:39 AM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,664
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerhour24 View Post
that would have been the first use of it by a real maverick artistic filmmaker.
Yeah, but Herzog's more interesting.
__________________

__________________
Lancemc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 01:44 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
powerhour24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,645
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Well, I would agree, but I guess I should have been more specific and said in a narrative!
__________________

__________________
powerhour24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 01:48 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,664
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Ok, you got me there.

I'm disappointed The BERGH!'s proposed 3D Cleopatra musical fell though. Because it probably would have been atrocious and amazing and ludicrous and omg.
__________________
Lancemc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 01:50 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
powerhour24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,645
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Oh agreed, set in a 1920's speakeasy right? That sounded like one of the most brilliant trainwrecks ever to be. One can only hope that he doesn't retire and that it will come to fruition one of these days.
__________________
powerhour24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 02:35 AM   #20
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 08:53 PM
The stuff that cult films are made of right there. Holy shit.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 01:21 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:53 PM

Come on now.. Great Gatsby in 3D?



What some consider The Great American Novel is now set to get the Great American Multiplex treatment, as director Baz Luhrmann's upcoming big screen version of "The Great Gatsby" will be filmed in 3D -- and in Australia.

The Sunday Telegraph of Australia broke the news on Sunday that the director's new film version of the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel had chosen New South Wales, Australia as his filming location, signing a deal with the government on Friday.

As previously announced, Leonardo DiCaprio will take on the role of Jay Gatsby, the mysterious millionaire, while Carey Mulligan will take on Daisy Buchanan and Tobey Maguire will play Nick Carraway, the book's narrator and protagonist.

The 3D announcement should come as no surprise -- back in January, it had been discussed as a possibility for the film. This will be the largest scale production of "The Great Gatsby" since Francis Ford Coppola made a 1974 version of the film starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 01:25 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
GirlsAloudFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25,283
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Damn, I remember hearing that Blake Lively might be cast as Daisy. That would have been brilliant.

But, as I'm reading, it looks like the decision to cast Mulligan was made a few months ago. I'm out of the loop.
__________________
GirlsAloudFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2011, 12:10 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Maybe 3D won't be dead yet.

James Cameron 'Fully Intends' to Make 'Avatar 2 and 3' at Higher Frame Rates - The Hollywood Reporter

Quote:
Cameron said that shooting movies at a higher frame rate than the standard 24 frames per second will give them an added sense of reality. Katzenberg explained how advances in computing power are affecting how computer graphic artists create stories. Lucas related to the packed session that 2d to 3D conversion takes time and creative talent.

As evidence of his belief in increasing frame rates, Cameron said he "fully intends" to make Avatar 2 and 3 at higher rates and is looking seriously at 48 and 60 frames per second. "When you author and project a movie at 48 or 60, it becomes a different movie," he said. "The 3D shows you a window into reality; the higher frame rate takes the glass out of the window. In fact, it is just reality. It is really stunning."

$$$$
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2011, 03:18 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Makes sense for 3d since the fps is essentially being cut in half with the flickering of the signal. But I don't really want to see ultra smooth film at 60 fps. I'm not really interested in seeing things closer to the way they look in real life. When has that ever been the goal?
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2011, 08:35 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,664
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Yeah, I'm not particularly interested in that for many regular 2D films really. 24fps is pretty definitive to the very feel and look of cinema. Hell, digital video cameras have even gone pretty far out of their way to reproduce the effect. I don't think most of the very serious filmmakers are going to be willing to make that leap just yet, especially considering how many still refuse to even touch a digital camera. But there's surely room for both, just as there's room for both a film purist like Tarantino and a progressive techno-formalist like David Fincher. Anyway I could see the higher framerate being pretty useful for most big tentpole blockbusters and action films and such, since the traditional film does get a bit jittery in really quick movements and such. And yeah, it goes without saying it's a fantastic idea for anything shot in 3D. And said films are already a pretty big step away from the traditional film experience anyway, so might as well push their particular niche even further and make for a more comfortable viewing experience.
__________________
Lancemc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2011, 10:26 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Boy some people are moving fast:



https://www.facebook.com/note.php?no...50222861171558

Quote:
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!
I'm certainly not on the 3D bandwagon but I'll definitely have to see this before I make my mind up.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 12:00 AM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 11:53 PM
The vinyl to CD analogy seems like a poor one
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 11:13 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Yeah Blu-ray would be a better analogy if the quality is as hyped.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com