You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Episodes → #28 - Film vs Digital
Surround sound also breaks the fourth wall. I wonder if people objected to it when movies started getting mixed and presented in surround. I know my mother-in-law doesn't like movie sounds coming from directions other than the screen, similar to how some people don't like 3D picture stuff coming at them out of the screen. I can't convince myself that 3D picture is an extension of 3D sound, but it could be argued.
To be honest, I don't care for surround sound either haha.
Well, Nintendo already did a pseudo-glasses-free 3D thing with the 3DS. I bet you could apply that to a movie screen. Of course, you'd have to get thousands of theaters across the world to throw out their projectors and invest in specialized, gigantic television screens.
The only time I've ever been truly impressed, no, awed by 3D was during the Hubble IMAX documentary shown at the Kennedy Space Center. Specifically the points where you feel that you can reach out and touch the astronaut working on the telescope and when it places you in a starfield. Amazing. It's one of my most cherished memories.
I don't generally go to 3D movies, chiefly because I already wear glasses, and I don't want to have to wear two pair at once. I won't go see anything post-converted (all respect to the various guys around here who do that as part of their trade). If it was shot like a normal 2D film and futzed with later, no thank you. But if it was shot in 3D, as in, with two cameras, like the upcoming Prometheus, I'll be more inclined to give it a go, but even then it's not a sure deal.
Or could have been that it was poorly designed and just terrible to use. There are a lot of design compromises that have to be made to get that form factor in a 35mm camera, cost benefit/quality/ease of use probably just wasn't there.
Digital backs are standard in medium format cameras, but their design affords the bulky back end and display needed to make it work, rather than fitting the entire package in the space of two 35mm spools.
I'm not too worried about the Hobbit looking like crap. The footage they showed off was probably a lot more raw than you'd see in the theater. You look at just about any direct-from-camera footage and it just looks wrong until you go in and make it look like a movie. If there's still green screens in the shots, then it's probably not been color corrected / balanced and all that junk.
What I'm more worried about is the lack of motion blur on the versions projected at 24FPS. There have been movies that shot with a short exposure for some scenes (Saving Private Ryan had a number of scenes like that, I believe), and it's noticeable.
If it didn't look good I doubt they'd move forward on it, anyway.
I feel awful for the poor effects guys, tho. Imagine taking the LOTR movies and then doubling the number of frames you have to clean / comp / animate / render / etc. Someone better have medals on stand-by for those guys...
Especially since Jackson's one of those dudes who's all "we don't have enough greenscreen for this shot? Well, we can fix that in post..." His roto guys probably spend a fortune on anxiety medication and tums.
Easier? The lack of hefty motion blur makes each frame easier, but it's also double the amount of frames(or 4 times, if shot in stereo, obviously), so it's still a hell of a lot more work.
It makes me want to cry just thinking about it.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Episodes → #28 - Film vs Digital
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.