• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Hobbit - Official Thread of Officially In Production

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dead

well not really...yet
Andy Serkis has already completed his role as Gollum and will now serve as a 2nd unit Director on the movie:

Serkis has already done some directing, including performance capture on a couple video games including Heavenly Sword. But, he said, “When Peter asked me. There was this email out of the blue. It was a fantastic surprise.”

When he completes The Hobbit movies, Serkis aims to direct his first live-action feature. In addition, he and producer Jonathan Cavendish (Bridget Jones’ Diary) plan to launch a perform capture studio and training center, dubbed The Imaginarium, which will produce its own material as well as service other projects.

As for his return to Middle Earth, details are being kept under wraps, but Serkis told THR that his directing responsibilities would go beyond performance capture. “It is wide ranging and encompasses a lot of directing aspects of filmmaking and story. Yes, there is some performance capture, but I will be very much on the live action sets and locations helping Peter to tell the story."

“The learning curve is The Hobbit is being shot in 3D,” he added, noting that the 3D would be used “dramatically, to give a point of view.”

“In the same way Lord of the Rings was an interpretation of the book, The Hobbit is being treated the same way,” Serkis said. “It will be faithfully represented with a fresh interpretation.”

The busy actor just completed shooting his performance in the film. “He is very much a Gollum that people will recognize,” Serkis offered, noting that the character would be seen in his “truest form.”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/gollum-actor-andy-serkis-serve-175685
 

bengraven

Member
This is going to sound geeky but...

Serkis has finished filming. Which means one of the most iconic chapters in 20th century literature is now on film somewhere in New Zealand. Something about that is right in the world.
 
Lionel Mandrake said:
m2Tmh.jpg

PS3 version has muted colours and looks more washed out.
 
bengraven said:
This is going to sound geeky but...

Serkis has finished filming. Which means one of the most iconic chapters in 20th century literature is now on film somewhere in New Zealand. Something about that is right in the world.
More like sitting on several HDD and SSDs right now. :)
 
Very interesting news about Serkis becoming Second Unit Director. Really wasn't expecting something like that, but I really only see good things coming from it.
 

bananas

Banned
What? FAT PETER JACKSON is evolving!

FAT PETER JACKSON evolved into HIPSTER PETER JACKSON!

Give nickname to HIPSTER PETER JACKSON?

Code:
  >Yes
   No

HIPSTER PETER JACKSON is now DICKBUTT.
 

Morn

Banned
qF2m9.jpg


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!

Time to jump in the car and drive to Bag End for the day. Video coming soon!
 

mjc

Member
It's hard to believe that the trilogy is almost a decade old already....and that they're finally filming this. Pretty surreal.
 

Dead

well not really...yet
48 fps should go a long ways to eliminating the vast majority of discomfort some people feel during 3D presentations. It really will be a huge improvement.
 

UraMallas

Member
What does that mean for my BluRay player? Will I have to buy a new TV and BluRay player to play at 48fps? I'm guessing yes.
 
UraMallas said:
What does that mean for my BluRay player? Will I have to buy a new TV and BluRay player to play at 48fps? I'm guessing yes.


Your TV should already be able to play at 48FPS.
Not sure about BD players.
 

StuBurns

Banned
BluRay is an issue. You can 720p on a BluRay at 60Hz, but I'm guessing they'll make a new standard and update players or you might have to replace them.

TVs are fine.
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
faceless007 said:
Doesn't 48fps in 3D equate to 24fps per eye anyway?
No.



AceBandage said:
Your TV should already be able to play at 48FPS.
Not sure about BD players.
Opposite actually. It would be pretty simple to add 48Hz (not 3D though) to work in BD3D players. TV's on the other hand, it matters how programmable the video processor is in them.
 

jambo

Member
UraMallas said:
What does that mean for my BluRay player? Will I have to buy a new TV and BluRay player to play at 48fps? I'm guessing yes.

Most good modern TVs can display a wide variety of FPS, but I'm not sure about the current Blu-ray standard.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Raistlin said:
Opposite actually. It would be pretty simple to add 48Hz (not 3D though) to work in BD3D players. TV's on the other hand, it matters how programmable the video processor is in them.
I doubt they'd handle it like that, TVs are meant to input 60Hz, so they'd more than likely have the BluRay players repeat the frames needed to make it up to 60fps and output that, like game consoles do.
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
StuBurns said:
BluRay is an issue. You can 720p on a BluRay at 60Hz, but I'm guessing they'll make a new standard and update players or you might have to replace them.

TVs are fine.
Not true.


BD3D uses 1080p24 frame-packing - ie. it's actually sending each eye sandwiched together as one giant frame (basically 3840 x 1080 @ 24Hz, though technically there are some rows of black separating them).

Piggybacking 48Hz 2D using that same mech would be trivial. They'd simply need to send some sort of meta data stating what it is. Hell, they wouldn't even necessarily have to if TV's simply allow you to select what it is ... but traditionally they prefer to automate such things since people are dumb.




The problem then becomes the TV itself. It would need to know what to do with the data. It can't treat it as 3D content or the sequence would be wrong. Also, unless it has a 96Hz mode (which some sets do), it would need to use 3:2 pulldown ... though it's not like there isn't precedence for that.

It would all come down to the particular set. Is the video processing sufficiently upgradeable to support it? I suspect most wouldn't be unfortunately.
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
StuBurns said:
I doubt they'd handle it like that, TVs are meant to input 60Hz
Then why are you stating that they'd be able to input 48Hz?

, so they'd more than likely have the BluRay players repeat the frames needed to make it up to 60fps and output that, like game consoles do.
It would use 24Hz.






jambo said:
Most good modern TVs can display a wide variety of FPS, but I'm not sure about the current Blu-ray standard.
Actually modern TV's typically only have one refresh (60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz, or 480Hz), though some offer 2 (typically 72Hz or 92Hz as the additional).

Also, that really isn't the problem here. The issue is what they actually input. That isn't generally only 24Hz, 30Hz, and 60Hz (well, both the exact value as well as it's NTSC/ATSC derived counterparts).
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
StuBurns said:
I was talking about all BluRay players.
Yes, it's unlikely 2D BD players would be able to support it (other than ones that are super programmable like PS3).




However, I was also referring to your comment about 'TV's being fine'. They wouldn't be.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Raistlin said:
Then why are you stating that they'd be able to input 48Hz?


It would use 24Hz.
I don't know what is confusing about my post.

A TV doesn't need to specifically handle 48fps, all video game systems do this all the time, they host as many original frames as they want, and repeat them to make up to 60fps which TVs can support.

Raistlin said:
However, I was also referring to your comment about 'TV's being fine'. They wouldn't be.
That would depend on how the standard is handled, they certainly could be if they decided to do it like a game system does.
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
StuBurns said:
I don't know what is confusing about my post.

A TV doesn't need to specifically handle 48fps, all video game systems do this all the time, they host as many original frames as they want, and repeat them to make up to 60fps which TVs can support.
But that math doesn't work. You can't do pulldown to a value less than twice the framerate. The cadence irregularity would be quite notable.
 

Zabka

Member
48 fps sounds great. Fuck 3d.

Looks like I'll be holding out for a 240Hz TV that takes 48p for the next big upgrade, although my LG does 24p at 48Hz and looks just fine. Not sure why more TVs don't do that.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Raistlin said:
But that math doesn't work. You can't do pulldown to a value less than twice the framerate. The cadence irregularity would be quite notable.
Probably, but they certainly could do it that way. Although the way the article states it as a measure of 'future proofing' the film does certainly imply there will be 24fps versions at the very least at cinemas. I think separating 2D and 3D is simple enough for consumers, but when you start dabbling with framerates people are going to get confused, I could see them wanting a more consumer friendly response than you have to buy a new TV.
 

Dead

well not really...yet
Zabka said:
48 fps sounds great. Fuck 3d.

Looks like I'll be holding out for a 240Hz TV that takes 48p for the next big upgrade, although my LG does 24p at 48Hz and looks just fine. Not sure why more TVs don't do that.
3D is what will benefit from 48 fps the most.

I hope The Hobbit plays in Zero 2D theaters... Well, okay, it can play in 2D in a few hundred theaters for people whose eyes cant register the effect. But thats it :p
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
Zabka said:
48 fps sounds great. Fuck 3d.
He's doing both ... at least in theaters.

Looks like I'll be holding out for a 240Hz TV that takes 48p for the next big upgrade,
You'll probably be waiting for a while if you literally mean inputting 48Hz. That isn't part of any exist spec. You'd first need a new HDMI spec, and then an entirely new BD spec.

although my LG does 24p at 48Hz and looks just fine. Not sure why more TVs don't do that.
If your TV is really display at 48Hz, and you think it looks just fine, I question how useful native 48Hz would be to you. If you don't note flicker you aren't particularly sensitive to framerates. I suppose you'd still probably see the blur reduction though. There is a relation between temporal sensitivity and perceived resolution, but it's not an entirely simple relationship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom