Silent Member Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 In my eyes/ears 3D is to colour film what surround sound is to stereo, but honestly I just grabbed this opinion out of my ass, so it doesn't really matter. Hopefully the Hobbit will be fun, if not I will have wasted four hours and some money. I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Gocab, I like what you did with your avatar. As for advancements in films, music and video games. People like real stuff. Materials you can feel or imagine you can feel them. Cgi so far mostly failed on that front as far as I'm concerned. You put a person in a costume performing a goblin and there's a 800% chance he'll do a better job of convincing us he's the real thing than a topshit cgi goblin will do. Its a art thing basically. Electronic music is awesome but feels introverted for me all the time. I needed it for just that aspect in my last 10 years, but now I'm leaning towards the old instruments again. They just "feel" more open and real and that is important to me. As for computer games it's interesting how the realistic graphics and environments and sounds ultimately don't do anything for me. It's fun seeing these new games that use the same strategy as films (making "realistic" visuals top priority) but then the mostly fail at being awkward, uncanny and unfun for me. Give me minecraft and pixels, thank you. All in all, I want my entertainment products to have character, to feel real and sincere. Having 10 000 computers and people and 100 000 000$ has no meaning. Gaarg has spoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 It's a christmas thing gaarg, but I guess you saw that, I'll use the old one when the shopping spree has died down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Gocab, I like what you did with your avatar. As for advancements in films, music and video games. People like real stuff. Materials you can feel or imagine you can feel them. Cgi so far mostly failed on that front as far as I'm concerned. You put a person in a costume performing a goblin and there's a 800% chance he'll do a better job of convincing us he's the real thing than a topshit cgi goblin will do. Its a art thing basically. Electronic music is awesome but feels introverted for me all the time. I needed it for just that aspect in my last 10 years, but now I'm leaning towards the old instruments again. They just "feel" more open and real and that is important to me. As for computer games it's interesting how the realistic graphics and environments and sounds ultimately don't do anything for me. It's fun seeing these new games that use the same strategy as films (making "realistic" visuals top priority) but then the mostly fail at being awkward, uncanny and unfun for me. Give me minecraft and pixels, thank you. All in all, I want my entertainment products to have character, to feel real and sincere. Having 10 000 computers and people and 100 000 000$ has no meaning. Gaarg has spoken. I'm all for subjectivity but this seems really overly in favor of nostalgia. Are you saying advancements in technology doesn't bring creative opportunities? Half Life 2 or Portal aren't impressive to you? I think technology progression is good as one can always apply old tools and aesthetics if it compliments the concept. Mainstream reaction and usage can lead to many bad examples, but that's also the case with the old stuff as well. It's how it functions, by repackaging proven profitable techniques. We just don't remember that stuff cause we weren't born and it is forgettable like most of the things mainstream pumps out. I completely disagree about electronic music not having the ability to feel as "real" cause I see acoustic and electronic as different aesthetics entirely, not meant to be compared directly. Both certainly being real. Would you be criticizing Kubrick back during the 2001 production as he had a big budget on what one might have perceived as just a lot of special effect shots. Not that you are saying you dislike model effects (as they are material) but that new approaches until proven are not sincere because they are tied on with massive crews and big $$$. I will agree that it takes particular abilities to get lots of people to produce the results you want, but that doesn't mean you can simply correlate number of people + budget = sincerity. Hollywood is a business in the end so of course a good amount of what they make is geared towards making money. But it's not as if shooting the LOTR or Avatar with real objects wouldn't have cost a lot of money. Also the point isn't about realism but developing tools to translate ideas / communicate. Look at the community on watmm and its ability to cheaply create a wide range of musical styles and share it. Its empowering people and giving them a place to be among common thinkers. I think good art certainly comes from the challenge of making it happen but not to the degree that I think tools and processes should be ignored for the sake of being a slave. Art is just an extension of communication, its the ideas that count, not how long it took you to think of them... nor are they improved by how long it takes for you to say them. These new tools/tech are still relatively new and are improving in time. They come at no cost and only multiply available options for individuals to explore. We all have the ability to chose which ever toolset achieves our ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Some good thoughts there. In my world Portal (1 and 2) are good games as they creatively use new graphic power to boost storytelling. Neat clean textures work great with the lab surroundings. Half life 1 was cool because it presented a new level of detail that also worked fort he good of the general story, while half life 2 went boring with adding little new to the experience. As for cgi in movies and models I simply feel that filmmakers haven't got the power to use it properly. There's too much design and too little artistic focus. Seeing Avatar or Hobbit makes me puke. So much effort wasted because they wanted to make people go wow. I hate it when people with money want other people go wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Avatar designed new ways to give more control and foresight into CG, whether its performance capture, which allows actors to be 100% the puppet of the character, or the directors ability to see a real-time rendering of the CG environments to better design and compose action/direction. Cameron's goal with tech improvement is to empower directors so that they can better achieve what they envision. He's only helping to speed up the train to a more singular control... unlike some directors who do nothing but throw money at proven toolsets/tech. He also knows that he won't get that level of financial support if he doesn't deliver something he knows will return him with $$$ so that he can continue investing in new tech. And I bet people who work on Hobbit/Avatar enjoy their craft regardless of what they think of the final film. These guys are tech geeks who equally want to be able to make their dreams a reality and if those ideas involve any kind of large scale production the only way we will see em is through computer graphic advancements/toolsets. I go back to my Drukqs example, where Richard made a kind of electronic symphony, nothing is like it nor can it be replicated. Just as real and personal to him as Beethoven's 9th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 If Avatar and contemporary cgi blockbusters are like Kraftwerk in electronic music It's obvious I'm waiting for a Rich and Tom of film industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 <p>the comparison of synthesized sounds to CGI only really makes sense if you're talking about virtual acoustic modeling synthesis, and one day it will replace sampling and perhaps much recorded live instrumentation itself and be indistinguishable from reality. CGI is getting closer to reaching this point every day. <br /> <br /> If it wasn't for budgetary limitations, CGI is capable of reaching convincing photorealism already. <br /> <br /> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Nobody in vattern has seen this yet? I'm taking my kid to see it tonight in 48 farts per second and three dimensions of fun fun fun. I'll let you know how terrible it was in a short and poorly written review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 That's all we ever want form you! Have fun fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Wow, there's a shitload of stuff I could write about this, I'll try to keep it short. I really like the LOTR films, so I can't hate the hobbit, because it's more of the same. The 48fps thing distracted me for the duration of the film, so instead of enhanching my experience it was like a guy making loud fart noises every three minutes and throwing popcorn in my face. It does prove usefull in scenes with a lot of crazy fast pans and edits, as they're now possible to follow, but in every other instance it's like watching a teleplay, ie crap. As a medium for theme park rides the 48fps 3d is superb, not for drama. There was a lot of cringeworthy cgi, jokes, shit that doesn't really make sense, more so than in the trilogy. Don't get me started on the end, deux ex machina much? I don't know the book but maybe that shit flies better there, at least the effects should look better. Radagast was nice, the anacronistic jokes were terrible, the two main bad guys looked like something out of gears of war. I think they just stuck too much shit in there, since it lasts for ages, but you never get to know any of the characters, and random action scenes just appear out of the blue, without any explanation or build up. My ten year old kid thought it was awesome, but added that it would be better without all the heroes since it doesn't get very exciting, because you know they're not going to die. Oh, this is a movie for boys ages 10 to 13, so expect a bunch of childish nonsense and jokes, aimed at younger audiences. It's probably the worst film ever, but some of the 48fps 3D action scenes look lush, and fuck me it's more lotr, I'll have some of that thank you. So yeah, I loved it, but I also hated it. A generous 6 out of 10 because I just can't help myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirezzi Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Wow. Thanks for that. Will be skipping until Blu-ray; at which point, it sounds like I'll cringe my way through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 I'm going to see it in the cinema just to check out the 48fps thing for myself. As I see it, it will just be a matter of time before people adjust to it and no longer associate it with cheap soap operas. I seriously doubt 24 fps will still be the standard in 10-15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Have you ever seen a television with "natural motion" enabled, it's pretty much that. It works really well in some of the action scenes though, as long as it's all cgi and pans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptowen Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 48 farts per second I remember the first time I ate at Taco Bell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkaholic Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 With all the other things from the 80s being recycled it's kind of weird that the 80s fantasy movies and their style haven't been. It's like everybody remembers the 80s as this day-glo colored pastiche of boomboxes, crazy hairstyles and power dressing but nobody remembers the darkish fantasy films. I remember there were loads of those but can't recall half of their names. I think they also had some impact on how I think how a fantasy world should look like. Besides the Hollywood films there were several Scandinavian fantasy movies at the time. Check Ronia the Robber's Daughter for example. Anyway, maybe some of the magic being lost is because of growing up.. I'd probably be pretty stoked if I was 9 years old now and went to watch the Hobbit.. what other fantasy scandinavian films are there? robbers daughter looks interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Have you ever seen a television with "natural motion" enabled, it's pretty much that. It works really well in some of the action scenes though, as long as it's all cgi and pans. In the past few years Cameron has said it's 4 - 5 years away due to them trying to work out the viewing angle. Then more recently: http://advanced-television.com/2012/...asses-free-3d/ Acclaimed movie director James Cameron admitted he was amazed by the quality of 3D-TV displayed at IBC last week. Speaking at a demo on the Dolby booth of the Dolby/Philips 3D joint-venture (which uses Dutch company Dimenco’s technology), he said “There is room for improvement but this already good enough for the consumer market, you guys are the first to blow out the door”. A giant 56” display was being used to display 3D content, without glasses, from Cameron’s ‘Titanic’, and Martin Scorsese’s ‘Hugo’ 3D films. “I now feel motivated again to continue with 3D,” Cameron added. Dimenco has licensed auto-stereoscopic display technology from Philips and uses Dolby 3D image processing to display on its new ultra-HD (4K) 3D panels. The major improvement – other than the lack of glasses – is the viewer angle which is extremely wide, and uses 28 different ‘views’ using multi-view lencticular lenses which maintain screen brightness, full contrast and comfort for the viewer. So in 5 years high frame rate 3D films with no glasses at 4K resolution will be common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Have you ever seen a television with "natural motion" enabled, it's pretty much that. It works really well in some of the action scenes though, as long as it's all cgi and pans. i could see that being the closest comparison you could draw but the tru-motion effect on modern HD tvs is interpolating extra frames with an algorithm. This has actually been filmed in a higher frame-rate. I just hope it looks better than the shitty tru-motion effect to my eyes when i see it. I just finished all 3 extended edition blue-ray LOTRs in preperation. I don't think there is even a chance the Hobbit will be as satisfying as the original trilogy unless the Hobbit has over 20 scenes of grown men and hobbits crying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Lawrernce of Arabia in new 4K remaster comparisons, u have to enlarge as they are very big caps: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 so is this movie actually being projected in 4k on top of the 48 frames? Is that also some kind of milestone or have other more modern digitally projected movies been presented this way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Not necessarily. It's whatever your theater's digital projector is. IMAX digital, for example, is NOT 4K, it uses two overlapping 2K projectors, so has less than half the detail of a 4K projector. You'll have to check with the theater you were planning on seeing it at. And yes this would be a milestone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Not necessarily. It's whatever your theater's digital projector is. IMAX digital, for example, is NOT 4K, it uses two overlapping 2K projectors, so has less than half the detail of a 4K projector. You'll have to check with the theater you were planning on seeing it at. And yes this would be a milestone. almost no theaters or movie tickets list that detail though about the actual resolution. Where does one find something out like that? Didn't really answer my question though, is this film intended to be projected at 4k even on projectors that can handle that? And if so, is that unusual for a movie or has it become a common resolution to project modern movies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Not necessarily. It's whatever your theater's digital projector is. IMAX digital, for example, is NOT 4K, it uses two overlapping 2K projectors, so has less than half the detail of a 4K projector. You'll have to check with the theater you were planning on seeing it at. And yes this would be a milestone. almost no theaters or movie tickets list that detail though about the actual resolution. Where does one find something out like that? Didn't really answer my question though, is this film intended to be projected at 4k even on projectors that can handle that? And if so, is that unusual for a movie or has it become a common resolution to project modern movies Its the first 48 fps 3D film with 4K... whether ur theater displays HFR + 4K, ull probably have to give them a call. There have been many 4k films released before Hobbit, but none with 3D at 48 fps... so the milestone is that it is the most information you will have seen on a theater sized screen ever. edit: nvm it appears that while the hobbit is shot at 4K, no theater projector can display 48fps + 4K ... the technology isn't there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 ok, that's what i thought otherwise they would have hyped up the high resolution factor as well. I doubt they're even playing it at 4k in 24fps anywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 ok, that's what i thought otherwise they would have hyped up the high resolution factor as well. I doubt they're even playing it at 4k in 24fps anywhere I stand corrected again: http://www.lincolnsquarecinemas.com/ "WE ALSO HAVE MULTIPLE SCREENS OF Sony Digital Cinema 4K Real-D 3D in HFR" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.