The Hobbit starts filming : ) by AURaptor

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

The Hobbit starts filming : )

scan this with your smart phone to obtain URL for this page

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Saturday, September 15, 2012 16:43
SHORT URL: http://bit.ly/fTr688
VIEWED: 5485
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, April 15, 2011 2:29 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Nice 10 minute+ video of PJ and the set....

http://www.thehobbitblog.com/?category_name=videos

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 5:47 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

I'm honestly trying to be excited about this, but there are a few things bugging me about it. I shouldn't have to reassure myself that it will be okay. Fneh, we'll see.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 15, 2011 6:04 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Duly noted.

The expansion of the original story... has me a bit wary.

I hope there's less, or not as much....

Well, we'll see.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 16, 2011 2:25 AM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

The return of Mr. Bilbo Baggins created quite a disturbance, both under the Hill and over the Hill, and across the Water; it was a great deal more than a nine days' wonder. The legal bother, indeed, lasted for years. It was quite a long time before Mr. Baggins was in fact admitted to be alive again. The people who had got specially good bargains at the Baggins Estate Sale took a deal of convincing; and in the end to save time Bilbo had to buy back quite a lot of his own furniture. Many of his silver spoons mysteriously disappeared and were never accounted for. Personally he suspected the Sackville-Bagginses. On their side they never admitted that the returned Baggins was genuine, and they were not on friendly terms with Bilbo ever after.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 16, 2011 3:23 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 16, 2011 4:46 AM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I'm honestly trying to be excited about this, but there are a few things bugging me about it. I shouldn't have to reassure myself that it will be okay. Fneh, we'll see.

It will be fine I think. After all it is Peter Jackson. My biggest gripe so far is that it is going to be filmed at 48 frames per second(as opposed to 24 fps). Not even sure what it will look like, but 60 fps is the standard for soap operas and I hate that look.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 16, 2011 9:21 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
My biggest gripe so far is that it is going to be filmed at 48 frames per second.

My biggest gripe is that it's being filmed in 3D, which I hate, and being split in two parts, which I hate, and excuses have apparently been written in to have characters in it that were never in The Hobbit. All of these are pointless, and I'm annoyed.
(The film has also stolen one of my favorite actors off Being Human for a bit part, but that's not a problem I actually have with the film, per se...)

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 2:02 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

All valid reasons for caution:
- I hate 3D too - but Avatar 2D looked just fine.
- non canon? I guess that was the price of getting 2 films (they had to fill them with something).
- 48 frames? As someone else said: it's Jackson, if he thinks it looks good I'm willing to trust it. Don't worry, there are other reasons soaps look like they do beyond frame rate. I think that's just journo fodder.

I'm happy for any more from Middle Earth - I especially want to see what he comes up with for Smaug.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 4:04 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
- I hate 3D too - but Avatar 2D looked just fine.

Yeah, but it kind of precludes the possibility of Imax, and half the other theaters in the world.

Quote:
- non canon? I guess that was the price of getting 2 films (they had to fill them with something).

There shouldn't be two films! There's no reason to split it; The Hobbit could easily be one LotR-length movie. Two films is just a money-grab.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 4:17 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
- I hate 3D too - but Avatar 2D looked just fine.

Yeah, but it kind of precludes the possibility of Imax, and half the other theaters in the world.

Have you read there won't be a 2D version?? That would really tick me off.

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
- non canon? I guess that was the price of getting 2 films (they had to fill them with something).

There shouldn't be two films! There's no reason to split it; The Hobbit could easily be one LotR-length movie. Two films is just a money-grab.

Kind of a tricky thing - we wouldn't have gotten the first 3 if it weren't for grubbing money grabbers, and we certainly wouldn't be getting this next installment if there wasn't a pot of gold in it.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 5:02 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Hey Phoenix.

The reason he's shooting it at 48 fps is to make the 3D easier on the eyes, as part of the 'headache' felt by many whilst watching 3D is down to the traditional frame rate - apparently.
So the 3D should be less of a strain and Cameron is intending Avatar 2 and 3 to be filmed at 60 fps just to eliminate that very problem.

Personally I'm not a fan of Peter Jackson and I'm no fan of Tolkein but I applaude the endeavour to try and make visuals better for the cinema going public.

For fans of the Hobbit book though it does sound like he may be trying too hard with the story. But you can't blame him. With audiences these days being brought up on reality TV and youtube clips he has his work cut out in trying to visualize dense text into a blockbuster hit.

Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 5:32 AM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

There are reasons beyond greed for splitting the movie in two. The Hobbit is more detailed and eventful than people may remember. When you lay out the story, it is enormous and encompasses more than one film. Bilbo is gone so long that he is declared legally dead back home. In real time the story is lengthy.

Jackson on filming The Hobbit at 48 fps instead of the normal 24 fps:
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.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 10:42 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
- I hate 3D too - but Avatar 2D looked just fine.

Yeah, but it kind of precludes the possibility of Imax, and half the other theaters in the world.

Have you read there won't be a 2D version?? That would really tick me off.

No, I'm simply speaking from experience. Imax is always in 3D, I haven't been able to go to an Imax film since this whole craze started. And most theaters prefer to show the 3D version because they can charge more. I've had to scour theaters for one showing a 2D version of, say, Avatar or Tron.
I'm aware that films are made to make money, but charging the price of two tickets or two DVDs for a single book's story gets into irritatingly greedy territory. There's no good reason for it beyond wanting to charge twice. The LotR movies were all long, and they all did well and had millions of people more than willing to sit through them.

As to making it less headachy in 3D, that's well and good if it works, but at least half my problem with 3D is the damn glasses. They hurt. If they would design them to go over normal eyeglasses, that's one thing, but they're small, rigid, tight things that squeeze my head and give me a headache all by themselves, along with the disorientation and motion sickness I tend to get from the effect itself.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 11:21 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

3D SssuuUCcckKkssS

LOTR does have a bad rap and deservedly so - they released each DVD without just enough stuff to make another release seem marginally acceptable and desirable. And now they are doing it all over again with BluRay - just releasing the shorter version first - and people are getting pissed. I'm just not going to waste any energy over it.

But more importantly... did you watch the 10 minute short?!?! Daaaamn. I just got around to watching it and it's like it flipped a switch and I can't wait for whatever Jackson has to offer.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 1:38 PM

DREAMTROVE

The eye takes in about 15 frames a second. Soaps are shot at 30fps, like all TV (except cartoons, which were filmed at 15fps, and then doubled to save money. Oppyh, surely not. A soap would go a penny over budget for quality?) I'm sure it's just that all TV (traditional) is played back at 60 frames per second. The reason for this is the rate of fade on a phosphor dot. It was later determined that the real rate of fade was 72 fps, which is why that's the freq on computer monitors made after the first viewsonics in the early 90s. That's why they don't flicker from a distance like TVs.

Film was originally 16fps based on studies on the eye. The problem was with hand-cranking, the speed could slow down, causing a noticable flicker. Speeds were then push to 18 and gradually stepped up to 24, which was the speed at the time they switched to motorized playback projectors. There's an added advantage to 24, even if you will only see 16 or so, which is that your eye sample is not going to exactly match the frame, and while it tends not to pick up the blank between frames on a single sample, it could happen, or one frame could be sampled twice, and a flicker could be experienced.

I'm assuming that 3d requires a frame from the left eye, and then one from the right, meaning that at 24 fps, the result would be 12 fps in interlace, which would definitely cause a flicker.

On the off chance that there's a human left who didn't know this: The fast paced movements associated with silent films are not intentional, they're the result of a film being shot at 16 or 18 being played back by a machine at 24. Some mid-20th c. projectors actually have a switch to change speeds.

Speaking of projectors, anyone have advice on a digital? I'm thinking of getting a Pico, of some sort. Should I wait? Is there a much better 1080P out there that a pico isn't worth it? Should I splurge for a pk301 or is something better around the corner? I really don't care for the idea of a heavy piece of equipment that you have to lug around, like a 42"+ Tv.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 15, 2012 4:43 PM

OONJERAH

Old country folk style ...

This tune is Not a hit.
In fact, it's virtually unknown even in the virtual world.
Guess people just are not paying attention.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE