Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
4K Resolution

Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Apr 26 2012, 2:27am

Post #1 of 31 (11252 views)
Shortcut
4K Resolution Can't Post

A number of people with much better heads than mine for this sort of thing have convinced me that the "hyper-real" quality of the Hobbit footage, which exposes the flaws of sets and costumes and makeup, has far more to do with 4K resolution than 48fps. There seems to be a bit of a consensus about this from people who know what they are talking about.

If this is the case, is it likely that PJ will be color-correcting these shots to such a degree that they will lose that fake look? Or is he looking to give us a much sharper image, with all the exposed flaws in production design that come with that?

If the latter, does this mean that no matter if we see it in 48fps or 24fps, we will have that same image quality?

For me, the 4K resolution is exciting when it comes to landscape shots (the ones in TH trailer were absolutely amazing). But it is very, very worrisome when it comes to sets and close-ups - really most of the movie.

My guess is that PJ and company will do everything they can to reduce that "TV" look that comes with 4K, particularly after yesterday's reaction. But maybe I'm just hoping as a fool does...

What say you?


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Apr 26 2012, 2:29am)


duats
Grey Havens

Apr 26 2012, 2:32am

Post #2 of 31 (10434 views)
Shortcut
My thoughts [In reply to] Can't Post

Color grading may help fix it a little bit, but I don't think PJ will want to compromise the quality of the image in the process. So I'm not really expecting it to look all that different from what the theater owners saw.


(This post was edited by duats on Apr 26 2012, 2:33am)


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Apr 26 2012, 2:35am

Post #3 of 31 (10398 views)
Shortcut
Makes sense [In reply to] Can't Post

But where the sharpness clearly exposes flaws in production design, wouldn't immersion take precedence over resolution? I wonder if there is something very subtle that can be done in the color grading process that will wipe all these fears away. And if so, why that grading wasn't applied to the shots before showing them at CinemaCon...

And given the large amount of negativity at CinemaCon, is it not possible that PJ will seriously think about making some noticeable changes?


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Apr 26 2012, 2:38am)


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 2:54am

Post #4 of 31 (10993 views)
Shortcut
Great questions! [In reply to] Can't Post

I have been trained by RED Digital Cinema to use the RED Epic.

Later this year, I hope to own one... working on it.

Resolution is key, as is bit depth, the wavelet compression that RED RAW files use, how REDCODE RAW files look coming directly out of the camera vs. film etc. etc.

It is true that at these higher resolutions and bit depths the camera can be more unforgiving. But the information that is being captured does allow for manipulation in post that film could never touch. The higher frame rates are providing realistic motion without blurring.

As an editor by trade, I have seen first hand the RAW files that come from the RED camera are they are incredible... so much so that I believe, they (RED) have single handedly revolutionized the world of cinema. They were the first and are arguably the best in D-Cinema.

Peter Jackson is shooting 5K resolution, 16 bit RAW .r3d files (bit depth supplies a massive amount of information for detail) at 5:1 compression at 48fps and higher.

He is oversampling or getting way more information than he needs from his RED Epics.

The reason... the widest latitude possible in post.

When you shoot with a RED camera the RAW data (if properly exposed) actually looks flat. This is purposeful. The key is to properly expose. The RED camera is incredible in low light. The deep dark areas retain all of the detail even with limited to no lighting. This is something film was never really that great at. It is the highlights that DPs have to be careful with.

When taken into the Pablo finishing software, the amount of detail provided by those RED RAW (.r3d files) is virtually limitless.

From my knowledge of the camera and post workflow, I am going to go out on a limb and say that the content at CinemaCon was not meant to give people an accurate view of the final rendering, but to get them used to the idea of the 48fps - strictly from a motion standpoint.

It will be different than what people are used to seeing. It will be better than the fake higher frame rates that tv's offer. Why? Put simply TVs interpolate or create frames that never existed. They are constructed from algorithms that give you the idea but not the real effect. The frames that will be projected for The Hobbit were actually captured by the cameras and will be projected without any interpolation.

So why the negative reactions?

In my opinion:

A. Human nature likes gradual instead of major/abrupt change
B. People had a set of specific expectations going into the screening
C. Ultimately what they saw was not the finished product

I think that PJ is going for something beyond film and beyond TV.

This will be something that, truly, we have not seen before.

And that is polarizing to be sure. I find it exciting.

It remains to be seen whether audiences will buy into the idea or not.

I have high hopes for it.

Smile

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."

(This post was edited by Owain on Apr 26 2012, 3:00am)


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Apr 26 2012, 3:15am

Post #5 of 31 (9607 views)
Shortcut
So maybe you can answer a question I have.... [In reply to] Can't Post

The scenes we saw in the trailer were shot at the same speed and resolution as all the rest of the footage but shown/streamed in 2D and at 24fps. I realize that the downgrade to 24fps means we can't see the effect of the higher framerate in the trailer, but would it also have removed all of the extra clarity of the high resolution?
Or would it be reasonable to assume that the shots in the trailer had had more post work done on them than the 10 mins at CinemaCon and therefore be a better example of what the finished product would look like?

I wonder if they should have just shown the trailer at 48fps in 3D if the work on those shots is further along? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Silverlode

"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you."
-On Fairy Stories


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Apr 26 2012, 3:24am

Post #6 of 31 (10409 views)
Shortcut
RED Compensation [In reply to] Can't Post

One of The Hobbit production videos demonstrated how they had to unnaturally color-saturate sets and apply off-color makeup to actually appear more natural. This was disappointing to me because it seemed a lot like "Emperor's Clothes" to have such hyped equipment in need of the kind of color compensation and special handling used over 70 years ago. It seems like a step backward in those terms - primitive, in a way, and more trouble than anticipated by casually informed fans like me. I'm fond of likening it to the extreme measures they had to take for the Technicolor cameras and film on the set of The Wizard of Oz.

Any comments?


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Apr 26 2012, 3:28am)


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 3:29am

Post #7 of 31 (9539 views)
Shortcut
More great questions. [In reply to] Can't Post

What we (as fans) have seen is highly compressed web video.

Even if you watched The Hobbit trailer at 1080p off of Apple's site the fidelity of the data is nowhere near the quality of what would have been seen in the theater at CinemCon.

4K is actually 4x the resolution of 2K. 2K is what we are used to in theaters. 1080p is closed to 2K in resolution and is what we are used to for HDTVs. However, the trailer file is SUPER compressed...

The 24fps we have seen would not be as bright or as fluid as the 48fps (by virtue of the fact that you are seeing twice the amount of frames in a second than before) but as I have maintained all along... web compression is where the quality is suffering as well.

I saw The Hobbit trailer in 3D 4K before TinTin at 24fps and it looked INCREDIBLE!

The trailer is definitely in a more finished state than what they saw at CinemaCon.

In fact, when I read the summary of Quickbeam's report... What they saw is nowhere near finished.

So resolution matters, fps matters, compression, the stage at which people are seeing the content. It's actually very brave for PJ to be this transparent.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 3:34am

Post #8 of 31 (10460 views)
Shortcut
It's not really a limitation of the camera... it's more about workflow. [In reply to] Can't Post

The camera could have easily captured using normal colors on set and using normal makeup and prosthetic coverage.

This is a technique that they are using to help create a specific look.

When they said the RED camera tends to eat color... that's kind of true in that when you first see the content RAW it is a very flat image. But that is what you want. It's a "fat negative". You want latitude/wide dynamic range to work within.

You don't want your highs to high and your lows to low (if you will) at the moment of capture. You want the ability to adjust in post. This is not a "Fix it in post mentality".

It is an intentional workflow to provide the greatest creative and visual latitude possible.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."

(This post was edited by Owain on Apr 26 2012, 3:38am)


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Apr 26 2012, 3:39am

Post #9 of 31 (9644 views)
Shortcut
I saw the 3D trailer before Tintin also. [In reply to] Can't Post

But I assume it was only at 24fps. It looked wonderful and not visually jarring/"too clear" at all. I'm just wondering how much difference there would be between that and the same thing at the full speed and resolution.

Transparency is great, but for the sake of convincing people, even if they wanted to show the unfinished 10 mins, maybe they should have finished it off with the trailer to show what it would all look like when it had gone through post?

Of course, what I'm really wishing is that I could have been there to see the footage for myself. It's still a long wait for December...

Silverlode

"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you."
-On Fairy Stories


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 3:43am

Post #10 of 31 (10429 views)
Shortcut
A very significant difference. [In reply to] Can't Post

When 4K 3D is projected from a properly calibrated DLP projector at 48fps, it will yield an incredibly different result. Brighter, richer, deeper.

I would venture to guess that many there in attendance are still upgrading their projection systems from 2K to 4K.

So not only are they quadrupling their resolution they are doubling their frame rate. There is going to be a noticeable and marked difference.

I believe the projector was DLP... these don't hold a candle to the new Laser projectors that RED and Barko are making.

We are indeed on the dawn of a new age in cinema.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."

(This post was edited by Owain on Apr 26 2012, 3:44am)


Buchanicus
Lorien


Apr 26 2012, 4:04am

Post #11 of 31 (9636 views)
Shortcut
Owain [In reply to] Can't Post

I am so glad you are posting here. Nice to read educated responses to all this instead of just black and white reactions.

TORn member formally known as ryan1976.


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 4:26am

Post #12 of 31 (9506 views)
Shortcut
In an ideal world... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Transparency is great, but for the sake of convincing people, even if they wanted to show the unfinished 10 mins, maybe they should have finished it off with the trailer to show what it would all look like when it had gone through post?


Apparently they mixed in some of the same teaser content.

I've heard some say... "Why couldn't The Hobbit film hit a home run like The Dark Knight Rises did? Its sizzle reel blew people away."

I think this is pretty unfair considering TDKR is nearly completed and the content they showed would reflect that. The Hobbit is 2 movies and part 1 is still in production... so to me it's not really a fair comparison.

I honestly believe this was meant to tease theatre owners... it apparently backfired. Oh well. One more hurdle to throw at this set of movies.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 4:27am

Post #13 of 31 (9492 views)
Shortcut
Hey thanks Buchanicus... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think people will be beyond pleasantly surprised and the beauty, depth, richness of the final imagery.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Apr 26 2012, 4:42am

Post #14 of 31 (10567 views)
Shortcut
This brighter business [In reply to] Can't Post

First off, this is brilliant. I have learned more from your last few posts than I have in a few months of researching this.

Now, on to this "brighter" business.

Why, exactly, is brighter better? Quickbeam also spoke at length at just how bright the imagery was. Is this a good thing?

I ask especially because the aesthetic of LOTR was quite muted. Alan Lee-esque.

Does 4K gives us more of a garish look? Frazetta-esque, perhaps? Smile


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Apr 26 2012, 4:45am)


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 4:58am

Post #15 of 31 (9510 views)
Shortcut
Oversampling is the key [In reply to] Can't Post

There is a movement in Cinema to acquire content at resolutions and gamuts that far exceed the need of the end result. (RED just announced their new 6K sensor at NAB.) They have plans to create a 28K sensor:

Is brighter better? I think the goal of any great motion picture maker is to create the highest quality story coupled with the highest quality production.

But very few pay attention to the distribution medium. Douglas Trumbull was recently honored by the Academy for his contributions to the science of motion pictures. He was citing this very fact, calling out studio executives who spend massive budgets on VFX and such only to see it watered down when the lights go down. So much time and energy is poured into production tech (which he think is great) but very little is done for quality assurance when it actually hits the projection booth. In his research he has show that the majority of the cinematic world knows very little about projectors. This includes theatre chains.

James Cameron and Peter Jackson are taking up his passion of highest fidelity end to end. They are pioneers of cinema trying to move the industry forward to higher quality standards.

This does mean that everyone has to up their game. It's year one in cinema.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 5:02am

Post #16 of 31 (9591 views)
Shortcut
The beauty of the REDCODE RAW... [In reply to] Can't Post

Is that you have an incredible latitude in post to create the look you want.

I'm not convinced they are going for 100% continuity in the aesthetic.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Compa_Mighty
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 6:06am

Post #17 of 31 (9420 views)
Shortcut
Just seconding everyone's thoughts. Your posts are more insightful... [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank anything else I've seen on the matter. Thanks!

Visit Mexico from A to Z! Index to the whole series here.
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!



Night Wolf
Rivendell


Apr 26 2012, 6:19am

Post #18 of 31 (10196 views)
Shortcut
RED [In reply to] Can't Post

Interesting commentary Owain.

Of course compression for the web isn't going to be the same. Enough said there.

I'd choose your last answer, the post-production wasn't done for resolution quality, it's the motion that mattered.

As far as the landscape, my casual observance and rookie knowledge from web research (it's not even close to my line of work, I'm just interested in the tech), I can say that certain DSLR cameras doing high-def short vids, have a cutting edge reputation for low light conditions.

Something I found interesting, was all the wiki entries describing the different optical illusions to be used when changing out length of lenses, or using extenders for the camera. Much like the way they used to use models way back in the mid-20th century for sci-fi movies, Peter used the same techniques to give the impression hobbits were small.

So if you like taking close-ups of something, and you want a landscape background (albeit blurry), basically you use a smaller 25mm lens on DSLR with an extender.

How much you point the camera away vertically from the vanishing point makes a difference too. Pretty interesting stuff. So I can follow you pros, up to a point. Mostly because I want to save my old VCR tape movies, so I've put together some basic software and cheap eBay equipment as a project. It was easier back in the day. WinXP actually had it right, as well as the capture cards. Now everything got dumbed down. I hate Win7. Win8 is going to be a travesty. Such is their way for tablets and other BS. Microsoft has me confused, it's all aesthetic for consumers nowadays. My research had me wandering around those world wide web types of RED places in the past, just as a lurker, but I'm too busy these days planting and germinating...to get back to indoor projects. Maybe later.

Something I've noticed is how Intel had kept the tick-tock development between Sandybridge and Ivy Bridge in such a way, where the new socket LGA 2011 had the processor getting just enough juice to make it the bump up to enthusiast pricing. The Sandybridge-E chip has the workstation performance, but the X79 Platform Controller Hub lacked that tock everyone wanted, or was expecting, at least those who were running the older quad cores with the big RAID arrays for videographic work. It's the same reason all the mobo manufacturers had to install their own chips to handle the parallel processing, I even think Intel turned some off right at the CPU. I always wondered, because Intel is really pushing their onboard chip graphics right now, probably for laptop users. The fiber optics LightPeak/Thunderbolt was what I wanted, but I guess copper is flexible, optical cable not so much.

I guess I started to read things like this...

How to add Mac-like RAW image support to Windows 7, Vista, XP

...then thought it would need a CPU like the SandyBridge, using a DSLR straight hi-def raw, which required by my calculations, four 1Tb drives running quickly in Raid 0, straight off the Intel drivers, no hardware RAID card.

After keeping a back-up to a back-up drive, plus the OS drive, and all that research trying to figure out the new partition stuff for the bigger drives (think DiskPart under the Windows 7 OS load to get it to work, as you load drivers), I ended up just having all these drives without any optical drives attached. Then I'm finding out my mobo has hardware problems from reviews (probably something to do with Z68 chipset and the Win7 64-bit). Great.

And then Intel comes out with their new socket. Double great (even though my chip is a third the price, just for a 20% or so hit on processing speed). Can't win for losing. Now I'm just tearing it all apart if the mobo keeps screwing it up, parsing these drives down to two separate computers, then making a home server to backup to backup all my computers (cobbled together over the years). Or maybe not. I can tell you this though. Onboard graphics with Intel CPU chips or not, that new hybrid SSD caching wasn't impressionable.

To get what I'm talking about to work, you would need a power source to run the full sized computer, dump the RAW files off the DSLR via tether, and as far as I can tell, you might as well be shooting with all this gear in the back of a truck, or some kind of wheel truck with 12v batteries to run the power to the computer, which ain't going to be a small crew of three. Just to get your RAW footage for high def, because there's so much data y'know. The other direction...with compression...they just use SSDs in a package where you got it next to the camera, like a mini-monitor. They ain't cheap either, 'cuz then you're up to the processing with broadcast quality monitors, and that takes you beyond a $10k USD investment or so (with three man crew), where you just want to get depth of field with a hi-def DSLR. That's my understanding anyway.

It's like what do you want? Do you want to play an acoustic 6 string really good, muss your hair up with teeth brightened (ouch); or do you want your electric to sound expressionist, like German film making nihilism? Wish I had the time to tackle these learning curves on my gear, but right now I'm working on my flower beds. And that's where my head is.

Klaatu... Verata... Necktie. Nectar. Nickel, Noodle...Nikto!



(This post was edited by Night Wolf on Apr 26 2012, 6:28am)


Steven Van der Berg
Rivendell


Apr 26 2012, 11:33am

Post #19 of 31 (10227 views)
Shortcut
Qwain [In reply to] Can't Post

From what I have read in passing, aren't they able to simulate and remix the mb of 24fps in post? Magic motion I think it is called?

I don't think there is too much need for concern. 48fps is for the 3D showings, 24 fps will be for the standard 2D showings, which will have fluid motion-blur applied to "fill in the gaps" and prevent choppiness

The only problem might be since digital is clear and without grain, you lose the sparkle and shimmer, which of course can be added to the finished look of the video. If you are a regular movie watcher you've been seeing video projection for a few years, now.

Too much resolution, too much detail? Maybe. But who really wouldn't want to have that problem to deal with, rather than the other way around, especially when dealing with post?

It's going to be OK, folks. *hugs*


(This post was edited by Steven Van der Berg on Apr 26 2012, 11:35am)


jschomburg
Rivendell

Apr 26 2012, 1:06pm

Post #20 of 31 (9310 views)
Shortcut
Very interesting and informative, for someone who "knows nothing"... [In reply to] Can't Post

Anyone remember Sergeant Schultz ("I know nothing")?? I very much enjoyed the post with the information you provided, even though much of it I did not understand. I also agreed with your summation at the bottom on why some negative reaction to the viewing.

Thanks!!


DarkJackal
Rohan


Apr 26 2012, 2:21pm

Post #21 of 31 (10024 views)
Shortcut
THIS is marvelous! [In reply to] Can't Post

I have been hoping that the problem is just one of lack of understanding about how the unfinished footage would look. Everyone is familiar with greenscreens by now and how it is obviously going to replaced in the actual film, but few people (comparatively) understand everything about RED camera footage. I have to believe that the glaring issues many of the critics listed (many of whom I think were knowledgeable enough, and open minded enough to accept some change at least) simply are not expert enough to understand all the ways the footage can be modified. I really can't imagine everyone involved in making the Hobbit being so out of tune with reality that they can't see that their new technology looks like crap to the average eye.

What we need is someone to give us an official vlog with the type of info you have just shared. A little damage control could not hurt.


(This post was edited by DarkJackal on Apr 26 2012, 2:24pm)


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 2:44pm

Post #22 of 31 (9252 views)
Shortcut
Here is a link from Douglas Trumbull... a legend in the industry... [In reply to] Can't Post

That should give you a better idea of why oversampling, particularly in frame rate is wonderful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg

Note that he in his twilight years and has worked with some of the greatest directors in the world.

He worked with Stanley Kubrick to create the VFX for 2001: A Space Odyssey and Spielberg for Close Encounters of the Third Kind... an original thinker.


Smile

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 26 2012, 2:45pm

Post #23 of 31 (9183 views)
Shortcut
Yes... [In reply to] Can't Post

There is an extraction of frames that will occur but I don't believe any motion blur will need to be applied.

See my video post below.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Apr 26 2012, 9:06pm

Post #24 of 31 (9161 views)
Shortcut
Specific Look [In reply to] Can't Post

Without knowing what that look is, I can't effectively discuss the point. But then isn't The Hobbit production defeating what the camera is doing for them by ramping up the colors and limiting what they are given for post production? Why can't that be construed as misunderstanding what the camera gives them? And finally, if The Hobbit is doing this intentionally where it was not necessary before with other cameras, why then won't many others want to do this correction - a defacto step backward because of the extra production expense?


Finrod
Rohan


Apr 26 2012, 9:18pm

Post #25 of 31 (9026 views)
Shortcut
It's just like with any other raw image [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Without knowing what that look is, I can't effectively discuss the point. But then isn't The Hobbit production defeating what the camera is doing for them by ramping up the colors and limiting what they are given for post production? Why can't that be construed as misunderstanding what the camera gives them? And finally, if The Hobbit is doing this intentionally where it was not necessary before with other cameras, why then won't many others want to do this correction - a defacto step backward because of the extra production expense?

Jackson has always done this. Watch the extras from the DVD when he talks about color grading.

You always want to start with an image that has low saturation and low contrast (and perhaps low sharpening) so you can later choose what flavors of those you want, how much or how little, and where. You need to have an image without any pop to start with so you can add it where you want it. Like popcorn flavors.

…all eyes looked upon the ring; for he held it now aloft, and the green jewels gleamed there that the Noldor had devised in Valinor. For this ring was like to twin serpents, whose eyes were emeralds, and their heads met beneath a crown of golden flowers, that the one upheld and the other devoured; that was the badge of Finarfin and his house.
The Silmarillion, pp 150-151
while Felagund laughs beneath the trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311




JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Apr 26 2012, 9:32pm

Post #26 of 31 (3601 views)
Shortcut
Pop [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, that's exactly what I am understanding here. But what the camera is trying to provide as flat, they are defeating by putting the "pop" back artificially through on-set saturated colors and makeup for filming. What you are saying seems to be in conflict with what they are doing.


Chopsta123
Gondor


Apr 26 2012, 10:24pm

Post #27 of 31 (3641 views)
Shortcut
flat does not mean without color [In reply to] Can't Post

you want a more saturated set => always easier to take away color than subtract it

but a flat contrast means there is no loss of detail in the highlight and shadows so you have leverage in post.

seems like they try to leave the most options open.


There&ThereAgain
Rohan


Apr 27 2012, 1:32am

Post #28 of 31 (3564 views)
Shortcut
color correction is everything these days [In reply to] Can't Post

It's going to be beautiful.


Chopsta123
Gondor


Apr 27 2012, 7:02am

Post #29 of 31 (3593 views)
Shortcut
sorry [In reply to] Can't Post

i meant always "easier to take away color than add color"


Owain
Tol Eressea


Apr 27 2012, 1:59pm

Post #30 of 31 (3589 views)
Shortcut
Agreed. [In reply to] Can't Post

The idea is to create the widest latitude possible at exposure/capture.... wether it's on a film negative or a CMOS Digital RAW Bayer pattern sensor.

It's interesting to note that they are not SUPER saturating every single color/texture/detail of every frame of every scene.

There is a certain aesthetic that they are looking for. (There won't be neon colors in The Hobbit).

By super or over saturating elements of a shot they can control those differently from other areas in the same shot.

Bottom line... it's about have pinpoint control on every level over virtually every detail.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Chopsta123
Gondor


Apr 27 2012, 5:24pm

Post #31 of 31 (3698 views)
Shortcut
:) [In reply to] Can't Post

thats what I meant

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.