The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
#101
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
In the first pic he looks like Kevin Costner cosplaying as Sabertooth.
#102
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Zathras live for the One, Zathras die for the One.
#103
DVD Talk Hero
#108
DVD Talk Hero
#109
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Original concept art for Beorn.
Spoiler:
#111
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
I wonder which of his GDT design elements, if any, will wind up in the trilogy when all was said and done, the first felt like 100% Jackson to me. How much was the film split when he was involved, did he work on designs stuff for what would become all three films? He talked about designing the spiders and stuff, so I assume he worked on most of the Hobbit proper, and PJ started more or less from scratch when he came on? The "creative consultant" thing is kind of nebulous.
You have no idea how much I did not need that image. What does that have to do with del Toro.
Neither are nice places.
Why would it be a rehtorical question? Am I expected to have polymathic knowledge of cinema history ?
Figures he'd be a key figure in it . It probably wasn't that difficult for a huge chain like AMC, but apparently it's still hurting smaller cinemas pretty hard in some places, especially given how scarce how 35mm prints have obviously become.
Did Jackson Lucas it and change stuff on the BR?
I don't know, I mean even then, wouldn't it require a huge screen? Wouldn't having a player which could handle 4K for home viewing be sort of redundant unless you had a super-powerful projector? I mean, on my 38-inch TV, would it be a hugely marked difference? Obviously, the level of detail will vary depending on what medium it is and what the artist wants to depict, of course.
In the special features on the James Bond DVDs, Lowry argue that 4K is slightly higher than the resolution of 35mm.
That was what I was getting at. Even if it doesn't come to a point where it's redundant in technical terms, mightn't there be one where you'd have to have your face pressed against the screen to see the difference in image quality?
That's what I was wondering. Especially for home viewing, and even for the cinema, I would think there'd come a point when you could see pretty much all there was to see at a certain distance with the naked. I guess IMAX not withstanding.
Thanks.
They braided his fucking eyebrows and made one of his thumbs into a penis.
Why would it be a rehtorical question? Am I expected to have polymathic knowledge of cinema history ?
Here's a rough timeline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
So it looks like around 2006 was the tipping point. I recall Lucas was keen on Revenge of the Jedi (2005) being released all digitally, but I don't think that happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
So it looks like around 2006 was the tipping point. I recall Lucas was keen on Revenge of the Jedi (2005) being released all digitally, but I don't think that happened.
Correct, the original negative was scanned in, and all post-processing was done digitally. I think FOTR had only a fraction done digitally at first, but they went back and did it all digitally before the Blu-ray release.
I guess it depends on what you're referring to as "the image." If it's a digital camera capturing the real world, then the limit on what image information it could capture extends down to literally the atomic level. This is why we have things like a 41MP camera phone (7728 x 5368, or near 8K).
If you're talking about scanning in film to digital, there may be limits. The film grain defines the limit on the detail in a film image, so you'd want a digital resolution with parity to the film grain. Some think that's 4K for 35mm film, some 6K.
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=57063
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=57063
Finally, there's the question of what the average human eye could perceive in a given image.
Both image size and resolution affect this. At a certain point, at a given distance for a given image size, most people aren't going to notice an increase in resolution. But if you make the image larger, you're going to need a higher resolution. For example, 8K digital is considered what is necessary to get the level of detail 70mm film provides.
Yes, digital is still a series of still frames, exposed for a set amount of time, several times a second. The light enters the camera and hits a sensor which converts the light into an electronic signal, which is then stored onto some physical media, whether tape, hard drive, memory card, etc. More info on how digital cameras work here:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...al-camera2.htm
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...al-camera2.htm
#112
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
I wonder which of his GDT design elements, if any, will wind up in the trilogy when all was said and done, the first felt like 100% Jackson to me. How much was the film split when he was involved, did he work on designs stuff for what would become all three films? He talked about designing the spiders and stuff, so I assume he worked on most of the Hobbit proper, and PJ started more or less from scratch when he came on? The "creative consultant" thing is kind of nebulous.
You have no idea how much I did not need that image. What does that have to do with del Toro.
You have no idea how much I did not need that image. What does that have to do with del Toro.
#113
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Jackson didn't make any editorial changes. The cuts are the same, the audio's the same, the CGI's the same, and the lighting's the same. There was some controversy about the tinting on the EE version of FOTR on Blu-ray, with some feeling it too green or blue in certain scenes:
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/...1-5242860255f2
Here's a comparison video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwcm-73kZE8
And here's a documentary about the digital color grading in FOTR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr3fMPUqlhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjt18bUUOXk
It should be noted that the Star Wars trilogy has had its own series of color grading issues over the years, but that usually gets overshadowed by the more immediately apparent editorial changes Lucas has made.
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/...1-5242860255f2
Here's a comparison video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwcm-73kZE8
And here's a documentary about the digital color grading in FOTR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr3fMPUqlhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjt18bUUOXk
It should be noted that the Star Wars trilogy has had its own series of color grading issues over the years, but that usually gets overshadowed by the more immediately apparent editorial changes Lucas has made.
#114
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Jackson didn't make any editorial changes. The cuts are the same, the audio's the same, the CGI's the same, and the lighting's the same. There was some controversy about the tinting on the EE version of FOTR on Blu-ray, with some feeling it too green or blue in certain scenes:
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/...1-5242860255f2
Here's a comparison video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwcm-73kZE8
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/...1-5242860255f2
Here's a comparison video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwcm-73kZE8
And of course nobody involved will acknowledge the mistake.
#115
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Yeah, I don't think we need to re-visit the whole color tinting thing with FOTR - I'll have a fucking aneurysm. Not because they're wrong but because I initially started out as one of the bashers and when I got the Blu-ray set of EE's I couldn't even tell the difference. I was like is this what I almost popped a blood vessel for? It looks great! To date, every single demo or screengrab DOES NOT reflect what the actual Blu-ray looks like.
/offtopic
/offtopic
#116
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Yeah, the EE looks fine. But then I always felt that the TE of FOTR looked subpar compared to the transfers of the sequels. I know they claimed that they figured out a better way to do it when TTT went into post production but it still irked me and I was surprised they didn't use a brand new master for the TE BD of FOTR.
#117
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
The more outlandish looks of the Dwarves, like the aforementioned Nori (though I only mentioned the penis-thumb in jest) and now Beorn (who was not described as such in the book) seem more in keeping with Del Toro's aesthetic than that of Jackson's.
Jackson didn't make any editorial changes. The cuts are the same, the audio's the same, the CGI's the same, and the lighting's the same. There was some controversy about the tinting on the EE version of FOTR on Blu-ray, with some feeling it too green or blue in certain scenes:
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/...1-5242860255f2
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/...1-5242860255f2
It should be noted that the Star Wars trilogy has had its own series of color grading issues over the years, but that usually gets overshadowed by the more immediately apparent editorial changes Lucas has made.
This isn't a deliberate change, it's a fuck-up. Somewhere, somehow, in the production process, the green got punched up and nobody noticed caught it. The entire movie looks terrible. I remember on another board that someone went through and compared screen shots of the theatrical blu-ray and the extended blu-ray and discovered that the green had been consistently pushed up in every single pixel. Not to mention that the blacks have also been crushed to shit, rendering dark scenes nearly unwatchable.
And of course nobody involved will acknowledge the mistake.
And of course nobody involved will acknowledge the mistake.
Yeah, I don't think we need to re-visit the whole color tinting thing with FOTR - I'll have a fucking aneurysm. Not because they're wrong but because I initially started out as one of the bashers and when I got the Blu-ray set of EE's I couldn't even tell the difference. I was like is this what I almost popped a blood vessel for? It looks great! To date, every single demo or screengrab DOES NOT reflect what the actual Blu-ray looks like.
Yeah, the EE looks fine. But then I always felt that the TE of FOTR looked subpar compared to the transfers of the sequels. I know they claimed that they figured out a better way to do it when TTT went into post production but it still irked me and I was surprised they didn't use a brand new master for the TE BD of FOTR.
#118
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...pecial_Edition
The color timing in the 1993 Definitive Collection Laserdisc version was altered slightly in the scene with R2-D2 in the canyon before he is captured by the Jawas. This same transfer was also used in 1995 for the "Faces" set. The original version of the scene takes place in daylight, while the color in the 1993 version is adjusted to make it appear more like twilight.
http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html
It sounds like it's a case of the encoding the post production rather than the masters themselves.
As for whether the green tint is noticeable on the FOTR EE, Why So Blu? is correct that a lot of people have reported it being not that noticeable on a lot of TV setups. The comparison images online highlight the difference, but when watching the Blu-ray, most people end up just watching the film and not looking for the tint.
#121
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
I see this one doing just about as good worldwide as the first Hobbit, but perhaps fizzling after one weekend in the U.S. due to the second Anchorman movie. These movies seem geared toward the overeseas market as much as domestic.
#122
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
303,003,568 domestically.
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm
I doubt it'll bomb. People are gearing up for it,
#123
Banned by request
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
I've heard a lot of people say that the trailers for this one have them more interested than the first one.
#124
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
My understanding is that when you factor in all of the overseas profits and the fact the production was split between the three films, the first one made a pretty good chunck of change, if not quite up to what the first trilogy did. I hate waiting a year between these, I suppose that's a compliment in and of itself. The probably won't win the oscars the first trilogy did, but that's OK, I'm having fun all the same.
Last edited by hanshotfirst1138; 10-18-13 at 10:26 AM.
#125
Re: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
I just rewatched the first Hobbit movie and it was better than I thought on first viewing. The ridiculous falls they survive in the second half are still ridiculous, but it was a pretty decent film. I think the main problem is that it hits so many of the same notes as the original trilogy (especially the eagles) that it feels a bit repetitive, but I have hopes for the remaining two. The trailers for the second movie have been solid.