No time in the near future unfortunately. I'm well over 1,000 miles and several countries away from the nearest Atmos equipped cinema and although I'm intensely curious about it, I won't be able to implement it in my facility.
G
G
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
- Thread starter rogypro
- Start date
On a related note, something to ponder:
What happens to your budget when you have to create a Dolby Atmos audio mix, as well as a standard theatre 7.1 audio mix, and then a 5.1 audio mix for home viewing, as well as (I assume) a stereo mix.
Then you also have to create a seperate colour grade for 48fps 3D, 24fps 3D, 24fps 2D, then 24fps 2D home viewing, and 24fps 3D home viewing...
What happens to your budget when you have to create a Dolby Atmos audio mix, as well as a standard theatre 7.1 audio mix, and then a 5.1 audio mix for home viewing, as well as (I assume) a stereo mix.
Then you also have to create a seperate colour grade for 48fps 3D, 24fps 3D, 24fps 2D, then 24fps 2D home viewing, and 24fps 3D home viewing...
Well hopefully, what happens to your budget is exactly what you planned to happen. In the first instance of course you're going to need to plan and budget a substantial amount. For the foreseeable future, Dolby Atmos is likely to be restricted to the high budget sector. Dolby Atmos is currently only possible on DCP releases and as I understand it, it is backward compatible with DCP based 5.1 systems. So eventually, a separate 7.1 mix won't be necessary. A 5.1 mix will still be necessary for home viewing, although this is likely to be carried out at smaller cheaper facilities sometime after the theatrical release.
When you say stereo I take it you mean an LtRt 4.0 mix, which is still a delivery requirement for 35mm film (but not DCP) and is created automatically as part of the final mixdown/mastering process. Presumably that requirement will cease when 35mm film distribution ends. If you mean stereo as in a standard LoRo stereo mix, there has never been a stereo deliverable for theatrical release, stereo is purely a home consumer format. Though not quite dead yet, stereo is certainly on it's last legs and becoming ever more rare as a consumer format for TV broadcast and BluRay/DVD. Even though most viewers still watch TV in stereo, they are frequently hearing a 5.1 mix automatically downmixed to stereo either by the Dolby chip in their TV/DVD/BluRay player or by the broadcaster's hardware.
G
Ever since I first heard DTS, I've been in love with it.
Do you remember seeing Saving Private Ryan for the first time with a DTS soundtrack in a DTS capable theater? I sure do. One of the things I've always remembered about that experience, and hope to remember for as long as I live, is how freaking incredible the sound was for that film. Among everything else that made that film great, the DTS sound was a knock-out. It rocked my world. DTS was new then, and it sure lived up to the praise I had been reading about it.
Ever since then I've loved DTS and preferred it over Dolby. I'm definately a DTS fanboy. Of course, don't get me wrong, I think Dolby is nice too. But I'm glad to see that it looks like DTS is still very much in the game. =)
I must say, MDA sounds more exciting than Atmos.
Orange County Register: Dolby, SRS and DTS ignite audio format war
EVBEurope: Dolby and DTS complete major acquisitions
Does that ^ article imply that Dolby is the one targeting theater sound systems and DTS is interested only in home consumption? I hope not, because I want DTS at home and at the theater.
Orange County Register: DTS purchase of SRS about next generation 3D and cloud-based sound
Orange County Register: Multi-Dimensional Audio: The most revolutionary technology at CES
--Ian Hamilton, from the above article.
SRSLABS.COM: Multi-Dimensional Audio (MDA)
*****************
Anecdotally, my sister, with whom I saw The Hobbit 24fps and 2D version, subsequently saw it in 48fps and 3D. She said there was no question that it was far better in 3D and 48fps. I have a feeling it's not going away. =)
Do you remember seeing Saving Private Ryan for the first time with a DTS soundtrack in a DTS capable theater? I sure do. One of the things I've always remembered about that experience, and hope to remember for as long as I live, is how freaking incredible the sound was for that film. Among everything else that made that film great, the DTS sound was a knock-out. It rocked my world. DTS was new then, and it sure lived up to the praise I had been reading about it.
Ever since then I've loved DTS and preferred it over Dolby. I'm definately a DTS fanboy. Of course, don't get me wrong, I think Dolby is nice too. But I'm glad to see that it looks like DTS is still very much in the game. =)
I must say, MDA sounds more exciting than Atmos.
Orange County Register: Dolby, SRS and DTS ignite audio format war
EVBEurope: Dolby and DTS complete major acquisitions
Does that ^ article imply that Dolby is the one targeting theater sound systems and DTS is interested only in home consumption? I hope not, because I want DTS at home and at the theater.
Orange County Register: DTS purchase of SRS about next generation 3D and cloud-based sound
Orange County Register: Multi-Dimensional Audio: The most revolutionary technology at CES
--Ian Hamilton, from the above article.
--From SRS.com
SRSLABS.COM: Multi-Dimensional Audio (MDA)
*****************
Anecdotally, my sister, with whom I saw The Hobbit 24fps and 2D version, subsequently saw it in 48fps and 3D. She said there was no question that it was far better in 3D and 48fps. I have a feeling it's not going away. =)
Last edited:
There were several new systems launched last year, Dolby, DTS (SRS), Auro-3D and another I can't remember.
I also always preferred DTS to Dolby Digital, the data compression was much less with DTS and therefore the fidelity was higher. However, I can't see anyone but Dolby winning the new format war, DTS had an advantage over Dolby in the past, not so much now. The two big advantages Dolby has are: 1. Hardly any cinemas on the planet don't already have a Dolby system and 2. Dolby Atmos is backwards compatible. If I understand correctly, when you mix in Dolby Atmos the software encodes the mix as a standard 6 channel 5.1 mix and encrypts the "sound object" information on the other audio channels available in the DCP spec (16 max). In the cinema the Atmos processor will combine and render all this data to recreate the Atmos mix but a cinema without a Dolby Atmos processor will ignore all this encrypted data and just play the standard 5.1 mix. This must have been a complex and expensive programming/processor design exercise but is a very clever move by Dolby because although the fidelity of the different formats should be pretty much the same, Atmos has a distinct advantage as far as the studios, distributors and multiplex cinemas are concerned because you don't need to create a separate 5.1 mix or have different inventories of distributable DCPs for cinemas with and without Dolby Atmos.
I'm not certain of all the technical or aesthetic differences at this stage between the various new formats, so there could be other advantages/disadvantages of which I'm not currently aware. It could be that DTS will end up dominating the home consumer market more, time will tell.
G
PS. Saving Private Ryan is without doubt a sound design and mix masterpiece, arguably the best to date.
I also always preferred DTS to Dolby Digital, the data compression was much less with DTS and therefore the fidelity was higher. However, I can't see anyone but Dolby winning the new format war, DTS had an advantage over Dolby in the past, not so much now. The two big advantages Dolby has are: 1. Hardly any cinemas on the planet don't already have a Dolby system and 2. Dolby Atmos is backwards compatible. If I understand correctly, when you mix in Dolby Atmos the software encodes the mix as a standard 6 channel 5.1 mix and encrypts the "sound object" information on the other audio channels available in the DCP spec (16 max). In the cinema the Atmos processor will combine and render all this data to recreate the Atmos mix but a cinema without a Dolby Atmos processor will ignore all this encrypted data and just play the standard 5.1 mix. This must have been a complex and expensive programming/processor design exercise but is a very clever move by Dolby because although the fidelity of the different formats should be pretty much the same, Atmos has a distinct advantage as far as the studios, distributors and multiplex cinemas are concerned because you don't need to create a separate 5.1 mix or have different inventories of distributable DCPs for cinemas with and without Dolby Atmos.
I'm not certain of all the technical or aesthetic differences at this stage between the various new formats, so there could be other advantages/disadvantages of which I'm not currently aware. It could be that DTS will end up dominating the home consumer market more, time will tell.
G
PS. Saving Private Ryan is without doubt a sound design and mix masterpiece, arguably the best to date.
Last edited:
Do you have one of your delicious videos about this ?
Reading your posts mde me increasingly interested and I'm trying to build some culture around it and hopefully one day I will think about all this stuff while editing.
I just fear sound so much...
I don't understand why critics have been hating on it. I saw it in 3d but idk if it was 48fps, is there any possible way to figure out if my theater played it?
I don't know of anything beyond the doco on the DVD extras, which can be found here.
Saving Private Ryan demonstrates what happens when you pair a director who has a fabulous understanding of sound and how to use it to tell a story and one of the greatest sound designers of all time. What stands out so much in the sound design of SPR is that so much of it was envisaged by Spielberg during development/pre-production and how much this sound design vision influenced the shooting of the film.
Sound is a complex area of filmmaking but I wouldn't fear it, rather embrace it! Ultimately you don't really have to know about the technicalities of good sound or sound design, you can always find someone who specialises in that respect. What you do need to learn is how to employ it to help tell your stories, how to plan for it in development and pre-production, then how to shoot and edit for it and finally how to direct your audio post person/s to fulfil your vision. It sounds like a lot and it is but the best way to learn it to watch films and see how others have implemented the use of sound, to try it yourself, make mistakes, learn from them and try again!
G
Last edited:
Someone posted this above or on another thread:
48 fps HFR 3D Theater List
So, for example, I looked at the list under Washington, and looked up one of the theaters:
Lincoln Square Cinemas
You want to look for 48fps, or, it seems the theaters have taken to labeling it HFR. I have no idea if it's the theater you went to, or if this theater is anywhere near you, but as you can see, this one offers it.
Last edited:
That made me wonder and want to ask how many 3D films have been shot with the Alexa. Then I realized that I ought to try and search it first. Ack, the only such list I've found is this one:
Wikipedia: List of 3D Films
But I'm not too sure about that list. For instance, There's no mention of Alexa for Hugo, only Fusion Camera System, which in turn doesn't mention Alexa either. So, hmmmm.
But trying to pull what I can from that list:
Hugo
The Three Musketeers
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters
Is that it?
I'm watching/listening to Coldplay Live 2012 right now. Pretty nice.
The fusion camera system was developed by James Cameron and Vince Pace for Avatar. Instead of a traditional side-by-side system, it contains one camera at the top and one at the bottom with a beamsplitter:
http://www.cameronpace.com/v2/index.php/whatwedo/equipment/238
Now, the Alexa M wasn't available at the time of shooting Hugo (unless they were working with Arri during production, the same way Deakins was working with Arri and their Alexa Studio during Skyfall). The Alexa M should hopefully encourage the use of Alexa in 3D, however you still have the issue that it needs to be attached to a seperate body, unlike the Epics which are cheaper to begin with both to rent and buy (imagine the cost of 48 Alexa Ms on a movie like The Hobbit), and still give a decent image, in a cheaper, easier body that allows more freedom. The Fusion system goes some way to combatting this for Alexas, Sonys and the rest, by only having one actual body on your shoulder, the other one in front of your body, and still allow relative freedom for handheld shooting. I haven't shot in 3D, so I can't really tell you how it actually feels on your shoulder - I'm not sure of the difference between having two Epics on your shoulder versus one Alexa M on your shoulder and one Alexa M on your body. CAMERON-PACE systems are meant to allow greater control over convergence as the cameras have more room to move side-to-side.
Add in to that the fact that you also need an external recorder to record raw and higher spatial resolution on the Alexa, it becomes a lot more complex than shooting on Epics.
As well, Peter Jackson has his love affair with RED, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of deal cut with RED to get so many cameras (though you'd probably need a full time guy servicing the REDs
)
In terms of 3D Alexa films, Life of Pi was also shot on Alexa, as was the new Cirque du Soleil film, in addition to Three Musketeers and Hansel and Gretel. It seems to be gaining popularity, and I think it's a better option; I'm yet to see Life of Pi but I've heard the cinematography is beautiful. That's not to say that the cinematography in The Hobbit is not also amazing, but I've been fooled by Alexa footage in the past, with 35mm grain over the top of it. I can't say the same for RED.
I also wonder if the decision to shoot RED 3D at 48fps was a studio decision or a Peter Jackson decision - I wonder how much input Andrew Lesnie had into it. At the end of the day, it's the Director's film and if your Director is dead set on shooting RED Epic at 48fps, then there's only so much you can do to sway him. I have the highest respect for Andrew Lesnie and I think he's an amazing cinematographer; likewise I have a great respect for Jackson and think he's a great Director.
http://www.cameronpace.com/v2/index.php/whatwedo/equipment/238
Now, the Alexa M wasn't available at the time of shooting Hugo (unless they were working with Arri during production, the same way Deakins was working with Arri and their Alexa Studio during Skyfall). The Alexa M should hopefully encourage the use of Alexa in 3D, however you still have the issue that it needs to be attached to a seperate body, unlike the Epics which are cheaper to begin with both to rent and buy (imagine the cost of 48 Alexa Ms on a movie like The Hobbit), and still give a decent image, in a cheaper, easier body that allows more freedom. The Fusion system goes some way to combatting this for Alexas, Sonys and the rest, by only having one actual body on your shoulder, the other one in front of your body, and still allow relative freedom for handheld shooting. I haven't shot in 3D, so I can't really tell you how it actually feels on your shoulder - I'm not sure of the difference between having two Epics on your shoulder versus one Alexa M on your shoulder and one Alexa M on your body. CAMERON-PACE systems are meant to allow greater control over convergence as the cameras have more room to move side-to-side.
Add in to that the fact that you also need an external recorder to record raw and higher spatial resolution on the Alexa, it becomes a lot more complex than shooting on Epics.
As well, Peter Jackson has his love affair with RED, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of deal cut with RED to get so many cameras (though you'd probably need a full time guy servicing the REDs
)In terms of 3D Alexa films, Life of Pi was also shot on Alexa, as was the new Cirque du Soleil film, in addition to Three Musketeers and Hansel and Gretel. It seems to be gaining popularity, and I think it's a better option; I'm yet to see Life of Pi but I've heard the cinematography is beautiful. That's not to say that the cinematography in The Hobbit is not also amazing, but I've been fooled by Alexa footage in the past, with 35mm grain over the top of it. I can't say the same for RED.
I also wonder if the decision to shoot RED 3D at 48fps was a studio decision or a Peter Jackson decision - I wonder how much input Andrew Lesnie had into it. At the end of the day, it's the Director's film and if your Director is dead set on shooting RED Epic at 48fps, then there's only so much you can do to sway him. I have the highest respect for Andrew Lesnie and I think he's an amazing cinematographer; likewise I have a great respect for Jackson and think he's a great Director.
Last edited:
I reckon you would have noticed if it was 48fps. Whether people have liked it or disliked most have noticed something is different
Finally saw the Hobbit thing y'all must be talkin' about. Can't believe how dated it already looks.
The Hobbit
The Hobbit
Early in pre-production, the IMDb listing for The Hobbit had Nimoy performing the voice of Smaug. Would've been a good choice, I think.
Watched any High-Def costume drama's from the BBC or places like China/Korea/et al? Pretty much looks like that, with differences (vs. 24) in the motion of water, spinning objects, and the like. Like I mentioned in another post, Rivendel looked like it was on an episode of MTV's Cribs, and not in a fantasy film based on a beloved and famous property. I also don't really think it lended nearly as much to the action sequences as people say. But then again, maybe I just like motion blur.
Folks who will grow up watching hfr48 will say the precise opposite about famous films many years from now. They'll somehow see an old film projection of something like Lawrence of Arabia or 2001 and wonder why it looks so fake, why there is blur, why there is grain, etc.
It is what it is, but idk if I'll ever adjust to it at this point.
Last edited:
Depending on your perspective, this may contain spoilers.
I saw it 48fps today and very much enjoyed. I disagree with pretty much all the bad rap that it has had. The only 'hate' that I can agree on is in fight scenes when it was close up it just felt weird, but apart from that I thoroughly enjoyed it and will make the effort to see the other two in 48fps.
Story wise I haven't read the book in a number of years, but the bits that I know have been added or altered seemed to fit in well.
The cgi too was mostly up to standard apart from the large birds at the end IMO.
Also, After watching a normal 3D film I often have sore eyes. Now after three hours of 3D today my eyes weren't sore at all. (There is a tiny possibility that this because I usually watch 3D in Dolby 3D but The Hobbit I saw in Real D; I don't know enough about the differences to know if this is why my eyes were less sore...)
I especially love the troll scene, and Gollum's scene
one added (I believe) scene that they could have done without was the mountains/rocks fitting each other. It was very random and didnt seem to progress the story at all.
I must say this is my favourite film for 2013 so far
I saw it 48fps today and very much enjoyed. I disagree with pretty much all the bad rap that it has had. The only 'hate' that I can agree on is in fight scenes when it was close up it just felt weird, but apart from that I thoroughly enjoyed it and will make the effort to see the other two in 48fps.
Story wise I haven't read the book in a number of years, but the bits that I know have been added or altered seemed to fit in well.
The cgi too was mostly up to standard apart from the large birds at the end IMO.
Also, After watching a normal 3D film I often have sore eyes. Now after three hours of 3D today my eyes weren't sore at all. (There is a tiny possibility that this because I usually watch 3D in Dolby 3D but The Hobbit I saw in Real D; I don't know enough about the differences to know if this is why my eyes were less sore...)
I especially love the troll scene, and Gollum's scene
one added (I believe) scene that they could have done without was the mountains/rocks fitting each other. It was very random and didnt seem to progress the story at all.I must say this is my favourite film for 2013 so far
There are differences between Dolby 3D and RealD 3D, they both use different though not dissimilar systems to exhibit films. Dolby is often regarded to be better than RealD, despite the fact that RealD has in a way 'taken over' the worldwide 3D market. RealD uses cheap, plastic glasses that the cinema sells to you for $1, whereas the Dolby glasses are re-useable mostly because they cost ~$25/pair. The polarisation in each is different.
By rights, colour rendition and overall image brightness should be better in Dolby 3D. The thing with 3D is your experience can vary wildly depending on the cinema and installation. Some theatres cheap out and will use dimmer bulbs. Others will use older, cheaper projectors.. Some will go all out in an attempt to give you the best experience possible.
I observed Dolby 3D in the US in a Dolby controlled setup, where the cinema was specifically setup to the highest quality possible and it was a great 3D experience. I've also had pretty good experiences at Reading Dolby 3D cinemas.
RealD can certainly look good, and some would say that RealD XL is on par or better than Dolby. RealD certainly has the largest number of installations worldwide (though to my knowledge RealD is cheaper, so that might be part of the reason).At the end of the day, it can be personal preference - some complain, for example, that the Dolby glasses aren't preferential because they're too heavy or the lenses too small, or that the fact that they're reusable presents issues with cleanliness etc.
Both systems have their downfalls and issues, and the experience of either is similar. They're both passive systems, so the lack of sore eyes is probably borne out of the 48fps. Given the way the systems work, RealD should produce comparatively more eye strain than Dolby.
Last edited: