The Hobbit to be Filmed with Super Pricey 3D Rigs

[swalterd]

Everyone talking about the budget of the movie versus the cost of the cameras have to remember that if they actually purchase the cameras it isn't a sunk cost, it is a capital expense. The cameras and lenses are still worth something after they film the movie. They can use them for another movie or sell them. Unlike the cost of sets, post production, catering, salaries, etc.

Most movies do not buy their cameras. They rent them since the production of any movie is setup as a company for the sole purpose of producing one movie. So they rent them from suppliers, or the studios, etc. My bet is that Jackson's production company or WB is buying the cameras and then renting them to the Hobbit film company.

 

[thechief73]

Wow, the last I have heard is this film was still in limbo and nobody knew is it was going to be done or not.

As for the RED camera, those things are completely awesome. They were developed by a small independent start-up group that just knew there was a better way of going about recording ultra-high quality films, and they achieve that and then some! I have watched a behind the scenes that explained the system in great detail, on a film that was shot with those cameras. The fact of the matter is that the average "normal/standard" used camera systems still cost several times more and are far inferior than this so called "expensive 3D setup". C'mon Tom's do a little background research and work on those proof reading skills also.

 

[doorspawn]

Good to see the ratio of pro to anti 3D posts increasing every week.
Can't wait for ~2012 when near everybody will be pro 3D and expecting everything to be filmed in it.

As for glasses - it's damn near physically impossible to send multiple different images to arbitrary different points from a plane without them. There will not be a solution, just less obnoxious glasses.

 

[Cyex]

[citation][nom]thebigt42[/nom]I guess I am in the minority...I don't like 3d...It makes me sick[/citation]Grab a fork and poke one eye out, problem solved.

 

[bill gates is your daddy]

[citation][nom]kingssman[/nom] As for 3D, as long as the movie was shot in 3D from the start vs "post edit 3D" it actually looks good.[/citation]

But what does that do to the 2D movie that will release as well? Shooting 2D and then converting to 3D is poop. What happens to the film when the opposite is applied?

 

[bill gates is your daddy]

[citation][nom]rjandric[/nom]Movie industry is going down the toilet along with 'looks first talent last' actors, look how many animated movies have captured #1 (think Avatar as a 80% animated movie and it's going to be 100% animated in near future).[/citation]

I do not remember the exact quote and I am too lazy to look for it but what did Jeff Bridges recently say about this? Eventually they will not need actors at all, just their likeness (if that is even needed).

100% CGI is receiving a huge push by Hollywood. How cheap and easy would it be if a movie is built entirely in a computer? Ask Pixar. Take their business model and if you can build realistic human renderings in a computer....there you go. No more live action movies.

 

[eddieroolz]

Hey, I'm happy they think filming it with super-expensive 3D cameras are good, but I don't think 3D is good. Period.

 

[WyomingKnott]

[citation][nom]thebigt42[/nom]I guess I am in the minority...I don't like 3d...It makes me sick...I guess I try and find it in 2d or wait for it on BluRay[/citation]
Close one eye and enjoy!

 

[3dfan]

Cant you read? $58,000 is the price of the rig, not of the camera. They're using Rigs from 3ality (best).
http/www.3alitydigital.com/