Peter Jackson Buys 30 RED Cameras for The Hobbit

[vansau]

Peter Jackson Buys 30 RED Cameras for The Hobbit

​

Peter Jackson's upcoming Hobbit films will be (literally) bigger than a Balrog, thanks all the high-resolution RED cameras he's using.

Director Peter Jackson always seems to be at the forefront of moviemaking technology. <a href=http://www.amazon.com/Frighteners-Directors-Cut-Michael-Fox/dp/B000ASATYO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1291063341&sr=8-2>The Frighteners was one of the best-looking horror movies of the 1990s, and <a href=http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Picture-Theatrical-Editions/dp/B000X9FLKM/ref=sr_1_9?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1291063693&sr=1-9>Lord of the Rings and <a href=http://www.amazon.com/King-Kong-Blu-ray-Naomi-Watts/dp/B001KZVQJI/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1291064145&sr=1-1>King Kong were both lauded for their incredible special effects. Now, Mr. Jackson is stepping things up for his his two-movie Hobbit adaptation by revealing that he's purchased a large number of high resolution digital cameras to film it with.

The man behind the Lord of the Rings films and King Kong has purchased <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_camera#Epic>30 RED Epic cameras. While RED cameras are already well-known for recording video at massive proportions, the Epic format can record at a resolution of 28,000 × 9,334 pixels.

RED Cameras have been becoming increasingly popular in the movie industry for the past couple of years, thanks in large part to the high recording quality they offer while being relatively inexpensive when compared to traditional cinema cameras. Epic cameras apparently cost $58,000 a pop, so buying thirty of them cost Jackson roughly $2 million, including lenses and accessories.

While $2 million on cameras may sound excessive, it's not a bad deal for so many. Not only that, but Jackson filmed the film short "Crossing the Line" (the trailer can be seen here) on a RED camera and it looked simply stunning. Needless to say, I'm already looking forward to The Hobbit.

Permalink

 

[ZehGeek]

Neat. I guess go big or go home.

 

[NeedAUserName]

Its getting to the point were people want such High Definition that it will be better then what your eyes can comprehend, rendering it pointless, expensive, and yet vital to any summer blockbuster...

 

[Jim From Accounting]

looks like im going to need a new TV

 

[Lord_Panzer]

[HEADING=2]"Soo maany pixels!"[/HEADING]

excitedexcitedexcitedexcitedexcitedexcitedexcitedexcitedexcited.

 

[Weaver]

Well I guess since they don't need film they can save costs there.

 

[kouriichi]

I dont think our TVs can render images of that quality.

The world will end!! TVs will combust in average households when it hits DVD!

 

[MacCleric]

That teaser looks amazing, but I find that unless you have it next to something that isn't done super hi-def (like displays at stores) it is hard to tell the difference

 

[GoGo_Boy]

People may think this is too much but actually it's like with frames per second.
60 are pretty darn smooth already. But 100 are still so much better
(before anyone claims something different: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm )

Edit:
Oh and it must be really cool to have such a high resolution in a cinema. Imagine how huge the screen can be while still having very small pixel withs... awesome!

 

[HT_Black]

That's very nice, Mr. Jackson, but does it have Neal Patrick Harris?

 

[therandombear]

First thing to come to my mind, "Dulce et decorum est".
Second, looks neat.

 

[redisforever]

Daammnn...I can't even affor a pack of gum...he can spend $2 million...

 

[Ensiferum]

It seems they aren't holding back in the slightest when it comes to production and special effects, and that's just awesome.

 

[FlashHero]

Its getting to the point were people want such High Definition that it will be better then what your eyes can comprehend, rendering it pointless, expensive, and yet vital to any summer blockbuster...

Eyes don't see in pixels therefore the more the better..no such thing as a upper limit of High Definition.

 

[Spacewolf]

hopefully smaug will look awsome then the balrog in the first and second LOTR was one of my favourite parts

 

[beniki]

See, everyone else in Hollywood still uses black and grey cameras, but Peter Jackson is splashing out and getting some red ones!

... Yeah a stupid joke, but only because I don't know what RED stands for.

 

[Jon Etheridge]

Lucky bastard. I've been lucky enough to be able to shoot on RED before and I can attest to the quality of the picture. You'll blow through a terabytes worth of hard drive space in a few hours with the size of those video files. 30 of them though? What the hell is he planning?

Still, ultimately no matter what you shoot on if your movie sucks, your movie sucks. Not that I think The Hobbit will suck mind you. "The Phantom Menace" sure did though and at the time it was released it was hailed as a "technical marvel". Which may be true, but fuck me that movie sucked. Transformers 3 is coming out soon. Michael Bay is using the latest 3D technology, with huge advancements in capturing live footage and something tells me... yep. It will probably blow shit. Technology is just a tool. Story is always first.

 

[RebelRising]

Great. Another overdramatized, pandering, romanticized war movie. Were the picture of the wife and the teddy bear really necessary?

Anyways, fine, I guess. I'm going to see The Hobbit regardless of the pixel count they use.