BLUMENKOHL 1,110 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Gotta say when the first trailers hit it looked pretty bad...but it's getting there!
Josh500 1,620 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Wow.They've been working on this . . . what? 3 years now? Apparently they'll keep working on it till the last minute.
Josh500 1,620 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 The whole lighting has changed!Look at the yellow hat and raincoat in the background. Shadow, no shadow.
crocodile 9,724 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 No wonder they had to re-score the whole thing. Karol
Jay 46,242 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Hey Blume, I already posted those exact same pictures, and we already discussed the differences, right here:http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13068&st=2280&p=747845entry747845There's a whole article about it I posted as well... here is the link again:http://tintinology.poosk.com/2011/09/22/spot-the-differences/
Neimoidian 15 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Imagin, then, how realistic the American version will look compared to earlier European.
crocodile 9,724 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 I hope they're not releasing the shadowless version here.Karol
Quintus 6,495 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 So they added parallax scrolling and mode 7. Whoopy doo.
Koray Savas 2,260 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 I actually prefer the first picture. More detail and contrast. Second one looks washed out and airbrushed.
Quintus 6,495 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 The first one looks like a straight-up cg cartoon. The second one looks almost real, but subtly exaggerated facial features give it bags of stylised character. Brilliantly done.From what I've seen of the near-finished work, it appears to be the best looking cg movie I've laid my eyes on.
Jay 46,242 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Interestingly, the official website is still using the top versionhttp://www.us.movie.tintin.com/ (click on Gallery)
crocodile 9,724 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Maybe they "pick-pocketed" the bottom version. Karol
Luke Skywalker 2,383 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 amazing how they can re-render entire models after something that looked almost fine the first time, and improve it
Jilal 681 Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 The boat is shorter in the new version and there are less clouds.Haddock has more hair on his hands too.
Jilal 681 Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 whats the diff?The boat is shorter in the new version and there are less clouds.Haddock has more hair on his hands too.
Quintus 6,495 Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 Only now after the advances made in digital animation does it allow for less clouds.
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 One is a bit darker then the other, and a cloud is gone, that's it.
Rachael Foley 10,162 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 And one image has a bit more information than the other.
Maurizio 6,913 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Does anyone know the aspect ratio of the movie? The trailers are presented in 2.35:1, so it's likely it'll be that way. However, 3D movies change the aspect ratio depending on the format in which they're presented (see Avatar)
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Aspect ratio1.44 : 1 (IMAX 3-D version)1.85 : 1 (3-D version)2.35 : 1 CameraCanon 5D H4.1Panavision Cameras and Lenses Film negative format (mm/video inches)Digital Cinematographic processDigital Intermediate (2K) (master format)Digital (source format) Printed film format35 mm (anamorphic)70 mm (horizontal) (IMAX DMR blow-up) (dual-strip 3-D) (Kodak Vision 2383)D-Cinema
Sedohr 0 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 OK. That goes without saying! Gees, the things you know around here!So, Should one see it in 3-D or bright and colorful 2-D version? What are your preferences?I've been to the 3-D versions of the films that have offered both formats last couple of years although some of the critics (Roger Ebert for one) have been encouraging their readers to rather see the 2-D versions. But what do you think?
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 I just copied it from IMDB.
Sedohr 0 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Oh. I thought you were an expert!"Well, I think the anamorphic is about, say, 35 mm!"
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Rubbish. 3D will be alive and well in 2012
Sedohr 0 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 I've been to the 3-D versions of the films that have offered both formats last couple of years although some of the critics (Roger Ebert for one) have been encouraging their readers to rather see the 2-D versions. But what do you think?2D for the win.3D will be dead by the end of 2011. Or later. I don't know. It will die at some point in history, that much is certain.So maybe one should see the 3-D just to tell the grandchildren.BTW, why did the 3-D part of my last post disappear? The one that BloodBoal quoted?
Brónach 1,330 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 If a went to see it in 2D I would have to see it in Spanish so I'll go for the 3D session.
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 3D will last in 2012 because there are a few project being made in 3D right now that will be released in that year.2013 however...
Brónach 1,330 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 If a went to see it in 2D I would have to see it in Spanish so I'll go for the 3D session.I'll rather see it with an horrible dub than with shitty 3D.Shitty 3D in a Spielberg film? Can't see it happening.At worst it'll be harmless and unnoticed like Avatar.
Josh500 1,620 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 2013 however...Will hinge on how 2012 was.
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Naturally. 3D may already been as good as dead by the time The Hobbit arrives in cinema's
Sandor 918 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Naturally.3D may already been as good as dead by the time The Hobbit arrives in cinema's3D AS WE KNOW IT NOW is certainly dying. HOWEVER the technology is advancing rapidly and the concept of 3D still has a future. In a few years, films will be shot at a higher framerate, filmed exclusively digitally and - the biggest gamechanger - 3D won't require glasses anymore... For better or worse, I don't know. But something is gonna happen...
Brónach 1,330 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 I'm curious about the higher framerate, but not so much about 3D.
Sandor 918 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 I'm curious about the higher framerate, but not so much about 3D.I'm curious about 3D sans glasses as well. The need to shoot movies at a higher framerate stems from the industry's desire to overcome the limitations that plague CURRENT 3D movies.It could radically change cinema as we know it.
Brónach 1,330 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 A higher framerate also sounds like a new limitation for animation and animated special effects having to work with more frames in the same time.
Sandor 918 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 A higher framerate also sounds like a new limitation for animation and animated special effects having to work with more frames in the same time.True. I guess Avatar 2 will answer that.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now