Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Hobbit' Creates Big Data Challenge

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the such-a-small-creature-makes-such-a-big-difference dept.

Data Storage 245

CowboyRobot writes "In the past five years there has been an 8x increase in the amount of content being generated per every two-hour cinematic piece. Although 3D is not new, modern 3D technologies add from 100% to 200% more data per frame. In 2009, Avatar was one of the first movies to generate about a petabyte of information. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was shot in a new digital format called High Frame Rate 3-D, which displays the movie at 48 frames per second, twice the standard 24-fps rate that's been in place for more than 80 years." But with digital storage transcending some other limitations of conventional projection techniques, it's not just framerate that directors are now able to play with more easily; it's the length of movies themselves, which stats suggest just keep getting longer.

cancel ×

245 comments

Smart play by the studios (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42463735)

Increasing file sizes also means dampening piracy. Or did anyone think this was a quest to improve quality?

Re:Smart play by the studios (4, Funny)

hpacheco (2536480) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463825)

:poor guys that pirated avatar.. they had to download over a petabyte:

Re:Smart play by the studios (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464505)

I know people who are still downloading it, you insensitive clod!

Re:Smart play by the studios (3, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463859)

Huh? Most of the stuff you find on the various pirate channels is compressed down - at the most, you'll get a raw Blu-Ray rip. You can still get an xvid (avi usually under 2GB) version of just about anything that is available in any other format.

Re:Smart play by the studios (3, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463863)

That's only relevant for the first copy.

Beyond that, content will be heavily re-compressed. It doesn't matter if it's Apple pushing the bits or The Pirate Bay.

Re:Smart play by the studios (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42463893)

It has nothing to do with the costumer side of equation, the file size reported is for the production of the picture, all shots in RAW format and the stereoscopic and 48fps factors that doubles the content each.
For your average movie rip, extra frame compression (not used in production) should take care of most of the extra bits, so don't worry... the biggest problem actually should be how to present 48fps content in the home screen... BD and TV compatibility, audio... damn, even at theaters there's some many problems with the footage showed before the actual movie, stereo incorrectly set in the trailers, audio going crazy...

Re:Smart play by the studios (2)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464901)

the biggest problem actually should be how to present 48fps content in the home screen...

Why should this be a problem? It's close to 20 years since I bought my first double-rate TV[*], and today, they tend to be quad-rate (200 or 240 Hz depending on where you live).
48 fps in stereo won't need more than 96 Hz progressive.

If you think of Blu-Ray discs, they're not locked to 30/60 (or 25/50) either, like older generations of video.

[*]: A Grundig, which could do 24-frame movies in 48 Hz non-interlaced or 96 Hz interlaced or video in 50p/100i PAL or 30p/60i NTSC. Of course, there wasn't a lot of video sources that delivered more than 25p/50i.

Re:Smart play by the studios (4, Informative)

jandrese (485) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463929)

The Petabyte figure is almost certainly for all of the working copies of the movies while it was being produced. Nobody is sending a Petabyte to every theater in the country, and much less to every home. Once the movie is finished a final copy is compressed and sent to theaters and the disc authoring house. The disc authors have to further compress the image to make it fit on the Blu-Ray or DVD. Your average pirate is going to compress the movie even further because full Blu-Ray rips are still rather unwieldy for most broadband connections and personal storage solutions.

Re:Smart play by the studios (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464953)

I would think, additionally, that with the petabyte figure comes all the additional footage and audio as well as revision histories that never make it to the consumer.

Re:Smart play by the studios (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464261)

Why wouldnt someone simply re-encode the film?

Not everything is a conspiracy; increasing filesize in a format where excess data can easily be stripped out is a pretty terrible way to fight piracy.

heads of to set up a trillion 56K accounts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464323)

nope caps proved in canada that it wont dampen piracy it always finds a way

Congratulations. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464405)

You've probably made one of the top 10 most idiotic comments on Slashdot. And that's saying a lot--it's like winning the Special Olympics. Among retards, you stand out!

Re:Smart play by the studios (2)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464601)

BS the size of the versions released to consumers will remain limited by the capacity of the media it is on and in any case the pirates can always recompress.

Afaict what this sort of thing is really about is flexibility. Want if they want to zoom in on something? or run something in slow motion? even remove something from a scene? it's much much cheaper if they can reprocess the existing data than if they have to re-shoot the scene. Compression artifacts that are invisible to the human eye during normal playback of a peice of video can cause big issues once someone starts messing with the footage. Also interframe compression turns even basic temporal editing into a lossy process.

So the solution is ideally to avoid compression at all during production and if they can't avoid it to stick to intraframe compression only.

How big was the hobbit? (5, Interesting)

iONiUM (530420) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463763)

I read TFA, and nowhere does it say how big The Hobbit was.. only that Avatar was about a Petabyte. Why isn't this stated anywhere? It's very frustrating, and also makes the article less useful, since its entire premise is that "The Hobbit creates big data challenge" with no specificity.

Re:How big was the hobbit? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42463973)

According to the torrent sites; 2.32 GB though they do use the lossy video camera conversion...

Re:How big was the hobbit? (2, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464329)

For some reason I find this observation hilariously funny...

Re:How big was the hobbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464417)

thats a cam version, the question is how big is the Hobbit when sent to the theater itself, and not how big is the camed version.

Re:How big was the hobbit? (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464633)

thats a cam version

I don't bother downloading pirated movies so I gotta ask - Do people *really* download and watch movies that have been filmed in the theater with a camcorder? How the smeg is that even watchable? Sounds absolutely horrid.

Re:How big was the hobbit? (2)

G00F (241765) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464773)

It;'s a good way to see if the movie is even worth the drive to a theater, sadly most IMO, are not.

Re:How big was the hobbit? (2)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42465097)

I did it once, and actually watched all the way through. Before the second Evangelion movie came out in the US, it was only available as a cam version with fansubs. Once it came out in the US, I bought the DVD and deleted the crappy cam.

Re:How big was the hobbit? (3, Informative)

bughunter (10093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464947)

Well, I can't find an official number, but we can estimate using data from here [wikipedia.org] and here [imdb.com] :

From the first link, which says the max data rate is 250Mbps, and doubling that to account for HFR, we have a 500Mbps data rate. Multiply that by the 169 minute running time and you get

500e6 bit/sec x 1/8,589,934,592 GB/bit [google.com] x 169 min x 3600 sec/min = 35,400 GB

(assuming the limit on precision is the running time at three significant digits).

Divide that by 1024 GB/TB and you have about 34.6 TB. Not impossible to set up, and probably far less expensive than the projector... but that's for the non-IMAX version, which probably explains why I could only find three theaters with the HFR IMAX version near my house in Pasadena CA.

I also expect that some theaters will not operate at the maximum data rate but use some other, more lossy compression. It's probably safe to assume a lot of theaters are showing distributed versions that are about 10 or 20 TB large.

Wikipedia to the rescue (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42463991)

Tolkien writes that Hobbits are between two and four feet (0.61–1.22 m) tall, the average height being three feet six inches (1.07 m).

Re:How big was the hobbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464035)

I was wondering this myself, and (even though it was for Avatar) was that petabyte figure for just the film, or did it include footage that wasn't utilised, extras, cast interviews, etc? Also wonder what resolution they are capturing original footage at - could be future proofing for 2160p and 4320p.

Re:How big was the hobbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464081)

FWIW:
RED Epic Cameras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company#Epic-M_and_Epic-X
5120 x 2700 @ 48FPS

Re:How big was the hobbit? (1)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464071)

That petabyte must be without any compression. The Hobbit (HFR, 3D) as used by a digital cinema projector still fits on a 500GiB hard drive.

Re:How big was the hobbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464145)

That petabyte must be without any compression. The Hobbit (HFR, 3D) as used by a digital cinema projector still fits on a 500GiB hard drive.

Presumably (although there are few hard stats on paper) the Petabyte for Avatar was for all the media that was generated during production. Certainly the final copy, with whatever compression is appropriate, would be much smaller just as in the "olden days" many miles of film were used to produce one final reel for screening.

Re:How big was the hobbit? (4, Informative)

mill3d (1647417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42465107)

Actually, it's all the data required as input to make the *final* frames. We're talking many layers of video at 32 bit per channel (128bit images), VFX cache data which can be GBs per second of footage, thousands of textures that are also GBs in size, point clouds... All of that is meant to retain a maximum amount of flexibility before finalizing the footage. Read up on the REYES pipeline for detailed info.

Disclaimer: Film and animation professional and professor.

Re:How big was the hobbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464147)

TFA also seems to neglect that The Hobbit was also shot in 5K resolution, which only adds to the raw amount of data they'd have used.

An interesting thing to note as well would be the significant increase in man hours spent on post production. Stereoscopy already doubles the work load of roto/cleanup artists, animators, etc. Doubling the frame rate would double that again.

Re:How big was the hobbit? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464911)

About 4 feet tall, if I remember correctly

Re:How big was the hobbit? (2)

sunking2 (521698) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464919)

The data space isn't about how large the end result film is. It's the data storage requirements for the entire production. This would include raw footage, cgi generation, presumably all archiving, and probably many other things. As in, I have a new movie I'm creating and need a petabyte of disk space to accomplish this. Not, I'm creating a 1 petabyte movie file.

Comment on Movie length (4, Interesting)

Dartz-IRL (1640117) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463769)

Am I the only one who longs for the return of an intermission? If only for a little relief rather than ducking out for 3-4 minutes and missing that one important little line of dialogue on which the whole thing pins?

Re:Comment on Movie length (1)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463833)

Apparently not the only one:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3355921&cid=42463785 [slashdot.org]

Re:Comment on Movie length (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42463897)

*Sings* Let's all go to the looobby, let's all go to the looobby. Let's all go to the lobby and get oursevles a snack!

Re:Comment on Movie length (5, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463905)

Until they do bring it back, there is an app for that [runpee.com]

Re:Comment on Movie length (2)

mangu (126918) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464263)

Oh, it's an app for the phone?

At first I thought about something like a hose and a plastic bag [shieldhealthcare.com] .

Re:Comment on Movie length (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464867)

There's a reason why the floor is always sticky and wet...

Re:Comment on Movie length (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464973)

It's not girls who spit?

Re:Comment on Movie length (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42465045)

There's a reason why the floor is always sticky and wet...

That theater's on the other side of town.

Re:Comment on Movie length (3, Insightful)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463935)

This would be helpful. Statistics may show that movies are getting longer, but my experience shows also that minute-for-minute they feel longer. At least they do when they're something like Michael Bay movies with their interminably long CGI-gasms (I mention Michael Bay, but most directors seem to be doing action sequences in his style; as much as I like the Hobbit, the best comment I saw about it was [paraphrased] 'I kept waiting for Peter Jackson to put down his X-Box controller and get on with the movie). An intermission would give me just enough time to think seriously about the horrible decision I've made and how hours of my life would be better spent by going home for a beer and a book.

Re:Comment on Movie length (2)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464587)

I kept waiting for Peter Jackson to put down his X-Box controller and get on with the movie

Thats brilliant! A more concise assessment of the film could not be had. We can only hope the next two films have less of a premature ejaculation vibe to them.

Re:Comment on Movie length (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42463955)

http://www.coloplast.co.uk/products/samples/colostomy/?gclid=CMWC_5DbzLQCFU8xpgodJiQAhw

Apparently their giving away free samples!

You're welcome ;-)

Re:Comment on Movie length (1)

jdkc4d (659944) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463979)

I have intermissions at my house all the time...when Amazon's streaming service dies mid-movie and I have to wait for it to come back up.

Re:Comment on Movie length (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464111)

When I lived in Germany the movies had about a 10 - 15 intermission. They'd come around with snack trays like venders at a ball game here in the states. Even for 90 minute comedies there were intermissions. It was wonderful during longer movies. And probably made the theaters more money as people would use the restroom and usually by another beer, soda, snacks (the concept of free refills doesn't really exist in Europe).

Re:Comment on Movie length (1)

crypticedge (1335931) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464491)

We have a few dine in theaters here in Florida that do that too. They're rare (and more expensive per person) but it's a nice change from the standard theater style

Re:Comment on Movie length (3, Funny)

vurian (645456) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464665)

I had a free refill, once, in Europe. In Linkoping airport, where I was allowed to fill my coffee cup again from the can. I was so surprised... Never happened anywhere else. And given the quality of the coffee, I didn't bother in Linkoping airport either.

Re:Comment on Movie length (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464305)

I don't long for it. It's called the space bar. mplayer pauses exactly as long as I need, whenever I need it.

Re:Comment on Movie length (1)

krinderlin (1212738) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464345)

Yes please.

One of the reasons I don't buy concessions is because if I do, I'll want a drink. If I drink something, I'll have to use the restroom during the movie.

I there were an intermission, I would buy those overpriced snacks.

Re:Comment on Movie length (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464525)

nope, there are many people who have watched movies or gone to the Theater (thats the one with a stage and live actors and a pit with orchestra) and love the idea of movies especially the 2.5+ hour movies having an intermission where we can get up stretch, pee, smoke, grab some more overpriced movie "snacks" or do whatever needs to be done to enjoy the last half of the movie.

short answer, No, we want them back.

Bring back the intermission. (5, Insightful)

Naatach (574111) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463785)

It was so classy. I'm sure it would help with the theater owners concession sales as well.

I have all the intermissions I want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464441)

I have all the intermissions I want because these days I watch movies / TV shows / videos exclusively on my computer (Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, (borrowed) DVDs, etc.) I do this partially as a "Fuck You" to the MPAA, but mainly because the "home experience" is by far more preferable to me than the "theater experience".

Re:Bring back the intermission. (1)

vurian (645456) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464711)

Er... You mean movie theatres in the US don't have intermissions? That would mean that people get up all the time to go for a pee. Should be pretty disturbing.

Who green lit this story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42463845)

This story is barely good marketing fluff. There is no informational value here beyond, more frame rate = more data. Post processing is hard.

Sometimes I wonder why journalism is dying, then I read crap like this. I want my 5 minutes back.

200% More Data... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42463877)

...so your 3rd eye can maintain perspective.

What does this sentence mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42463889)

But with digital storage transcending some other limitations of conventional projection techniques, it's not just framerate that directors are now able to play with more easily; it's the length of movies themselves, which stats suggest just keep getting longer.

Digital storage transcends limitations? And the limitations were due to projection techniques? So, storage is better at doing something than projection is? Yeah, projection techniques were bad at storing my files. Storage transcends that limitation and can store my files.

Here's a better version:

Movies are also getting longer.

Re:What does this sentence mean? (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464041)

I guess they mean it is easy to get carried away during the recording phase because "film" is very cheap now. This presents a storage challenge. I imagine keeping 1 PB in redundant, geographically diverse storage would get spendy fast.

I suspect it would be more cost-effective to convert the raw bits to some kind of common standard and then just save the raw footage and the finished copy. Saving all the editing stuff won't help in the long run anyway - chances are the editing programs 20 years on won't know what to do with your old working files.

Re:What does this sentence mean? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42465083)

1 Petabyte, while it sounds like a lot, is not an obscene amount of data. There's storage servers our there that will fit about 24 2.5 inch drives in 3u of space. In a 42U rack, that's 336 drives. So in about 3 racks full of hard drives (assuming 1GB drives), you could fit a petabyte. Now, that's no small installation, but it's not that much. Making it geographically diverse would probably present the biggest problem. I'm guessing that not all film house would do this. I wouldn't be suprised in the slightest if a flood/earthquake/fire destroyed all the footage of a movie. I don't imagine that the film was stored in geographically diverse locations 10 years ago, so I don't see why they would have changed anything going to digital.

Re:What does this sentence mean? (1)

Nos. (179609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464921)

Its more than that. Digital movies are much easier and cheaper to distribute (I'm talking from the studio to the theatres here). My wife used to run a small theatre and it was no fun lugging three massive spools of film up a narrow stairway to get to the project room, then splice them together, along with the theatres ads, trailers, etc.

Catheters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42463909)

Time is money. I think you're more likely to get in seat catheters before you intermissions.

Re:Catheters (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464993)

They could check for recording devices too. Shh... Don't tell the TSA.

it's the length of movies themselves (3, Interesting)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463983)

which stats suggest just keep getting longer"

And in the Hobbit's case, longer, and longer, and...... just waay too long. LOTR movies had 1000 pages of book to fill them with interesting content. Hobbit, not so much. In many of the scenes you can almost feel the director guy just out of camera view making that "stretch" motion with his hands.

Re:it's the length of movies themselves (3, Informative)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464339)

This.

How many times do we need to see Goblins getting knocked off wooden plank bridges by dwarves with a pole?
Not enough it seems.

Re:it's the length of movies themselves (2)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464415)

No one edits a dwarf!

Re:it's the length of movies themselves (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464839)

If it was shorter you would be bitching about all the things he skipped.

I loved the movie and I wish LOTR would have been done in a similar style. This is how you convert a book into a movie.

Re:it's the length of movies themselves (1)

rochrist (844809) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464991)

This longer and longer business is kind of odd, because back in the golden age of Hollywood, it wasn't unusual for a film to surpass four hours. Of course, it also wasn't unusual for it to ring in at 65 minutes.

Re:it's the length of movies themselves (1)

JackDW (904211) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464997)

"The Hobbit" needs a fan edit to bring it below the two hour mark. This should be easy for part 1, though the real editing challenge would be to do it for the entire trilogy. Tricky, but possible, because it's not a long book.

I much preferred the LotR approach of releasing shorter versions to theaters and then releasing long versions on DVD for dedicated fans.

Re:it's the length of movies themselves (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42465049)

A fan edit to shorten it?
Sounds like the opposite of fan to me, if you want to shorten it.

If your attention span is so short how did you ever make it through the book?

Re:it's the length of movies themselves (1)

bughunter (10093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42465027)

just waay too long

Disagree. I enjoyed it. My 8-year-old son enjoyed every minute of it. In fact he leaned over to me during the escape from the goblins scene and said "Dad, I'm loving this!"

Going into it, I was afraid some of the embellishments would ruin the movie, but in fact I really admired the way that Jackson embellished the novel in a way that really makes it much more of a prequel to LOTR.

(I'd elaborate but I'd be getting into spoiler territory, and my boss is liable to walk in at any moment...)

Re:it's the length of movies themselves (2)

LongearedBat (1665481) | about a year and a half ago | (#42465115)

The Hobbit: An Unexpectedly Long Journey

Battlefield Earth (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about a year and a half ago | (#42465145)

I mean they did the 1000 page Battlefield Earth in under 2 hours in film and that turned out great...

Look at even LOTR, special editions probably make it a 12 hour film for the same page count.

Technology is fine... (2)

catmistake (814204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42463997)

I'm ok with advances in technology and the new challenges it creates. What I'm not OK with is a director deciding to make the source material "better" by changing the narrative. Jackson completely gutted Tolkien's Hobbit, rearranged the important events, and has replaced a light-hearted adventure story with the dark themes from LotR. Mr. Peter Jackson, why do you hate the work of JRR Tolkien?

Re:Technology is fine... (2)

GreyWanderingRogue (598058) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464303)

... and has replaced a light-hearted adventure story with the dark themes from LotR.

You mean like the changes Tolkien himself made and wanted to make? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit#Revisions [wikipedia.org]

Re:Technology is fine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464545)

Hi. I believe the GP is referring to needless changes in dialogue, such as having the Trolls themselves declare, painfully obviously, that sunlight will turn them to stone, or the existence of mountain giants (which were perhaps part of a hobbit's imagination, not actual residents of Middle-Earth as Jackson tells it), or having the White Council convene at the time Jackson places it in the movie, and not when Tolkien wrote it as having happened. I can see how it might be annoying to someone that loves the literature that the movie director FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER changes a few things around. My biggest complaint? Balin was one of the younger dwarves... and Jackson decided to make him one of the oldest. Why? We may never know.

Re:Technology is fine... (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464949)

The more I see this debte, the more I realize much of LOTR was Tolkien's personal "fan fiction". It was stuff he wrote down for fun.. Mostly to practice applying "archeology" skills for languages and myths. Languages and history is what he taught at university, tracing back origins of languages and myths to the events and people that it happened to. LOTR was some fun working "backwards" with the same principals to build his personal LARP.

I begging to agree with George R R Martin in that he's going to wrap up his "Song of Fire and Ice" (and cash in on whatever he's still got) then torch the rest of the notes so only the published books remain... No more going back and rewriting things long after he's dead.

what challenge? (1)

bauerbob (1049344) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464005)

From 100% to 200% more data - so what? That's not a big step compared to the steps we had in the past like going from 1.44MB 3,5" floppies to 650MB/700MB CDs. Or from those CDs to 4.4GB DVDs.

Re:what challenge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464267)

Actually more interested in transmission myself; raw 8k is meant to be around 48 Gbps. I wonder if they just transferred the drives at the end of a shoot, especially with NZ internet :/

DVD Shrink (0)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464029)

Sounds like a job for handy, dandy DVD Shrink!

Longer is not better (0)

rainmayun (842754) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464065)

Directors have never understood this, which is why most of the time they aren't responsible for the final edits. Length is one of the primary filtering factors for me to decide what movie to see. Anything substantially over 2 hours had better be a damned good movie.

Re:Longer is not better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464207)

30 minutes of previews and car commercials, 45 minutes of plot, 45 minutes of product placement, 15 minutes of credits. That is why I don't waste my time with most movies.

I consider The Hobbit (part 1) to be worth seeing, but I am a general Tolkein fan, I'd probably pay to watch each 3-hour part of a 12 movie chain based on the Silmarillion.

Length is just another of many issues that will influence who watches it in a theater, who rents a DVD, who buys a 3D BD, who downloads a 320x256 torrent, and who ignores it entirely.

Re:Longer is not better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464299)

I used to go to the theater without checking the reviews or runtime so that the movie would not be spoiled by others opinions. After the merciless beating that was Cloud Atlas I will never go to the theater again without at least some research first.... seriously there are some things I wish I could unsee!

Re:Longer is not better (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464319)

Scorsese understands it.

Goodfellas, The Departed, The Aviator, etc are all over two hours, but they don't drag or slog like most newer films that are > 2 hours.

Re:Longer is not better (1)

avandesande (143899) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464481)

Making a family movie that would have been enjoyed across age groups would have been a challenge, what Peter Jackson did was not. He just applied the 'Jackson Formula' to the Hobbit. He's not a film maker any more he's an accountant.

I love long films if... (2, Interesting)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464239)

there is a reason for them to be long(>2 hours).

I'm a HUGE Tolkien fan, and went to the LOTR Extended Version Trilogy Marathon recently before seeing The Hobbit.
I was surprised at how well the longer versions of the films held up, after not watching them for around five years.

However, The Hobbit film was a let down on several levels, most of which I won't go into here. My main complaint? You do not need three films to tell the story. PJ has thrown in everything but the kitchen sink into The Hobbit, and it drags. Even the uber-videogame-esque "escape from the Goblins" scene drags... Too much of a good thing can ruin a film.

I would also say the same thing about the last Batman film. Too long and drawn out. Scenes that should be edited or removed alltogether. Thats why they call it the Directors Cut!

It makes me wonder if there aren't people involved in the film such as producers or editors who tell guys like PJ or Nolan, "hey bro, you might want to trim things down, just a smidge... You know, just to kind of keep the flow of the film going"

Re:I love long films if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464623)

I went to watch batman and I didnt know movie length before it. I tought it would be a 2h movie and exactly between the movie I checked the time from ticket as movie felt it just didnt have a story as it would end suddenly, only to find out that 3h is just too much. 2h 15min is OK and 2 is good for great movie but more likely I take 1h 30min. 3h is just way too much.

Re:I love long films if... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464733)

Even the uber-videogame-esque "escape from the Goblins" scene drags

Ironic, isn't it? By adding more action, the movie became less riveting. You don't need a threat of violence to keep a movie entertaining (not that there was a threat, since one guy got smashed full-force in the face with a mace and remained conscious).

For me, one of the most attention-holding scenes was at the beginning, when the dwarves ate, sang, and cleaned dishes. That was a party I'd love to hang out with. The farther they got from Tolkien in telling the story, the weaker the story became. The revenge story of the white orc was completely weird.

Also, I understand why they want three movies, to make money. It's not the best goal, but I understand it. They could have easily reached that goal, staying faithful to the story, and making a more entertaining movie, if they had made each movie 120 minutes like a normal movie. No need to make up false tension.

Re:I love long films if... (1)

bjdevil66 (583941) | about a year and a half ago | (#42465059)

Ironic, isn't it? By adding more action, the movie became less riveting.

Good point (The Matrix: Reloaded immediately comes to mind as the posterchild movie in this regard).

Also, it is a little odd to see some people complain about too long of a runtime when most of the complaints about the original LOTR movies was that too much was cut out of the story (Tom Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire, etc.).

Go back to using Film? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464287)

The main benefit for going digital was to cut production costs down, you don't have to drag dailies around or courier anything beyond a few hard drives when you go digital (heck you can torrent between locations), but now you have to store data electronically which shifts the cost to running servers or some other backup.

The effective resolution of film is infinite, with good optics on your digital scanner you could go down to any resolution you want for easy of digital editing. Store the film in a vault and forget about it for 90 years.

Raw Data (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464301)

The Hobbit was also shot (and maybe shown?) at 4K resolution.

That's another bump in the data size.

Re:Raw Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464501)

The Hobbit was actually shot at 5K resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%28film_series%29#Technology

Re:Raw Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464615)

it was 5k resolution.

Render time still a limitation (2)

TechBCEternity (561141) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464401)

At the London preview screening Peter Jackson said that because 48fps + 3d is 4x the frames it's taken longer to render and the last scene with the coins was only finished a couple days before the premiere. He did mention the complexity in moving coins though

Petabyte is not that much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464463)

If you think enterprise storage subsystem can have usable capacity of 1024GB (1PB). So if you go beyond, just buy 2 of those (DS8700 comes to mind, but there are others by EMC and Hitachi)

Re:Petabyte is not that much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464923)

If you think enterprise storage subsystem can have usable capacity of 1024GB (1PB). So if you go beyond, just buy 2 of those (DS8700 comes to mind, but there are others by EMC and Hitachi)

<sigh>

1024GB = 1TB. 1024TB = 1PB.

Frame rate shouldn't matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464543)

It's interesting to note that for typical footage, as frame rate goes to infinity, so should the compression ratio.

Ridiculous assertions in the linked article. (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464735)

100 to 200 percent more data for "modern" 3D technologies. Stereoscopy adds exactly 100 percent more data, as it has since the late 1800s. There is no new 3D. There wasn't for Avatar, there wasn't for Captain EO, and there wasn't for any of the other marketing-oriented attempts to act like the red and blue glasses were the "old" 3D while the polarized lenses are the "new". Didn't you kids have ViewMaster? Sheesh.

This is news? (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464825)

I wonder why this is news... I guess it's a good time to invest in ENTERPRISE level storage!!

The Hobbit was shot in 5k resolution, and in "true 3D" with two cameras on every mount. And shot at 48fps (5k x 48 fps x 2 cameras) is MASSIVE film stock. Add multiple shoots for setup, testing lights, and then the actual acting. Not to mention all the digital elements that have to be stocked at high resolution as well.

Yup that's a LOT of data. But then so was Star Wars. I suppose with those really long copyrights it means THEY have to keep all that digital treasure safe.. Because they only sell the stripped out Home copies. The Hobbit was really shot for theaters 10years from now when 4k becomes commonplace. I used Star Wars because while Licas was counting his Billions, the actual MOVIE and resources on film spent 20 years rotting in a damp basement. Because every scrap of these movies has to be copyrighted for 95+ years they don't want any bits leaking out... But saving EVERYTHING it's really hard... Even if they make a billion dollars from it.

I still don't see what the "news" is. I mean Banks are so big they fill LTO 5 tapes with transaction data several times a DAY (not accounts, just the individual records of card swipes and such in real time) . I guess banks don't have to keep that 95 years though...

Super Compression (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464877)

How much storage would they need if they dropped all of the "short people walking" bits except for one? Once again, lossy compression schemes come to the rescue!

It still sucked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464897)

No matter "big" the movies data is, no matter how many fps they film it at, no matter how many 3d effects they add in it still sucked and so do the majority of the movies that rely on special effects. Digital special effects make film makers lazy. In the past decade how many big budget special effects crazy movies have been made that were classics of film vs how many classic movies in the past decade didnt have computer effects? Quentin tarantino alone has made more quality movies in the past 10 years than big budget special effects films.

So bottom line is make it fancy as you want but that alone doesnt make it a good movie.

Not a Big Data Problem (5, Insightful)

ranton (36917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464917)

How does this have anything to do with Big Data? Storing large amount of data isn't the important part, it is being able to analyze that data. You do not analyze a movie's data file. You just load and display the movie, which can easy be stored in one large continous file. A Big Data problem would be Netflix trying to determine what kinds of movies to recommend, not storing and then displaying a long movie to users.

Re:Not a Big Data Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42465077)

How does this have anything to do with Big Data?

Thank you

The answer of course, is not one damned thing. This is a big storage problem not a big data problem. And really it isn't that big of a storage problem.
Multi-petabyte scalable infrastructures are available from every one of the major storage vendors.

Tolkien... (1)

dskoll (99328) | about a year and a half ago | (#42465019)

Tolkien's work is love-it-or-hate-it and unfortunately I fall squarely on the "hate-it" side. I guess it's good to know that we can enjoy hours of tedium at a higher-than-normal frame rate, though.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...