| |
Large Format Cinema as Communal Virtual
Reality
An interview with Douglas Trumbull
about The Future of Cinema |
Read more at in70mm.com The 70mm Newsletter
|
Written by: Mark Trompeteler.
First published in Cinema Technology. Republished by permission |
Date:
08.06.2017 |
A meeting and subsequent interview with Douglas Trumbull and Mark, continued a
series of articles on The Future of Cinema, by Mark Trompeteler, that were
featured in a number issues of Cinema Technology magazine. In this two part
interview they discuss issues surrounding the pursuit of “The Holy Grail” of
large format cinema technology – cinematic virtual reality.
(For younger readers – a short summary of Douglas Trumbull’s career, a very
significant film maker and cinema technologist: He worked on the classic large
format 70mm film “2001: A Space Odyssey”, to which he contributed
significantly in the area of visual effects and made a memorable contribution in
the development of the slit-scan photography process, used in the "Stargate"
sequence. Trumbull went on to contribute effects to “The Andromeda Strain”,
“Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”
and, in 1981, on the Ridley Scott classic film “Blade Runner”. Trumbull,
also developed his patented Showscan process, a high-speed, large-format movie
70mm process shooting and projecting at 60 fps that provided an unprecedented
visual clarity in the movies. He directed the classic cult film “Silent Running”
and the film “Brainstorm”. Redirecting his career away from Hollywood
projects he then began to concentrate instead on developing new technology for
movie production, and for the exhibition industry and theme-park rides, such as
the “Back to the Future Ride” at Universal Studios. In 1994 Trumbull was
briefly a Vice Chairman of IMAX Corporation. Trumbull contributed to special
effects work on Terrence Malick's 2011 film “The Tree of Life”. Most
recently Trumbull has being working on his patented MAGI process which he says
"goes way beyond anything that Peter Jackson and James Cameron have been doing".
He has been nominated for Academy Awards on five occasions and has received the
American Society of Cinematographer's Lifetime Achievement Award.)
Breaking down that “fourth wall” – the screen.
I attended the Digital Television Summit in London organised by the Digital
Television Group in 2015. I was particularly struck by a fairly obvious but
simple point made by one of the contributors to the conference – Ron Martin,
Vice President / Director of the Panasonic Hollywood Lab. During his
presentation he said that the whole point of manufacturers and image
technologists constantly pushing forward the boundaries of resolution, detail,
dynamic range, colour gamut and pushing image quality from 2k to 4k and possibly
8K is to make the image and its viewing so good that the “window” of the screen
will effectively disappear. The viewing experience will be so totally convincing
that “the fourth wall” of the cinema screen, or the TV, will essentially
disappear to the audience. They will eventually lose their sense that they are
watching an image on a screen at both conscious and sub conscious levels and
they will feel they are involved in experiencing a kind of reality. You get a
similar sensation when the curtain in a theatre opens and “the fourth wall” is
demolished and you then get immersed into a very convincing kind of reality.
Enter Douglas Trumbull
I can only identify two occasions in my life of cinema and audio visual
experiences when I have completely lost the sense that I was watching a
projected image on a screen, and somehow it had disappeared, and that I was
experiencing a kind of reality. Internationally renowned cinema engineer and
technologist, cinematographer, director, and vfx expert Douglas Trumbull was
responsible for both experiences.
I think it was back in 1991 / 1992, that on a theme park ride, “Back to the
Future,” I boarded a DeLorean car with my children and took that ride. It
was during that short ride that I became really scared and thought the car and
us, its occupants, were all very close to complete disaster and death. As a sane
and responsible adult I actually screamed my head off in front of complete
strangers, much to the eternal embarrassment of my children, and for which they
still hold this against me to this day. All my senses were being fooled by
various technical devices and I really lost all sense that I was watching a
projected motion picture.
The second such occasion was when as part of the 2015 Widescreen Weekend in
Bradford I saw Trumbull’s short film “UFOTOG”, shot in 4K, 120 fps and
3D. Whist the luminance levels of the projection set up did not do his 3D film
full justice and the subject of his film tends to be a little dark, what he
showed us was impressive. I was stunned by the clarity and realism that the 120
fps rate added to the visual experience. The clarity of the image and the
absence of any image artefacts somehow made me lose any consciousness of the
fact that I was looking at an image on a screen – it appeared to me as though
the actor was looking directly at me as if through an open space and I was
looking directly back at him and no screen surface was involved between us. I
think the lighting, lens used and composition all augmented the effect. Also the
effect on a screen that would totally fill my field of vision would, I think, be
quite remarkable.
VR battle lines are being drawn.
From the moment that people screamed and took cover when they watched one of the
first Lumiere films of a train entering a station and the locomotive coming
straight at them – cinema has always been a form of virtual reality. Today with
the imminent availability of affordable virtual reality head sets, 4K television
sets that people like the BBC R&D unit say we should be sitting very much closer
to so they totally encompass our field of vision, and Japanese broadcast
researchers who say we will need to do so even more with 8K TVs - there has
never been greater pressure on cinema to provide a truly convincing virtual
reality experience. The accepted wisdom and “on trend” response to all of this
is Premium Large Format cinema. Douglas Trumbull’s thesis is that a more
effective, convincing and cost conscious alternative to PLF is very much worth
considering. All that needs to be done is to use existing cinema technology,
that we have available to us now, in a different way. A fortuitous and congenial
late night chance meeting in a Bradford hotel bar with Douglas Trumbull and his
wife Julia, led to a subsequent interview when we discussed these issues.
|
More in 70mm reading:
•
This is MAGI Cinema
•
Thoughts about 120 fps
•
A Conversation
•
High impact filmmaking
•
The Impact of Showscan
PDF: The Brave New World of Cinema by Mark Trompeteler
Internet link:
douglastrumbull.com
|
The Production & Exhibition Divide
Mark Trompeteler (MT): Douglas in London at the moment cinemas are
showing “The Walk” and “Everest” in 3D IMAX and immersive sound
systems. I wonder what your “take” is on cinema’s trend towards Premium Large
Format (PLF) auditoria and these large “tentpole” movies. Is cinema going in the
right direction?
Douglas Trumbull (DT): I don’t think so at all. The whole mission of my
life, and the trajectory of my career and life within cinema, started with
“2001: A Space Odyssey”. Working with Stanley Kubrick I found myself working
with a brilliant genius who was a person who paid extremely close attention to
every aspect of the movie, right down to the details of the print that would go
to the theatre, and even the focal qualities of the lens in the theatre, and
even the steadiness of the gate in the theatre. He saw the entire process. That
has stuck with me ever since.
The abysmal truth is that the situation in movie theatres is very poor.
Showmanship has gone. Mostly the giant screen has gone. 70mm has gone. There has
been such a disconnect between the creative process of making the movie from the
way it is shown. They are now two completely separate industries. In a sense
your magazine, “Cinema Technology” is talking to one industry, and 99.999% of
everyone who is making movies are not going to read this magazine. They don’t
concern themselves with exhibition issues – I do.
I came to a point in my career when I became so utterly frustrated at the
complete lack of interest at the studios to make sure that a truly high quality
product got to the theatre that I just stopped directing altogether, I had to
regroup, leave Hollywood, set up shop elsewhere and redefine what was possible.
I am trying to make a long story short – but the story is kind of reaching a
conclusion because I have really been researching digital photography, digital
post production and digital exhibition as one continuous chain. So the movie is
not separated from the way it is going to be displayed.
I feel there is a huge human craving for experiential entertainment that is
undefined, it is kind of like virtual reality, in the sense that when people
think of virtual reality, they think of some alternative experiential out of
body experience, a dream state or a drugged state, that somehow could be life
enhancing and powerful etc. I think they crave it, they want it but they are not
getting it.
Cinema & TV
MT: Don’t you think that PLF auditoria in mainstream multiplexes are offering
that?
DT: They are in the sense that there is a recognition that a more spectacular
presentation is desirable and gets a premium ticket price. It can be more
profitable for them. Upgrading to a bigger screen and brighter projection and
more comfortable seats and any number of things that patrons can have at their
disposal is probably a good thing by its nature.
But I am coming up against this real unexpected discovery. It goes back to post
“2001” when I became so disillusioned that the giant screen cinemas were
carved up into multiplexes, and that the giant screens had gone, and that 70mm
had gone, and we were just back to 35mm. Simultaneously back at the studios, at
production level, it was becoming simultaneously movies and television. There
was a time back in the 1950s, when Cinerama, Todd-AO, VistaVision and D-150 –
all these things were emerging because studios were terrified that television
was going to take their customers away which was an understandable fear. They
actually became happy campers because they ended up becoming television
producers. A large proportion of production at the studios became television and
they joined the enemy. That was what helped develop a common format that would
suit both cinema and television, which is what has now developed into 2K at 24
fps – the world standard medium. This means that even if you have a bigger
screen you still only have a 2K image and you still only have 24 fps. I have
come to this new revelation, and this is part of what Julia and I have been
doing at our studio, we have been experimanting with an entirely new way to go,
which is 3D, 4K and 120 fps.
The first concern has been, legitimately, that if 48 fps creates a movement
towards a television look, a sitcom look, a soap opera look, then 60 fps is
going to be worse and 120 fps is going to be objectionably bad. That is a
convoluting thought that is forthcoming from the studios. They are very upset at
the thought of anything that might upset their paradigm.
What we have discovered is this new alternating frame 3D thing which is 120 fps
which you probably understand. It is extremely elegant. It is extremely easy to
do. I am going to show it to everyone tomorrow night and it does not look like
television at all.
3D Towards Virtual Reality
MT: I believe in one of your documents that you kindly emailed to me - you do
not use the old words of TV – as TV being “a window on the world” but you used a
term like your experiments as striving to achieve a window through into reality.
So like others, are you pursuing “The Holy Grail” of cinema technology - of
completely breaking down that “fourth wall” of the screen in the cinema?
DT: Mark - we have to remember that the whole history of the movies ever since
their inception has been to create immersions by some means. The intention from
film makers has been there all along ever since that first movie of that train
coming into the station. My philosophy is that if you accept the motion picture
medium as it has been all of our lives at 24 fps - usually at double flash,
sometimes triple flash, that creates a two dimensional texture where the movie
remains at the screen and is not entering the room, staying where it belongs. It
is an envelope within which the story is told, using however you want to direct,
script and act – you are telling a story. As soon as you detract from that
convention to try and create an experience that is more visceral, more immersive
and more involving, by adding 3D or adding 70mm and adding a bigger screen – you
are in fact creating a different medium. This is what Kubrick recognised and
this is what I learned working with him - that there is this whole other world
of potential of immersive experience.
Once that you technologically create immersion, you tell the story differently,
there is a different balancing of forces, you use less dialogue and more visuals
and that is a mysterious formula. I know in “2001” Kubrick kept stripping
out dialogue, stripping out over the shoulder shots, stripping out reverse angle
shots, and he let the audience feel like they were becoming the character - so
you have something like a whole 17 minute uninterrupted sequence of pure point
of view, during which there is no story, no plot, no drama, no dialogue just a
visual trip. Fortunately it was at time in modern history when a trip could be
considered a good thing.
That profoundly affected me – so when the multiplex thing happened I was very
disappointed that the approach that we were only beginning to explore was being
cut off. Since then it has been my mission to see how we can get back. How can I
get back to that art form and go further with it. The surprising thing is that
it has a lot to do with the technology of 3D. I was never a fan of 3D but as we
started to experiment we discovered that we could do 3D so perfectly that the
screen surface is virtually gone – in fact there is no screen surface. You are
looking through a window into reality – it is like a live drama unfolding before
your eyes.
When you are looking at something stereoscopically you are asking the audience
to converge their vision onto distant objects but you are also asking them to
focus on the screen surface at the same time. You are asking them to decouple
the muscles in their eyes, this is what causes eye strain. We do not decouple
the muscles in our eyes naturally. What I began to realise was that small
screens are in fact better. It is all about field of view, it is NOT about
scale. When you are presenting a wide field of view but not at such a distance
and scale you are not demanding such a strenuous muscle decoupling in the eyes
and the 3D viewing can become very pleasurable. Also if you can make the 3D
image brighter, your eyes default down to a more normal exposure, it increases
the eyes depth of field, and this increases eye comfort further.
This has led me to this amazing concept that a multiplexes are in fact a good
idea and not bad, and that a giant screen may not be desirable. We have
constructed a much smaller idea of a cinema with screens of 20, 25 and up to 35
feet wide – not very big screens. One of the constituents of the screen is the
torus material which is very highly reflective. It is also deeply curved, like
Cinerama was, but the key is how highly reflective it is. There is no cross
reflectance, it does not need to be louvered, and it does not require a million
dollar laser illuminator to make it work. You can do it with conventional off
the shelf equipment. Lasers are obviously coming but the scale of this is really
comfortable and fits in very well with the smaller kind of multiplex size
theatres.
|
|
Pod Cinema
MT: My goodness, of course – it is one of the first things you learn about
projection isn’t it? Isn’t it called something like the inverse square law? –
The closer you bring the projector to the screen the brighter you can get the
image? So in your concept of the small pod cinema you could achieve very bright
images on a highly reflective surface, with very comfortable 3D viewing, by
virtue of the dimensions of the pod cinema being very much smaller than
conventional auditoria.
DT: Exactly. You can do a simple calculation around say a small IMAX auditorium
- for instance say 100 feet by 100 feet by 50 feet with say 300 seats in it. In
fact it has a big cubic capacity as it has big roof span say of 100 feet. If you
take the dimensions of the pod you soon realise you can get more people in pods
into the cubic capacity of the auditorium. They will have a better and more
pleasurable experience for a lower cost than fitting out the conventional IMAX
auditorium.
MT: At IBC:Amsterdam earlier this year, it was the very first time I had really
put on any virtual reality headsets and gave them any kind of serious
consideration. Like everyone, I completely understand what VR is about but was
disappointed with the quality of the images the headsets were delivering. What
strikes me about the your pod cinema concept, that you have actually built and
demonstrated, is how the pod resembles a large VR head set in which say an
audience of up to 60 people can sit within. The VR headset is such a solitary
viewing experience. In your pod you deliver the communal nature of cinema –
which is what makes cinema, cinema. I love the idea that a couple, group of
friends, or a family can be in a pod and as a group enjoy a cinematic VR
experience communally.
Julia Trumbull (JT): The pod retains the nature of cinema in as much as
it retains the social relationships within an audience.
DT: Also I started realising that theatres are boxes – consisting of flat walls,
flat ceilings flat screens – boxes – this is boring. The pod consists of
curvilinear lines and walls. The screen itself started to define the space. We
asked why don’t we build the building in the shape of the screen and carry it on
behind and this kind of egg shape emerged. That gives the maximum use of space
and this gives the kind of maximum entertainment per square foot that you can
imagine.
Shutters & Frame Rates
Mark Trompeteler (MT): I am still wondering about ALL the parameters you
are using to break down “the fourth wall” of the screen. So many people are
obsessed with pixels and resolution, going for the maximum K, HDR and colour
gamut. You are placing an emphasis on the shutter and frame rate where others
are not. I wonder if you could expand on that.
Douglas Trumbull (DT): Shutter, and frame rate – you are right – they
don’t think about it.
MT: When as humans we look at the world there is no shutter interruption or
frame rate to our viewing of it is there? It is almost as if philosophically and
technically you are reducing these things to the minimum to give us the most
uninterrupted kind of image capture possible.
DT: Pre 3D and with me experimenting with a digital form of Showscan it came to
my attention that digital projectors can operate at almost any frame rate that
you want. Then I realised that with digital cameras and a 360 degree shutter, or
should I say 359 degrees, there has to be a little bit of time to download the
fame and then go into the next frame. So you can see I am trying to use that
camera almost as if it was shutterless. That gave me the idea that if you could
shoot high frame rate contiguous shutterless photography then you could take any
two adjacent frames and merge them together and store the blur that needs to be
bigger at a lower frame rate. There is a direct proportion between the amount of
blur and frame rate. If you were to lower the frame rate the blur has to
increase. That is an inverse proportion. By having a 360 degree shutter you can
blend any number of frames together, restore the blur that is appropriate for
the frame rate. It is a simple exercise – it does not require any computer
processing or interpolation or anything.
So that becomes elegantly simple. When we were doing tests we were shooting at
120fps and the performers were doing a dance, Since I was looking for motion and
blur I had the guys dressed in outfits with focus charts on them. That was a way
of analysing the motion and the blur. That’s when I realised you can change the
frame rate on any pixel or any object dynamically through a scene. If there
turns out to be some scary things for audiences where they really might want
24fps because that is the texture that they are used to, that is fine, but some
part of the frame can be at a higher frame rate – the football, or the explosion
of the fist slamming into the face, if it needs to be faster so you can see the
action, you can dynamically change it.
MT: During the movie and within portions of a shot - you can change the frame
rate?
DT: Yes you can. I applied for a patent and I got it. So that is controllable
territory now.
When I tried the other experiment which was 3D I recognised the way it was going
to be projected 99% of the time – was with a single projector. I know there are
two projector solutions out there, like IMAX theatres or where you have a big
screen. However the desirable way is with one projector – no one wants to use
two projectors when they can get by with one. Lets say that most of the business
is going to be single projector - alternate left eye, right eye, left eye, right
eye. So we said why don’t we just shoot it that way so that we have what I call
perfect temporal continuity. That is when I realised what actually had gone
wrong with Peter Jackson’s 48 fps thing and what is wrong with 3D at 24fps. The
problem is that the frames are being multiple flashed. The motion is actually
starting and stopping hundreds of times per second. It is not contiguous.
As soon as you make things smooth you get smooth motion. You can get 120 frames
for the price of 60, or 144 frames for the price of 72, because the projector is
actually doing 144. That is when I realised we can do high frame rate within the
confines of a standard DCP spec. That is what you are gong to see tomorrow night
– a standard 2K 3D DCP running at 120 fps and it has perfect temporal continuity
between switching the left eye and right eye. It is a little dark – but that is
the name of the game right now – there are 20,000 or more theatres out there,
that are a little dark and some are a lot dark. We do everything at 14 or 15
foot lamberts because it is so easy to achieve with a standard projector and a
torus screen off the shelf. All these things came to me as just ideas since I
had been thinking about them for years. I did the Showscan thing – it was so
simple and elegant because it was so easy to do.
|
|
The MAGI Process
MT: So the 3D 4K 120 fps process you have developed you call MAGI, pronounced
MAG - eye
DT: Yes - close to the pronunciation of the word eye.
Julia Trumbull (JT): Also close to Magic
DT: I am doing all this because I think I have in a way have kind of discovered
that “Holy Grail”. We were fearful that it might look worse than 48 fps and it
look even more like television. This turned out, not to be true. It was a
revelation that by doing this 120fps alternating frame thing – giving 60 per
eye, it did not look like television. It had no objectionable artefacts, it has
no strobing, no judder, no blur and no flicker. This I thought was really good
and I applied for a patent and we recently got the patent for that and so now
control this territory. I hope this will all come in handy. But my objective is
no more than getting back to making movies.
I think I got this horrible reputation because I consciously chose to stop
directing, it was my choice and I took full responsibility for it – but I do not
have a reputation as a director any more. People do not think of me – I am not
on anybody’s list.
I have been doing this investment of my time and effort to get the medium back
on track. I want to direct in this medium. When you direct in this medium and
you make a movie like this you are creating a new form of entertainment. It is
like virtual reality. It is not conventional story telling. It is not
conventional cinematic language. One of the components of the creative aspects
to it is, and the business aspects of it is, that if you take this big 3D 120
fps 4K wide field of view thing and you put it on a 3D TV or a laptop – it is
not good. It is not a good experience. Twelve inch high people do not look good
– it is part of the equation of why 3D TV has failed. I think it is a natural
and obvious thing that anybody could have anticipated – that is that when you
miniaturise 3D, it doesn’t look very powerful. So as regards business – if a
studio invests in a movie in this process, the further away they go from
conventional storytelling, the less useful it is going to be in the secondary
market. That is a problem. But it is so easy to change the primary market
because there are tens of thousands of movie theatres that are already equipped
with series two electronics that will go to 120 fps. It is already there. There
is not the problem of asking people to install new projectors. It is much more
easy now to get the entire movie industry to drag itself up by the boot straps
and get it to adopt 120 fps as the new standard.
MT: You make the point well. There would be a quick very significant increase in
the differential between the staying at home viewing experience and this
upgraded cinematic virtual reality experience.
DT: The beauty of it is, that it is also downwards compatible. 24fps versions
can easily be made for anyone who wants it on their Smartphone but you will not
get the profound immersive experience unless you go to the cinema to see it.
JT: The beauty of it that it has downwards compatibility built in if you want to
pursue secondary market sales, whilst also at the same time it introduces a huge
viewing experience differential.
Cinema, MAGI & Now
MT: Playing devils advocate here – how do you prevent such a process becoming
considered just a novelty or gaining the status of a fair ground or theme park
ride process by virtue of the possibility of it concentrating on visceral or
experiential short subjects. One of the noticeable effects of the digitisation
of cinema has been the ascendancy of fantasy, action and spectacle films at the
box office where the vfx and action may be subjugating the expression of a theme
and story. How do you encourage the creative and narrative development of such a
process as MAGI into that new art from you are hoping for?
DT: There is some truth contained within your question but remember that IMAX
through its entire cinematic history was such a powerful cinematic and immersive
experience that no one ever wanted more than 40 minutes of it. That became the
standard of the IMAX world and it became an anomaly to take 35 mm movies and
print them up to IMAX, call that IMAX, and then ask the audience to watch for
two hours. It becomes a physiologically stressful experience. I do not like a 24
fps movie enlarged that much. The juddering the blurring and the strobing are
all objectionable - that is a problem. On the content side it is interesting to
note that the six or seven major studios are all making these big “tentpole”
franchise Batman & Superman kind of thing because they are all action
spectacles. Yes they have changed the balance between story and special effects
because that is what the audience wants. So I am not going to be derisive about
it. I am derisive about the fact that it looks so terrible. The audience will
vote with their pockets as to the kind of content they want. I think once we
have solved some of these problems nature will take it course. Film makers will
do whatever they want and studios will do whatever they want. No one can control
that. I think things will drift towards more shorter high impact content and a
more rapid turnover at the box office.
JT: Look at the age demographic of the audience too.
DT: Look at the audience – their attention span is shot.
MT: One of the original promises of IMAX was them saying that one day there
would be feature films made in the IMAX process – but that never materialised.
Do you forsee the production of feature films in the MAGI process or do you
think it is initially all bout short length content.
DT: Yes – IMAX tried to keep that promise going for as long as they could. As
regards MAGI this is how we see it. The penetration of this process into the
mainstream cinema business may take a significant amount of time because there
is such lethargy about any future trajectories – it currently isn’t going
anywhere, doesn’t seem to want to go anywhere. I put out as much press as I can
about what we are doing. Nobody from the studios calls me up. But in what we
call the location based cinema business we know it is commercially adapted to
short form high impact entertainment. The interesting economic fact about it is
that people will pay eight dollars for four minutes and 12 dollars for two
hours. Profit wise the potential is huge, it is spectacular if you can get
enough theatres. I have no aversion to short form – I have done rides.
I think the ideal length is this inverse proportion between intensity and time.
That’ why when I saw “Gravity” for instance I just thought it was great
that movie was 90 minutes long. That is what made me feel uncomfortable when
“Interstellar” was twice as long – I didn’t need that length. I think there
is another component to entertainment. If you want a story – watch television.
If you want an experience – that is cinema.
TV is on 24 hours a day, it has 500 channels – it has all the stories you want
about every conceivable subject matter – so there is no shortfall of stories – I
am not against stories – if you want to tell a story, tell a story – romance,
comedy, thriller, mystery. If you want spectacular immersiveness, this kind of
virtual experiential thing – that is cinema. There is a different balancing of
story and visuals. You don’t need to teach anyone how to do it because it has
already happened. These movies that Hollywood is now dragging out are basically
storyless – action pieces – people like it and that is what is supporting the
industry to the tunes of billions and billions of dollars - so go with it. But
if you can make that experience so profoundly improved, in terms of comfort, in
terms of excitement, and physiological stimulation which is using high frame
rates - audiences will be building in cinemas rather than declining. You can’t
do anything about the third world and China – what is going to happen there is
going to happen and you can’t do anything about it. I think you can see what I
am trying to say.
|
|
Looking Forward
MT: Yes there is so much evidence that TV has now become the accepted medium for
story telling type content, films that where once the province of medium budget
studio films.
DT: Yes – major directors and actors are turning to television for storytelling
because that is where that action is. That is fine and you can see some really
interesting stuff in pay for view where it is not constrained by broadcasting
restrictions on such issues as profanity and sex and stuff like that. It has
become a mature art form and I know people like George Lucas say that as a
result of that they think cinema is in terminal decline.
One of the things Julia and I decided about this MAGI thing is that we said we
could be talking about it for the next twenty years – so we decided we thought
we should actually do it. We built a stage – we shot a test movie - and its not
test shots of a pretty face and some flowers. It is a real dramatic story. So
even though it is not big, it is an expression of a short test film, in the
convention of the story telling dramatic cinematic format. But it is more
immersive and it embraces the audience as a participant.
OK so you can say we did it in our back yard and it is a home movie taken to the
extreme and we are very proud of it. But it was also the point that I knew I
would never get back on the track of directing unless I directed something. So I
wrote it, directed it and financed it myself and I hope it will be a stepping
stone to be taken seriously again. Also to be taken seriously as one of the very
few film makers who understands exactly where to go with this medium
aesthetically, in that kind of “2001” immersiveness way, which has not
been replicated in 50 years – no one understands it.
At the end of the interview I realised just how good it had been spending some
time with Douglas and Julia Trumbull discussing views on cinema and the pursuit
of cinematic virtual reality. They were very generous with their time and the
information they shared. Douglas did share the fact that Ang Lee had spent time
at his studios looking at what Douglas and his team had achieved.
Readers may recall that the June 2015 issue of CT Magazine featured a short
report that Ang Lee’s latest film
"Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk" will
be shot in 3D, at 4K resolution and 120 fps. Julian Pinn confirmed in that
report that the new movie is being shot at 120 fps per eye, not the 60 fps per
eye that some had suggested. For release to many projectors the 120 fps per eye
master would require a downwards conversion. It is understood that Ang Lee was
heavily influenced by Doug’s work on MAGI. The day when both a short, and a
feature film, produced at 120 fps, by two significant film makers, both
attempting a more virtual reality experience, has arrived.
You can learn more about the work of Trumbull Studios at
www.douglastrumbull.com
With grateful thanks to Douglas and Julia Trumbull, and the National Media
Museum Press Office and Cinema Technology magazine.
|
|
|
|
Go: back - top - back issues - news index Updated
28-07-24 |
|
|