Story Vs. Spectacle

So the Oscars took place last month to round off a busy award season.  It’s where the best films of the year are celebrated, being regarded as the ultimate accolade for directors and actors.  However, winning Best Picture does not necessarily guarantee Box Office success, with heavy use of VFX and 3D films usually topping the Box Office.

Admittedly the Oscars are not just about ticket sales, it’s also about providing opportunities to those who win, and even those nominated, and we must bear in mind that ticket sales Is not the only way of gauging the success of a film.  However, box office figures are certainly one of the most quantifiable ways to do so and impossible to ignore. 

Overall, since 1979 when Box Office Mojo began recording box office totals for Oscar nominees, only two thirds of all Best Picture films have actually gone on to be the biggest picture of that year. And in the last six years, not a single film that has won ‘Best Picture’ has been the biggest film of that year.  Comparing the global box office takings with the winners, you can see that there is a considerable difference between those that performed best that year, and the film that won the Oscar. 

Best Picture winners from the last 6 years have grossed significantly less than the top grossing film of the same year.  Source

Disney’s animated film Frozen earned almost $1.3 billion, the highest grossing animated film ever (that annoyingly catchy song and it’s animation were awarded at the Oscars with Best Original Song and Best Animated Film).  However, the Best Picture was awarded to 12 Years a Slave which only took a total of $188 million globally – that’s over 85% less than Frozen.  The last time a film won Best Picture and was the highest grossing film of that year was Lord of the Rings: The Return ofthe King, which raked in almost $1.2 billion in 2003. 

This year’s Best Picture winner saw one of the lowest-grossing Oscar wins in the last four decades, with Birdman, earning only $37.7 million in domestic sales so far.  This was beaten by The Hurt Locker in 2010 which grossed only $18.6 million in domestic sales, beating out Avatar for the accolade.  (These low sales could have had something to do with only being released in 535 theaters compared to over 3,400 theaters for Avatar.)  

Source 

However, there is plenty of evidence to show that winning or becoming nominated for an Oscar can boost sales for films, despite not being the top film of the year. For example, in 2013, the weekend after the Oscars award ceremony on 24th February, two of the films nominated for Best Picture saw an immediate rise in sales, as seen in the graph to the right,  A study into the financial boosts of Academy awards, even suggests that Best Picture means that the film will earn around £12.7 million more at the Box Office. 

Winning an Oscar can also mean that the film has a longer run,  For example, distributor, Sony Pictures Classics, capitalized on Julianne Moore’s win for Best Actress this year by expanding Still Alice by 553 theatres to 1,318 in the seventh weekend, grossing 34% of its running total since the Oscars on 22nd February. 

But if critical success doesn't equate to box office success, then what do people really want when it comes to purchasing that cinema ticket?  Going by box office figures, it seems like people want the ‘spectacle’ of that experience of the big screen.  For example, last year’s top grossing film worldwide was Transformers: Age of Extinction with The Hobbit:The Battle of the Five Armies, Guardiansof the Galaxy coming in second and third, respectively.  Up until No. 16, with American Sniper, the top 15 films all feature an aspect of ‘spectacle’, whether that be with VFX, animation or motion capture.  They all feature something that most would consider as beneficial seeing it on a larger screen in a cinema environment.

Top Grossing Films of 2014 Worldwide.  Source

So Box Office figures suggest that spectacle seems to perform better than awards.  Yet in a questionnaire completed by 55 participants, when asked what the most important factors are when going to the cinema, nearly half regarded story line as the most important factor, whereas visual effects and size of screen only accounted for 37%. One argued that,

"I believe story, acting and the direction of the film to be of utmost importance"

With another arguing that,

"Spectacle are good for a short period of time, only a story can fully engage someone" 

However, when asked whether they would choose to go to the cinema based purely on a film having 'spectacle', most said that they would, with one commenting:

"if a film is made to be a spectacle, the immersive tendencies of the cinematic experience aid in enhancing the film"

Another participant commented that,

"I feel that going to the cinema should be an experience.  A reason I went to see the movie Interstellar was majorly to do with the spectacle of the film.  If i had watched it at home, the film would have lost a lot of the visual effects, thereby affecting my full experience of the film.  For other films, that do not provide such a spectacle, such as Drama's, I would be less inclined to see them in the cinema."

Whilst another said that,

"Why else is there [reason] to go other than being transported into a different realm?... a different dimension? It's about increasing / stimulating your sensibility to a range of human, social and environmental factors..."

Although only a small sample of people were asked in this survey, it perhaps suggest that people regard the cinema as a 'special event', which is deliberately there for audiences to experience films in a way that you can't at home.  Therefore people choose go to the cinema to watch films that fulfil this unique experience, which may be a reason why 'spectacle' films perform so well at the Box Office, rather than choosing to view films which don't, such as those who's main focus is on plot line and well padded out characters, as they can be watched at a later date for half the price. 

If you take a look at the iTuns film charts, popular animated film Frozen only comes in at 14, with adventure film, Fury, and thriller, Gone Girl, holding the top two positions.  Boyhood, is also higher than Frozen.  This suggests that people choose to wait for films that are not 'spectacle' heavy to view at home where they can enjoy it equally as well as if they had gone to the cinema to see it, whereas 'spectacle' led films are viewed at the cinema in order to experience it in the best possible way. 

Another kind of Spectacle...

Visual spectacle is all well and good if you have the ability to take it all in.  However, if your sight hinders that opportunity to fully appreciate the film as it was originally intended, what are you meant to do?

Dr. Mariana Lopez conducting part of her research into replacing audio description with a new format with visually impaired volunteers.  Source

Dr Mariana Lopez from Anglia Ruskin University is leading a study to explore how a story a film can be told without the current audio description track which just describes the events as they happen.  In a brief interview with Mariana Lopez, she voiced her concerns with the current state of audio description tracks.  Audio description tends to be a simple descriptive narration over what is visually happening on screen, and nothing more.

However, she points out that "AD plays a very valuable role in the provision of film and television for visually impaired audiences and at the minute it is the only way in which visual content is made accessible for those audience members."

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 trailer with Audio Description

However, in an interview on BBC Radio 4, Lopez expressed concerns over the fact that audio description is not involved in the post production process and therefore does not reflect the creative vision of the filmmaker:

"In the new systems and formats, we’re thinking about it being a creative process, so not just something that has to be tacked on at the end for accessibility purposes, but something that’s intrinsic to the process of film makers, something that directors, producers and the crew think about when they’re producing their films."

BBC Radio 4, In Touch: Audio in Films

;width:320;wrap:false;" width="320" height="266" style="display:block;margin:5px auto;text-align:center;" class="igm">

The full Interview on BBC Radio 4 from 24/2/2015

Additionally, Lopez thinks that the same techniques for creating audio description have remained pretty much the same since they were first created, and so it's time to modernise it.  She thinks that "it’s time for researchers to consider how we can apply advancements in digital audio production and post production to the field of accessibility services." 

And it's these advancements in audio production that Dr. Lopez wants to utilise to create a new format, called audio film, which does not include a separate narration track but uses the existing dialogue with advanced sound effects and surround sound technologies to guide visually impaired people through the film.  For example, she proposes that the new format should use 'soundmarks' to help identify spatial geography in the narrative.

“Artificial reverberation is employed to provide each space with a characteristic sound, and surround sound is used to suggest the layout of the spaces as well as indicate the movement of the characters”.

New Research Makes Sound Sense, 2015 (Source) 

She hopes that this will become a standard part of the film making process, and encourage "social inclusivity" as it removes the need for headphones and "sighted and visually impaired people experiencing the same soundtrack would be a step forward."

This will hopefully benefit the 2 million people in the UK living with sight loss, 360,000 of which are registered as blind or partially sighted, with 86% of people in the UK value their eyesight above any other sense, and the 285 million people worldwide who have visual impairments   

Facts About Sight Loss. Source

The BFI Statistical Yearbook 2014 has argued that,

 "although access has improved significantly over the last few years, there is an opportunity for further development so that more cinema-goers with hearing or sight loss can enjoy more of the latest films at the cinema, in particular the smaller specialized and independent releases" (p. 115) 

The next stage of the research is to apply these techniques to an existing film. However, a great challenge to this is,

"how to transmit that information that is intrinsically visual, such as types of shot, depth of frame, camera angles, camera movements, etc. to the field of sound in order to provide an ‘informative’ but also entertaining experience while at the same time removing part of the descriptions."

In order to successfully integrate this new accessibility format into the creative process of production and post-production, Lopez recognises that "for a new system to work it needs to be easy to implement and cost-effective", which is a part of her next stages of research, whom she'll be seeking the input of members of the film and TV industry on this matter.  

This new format could therefore be considered an alternative form of spectacle, harnessing the latest sound technologies and techniques, just like the industry is doing with image technology with higher resolutions and larger screens, and creating an innovative and exciting new experience through the use of sound, for not only those with visual impairments, but for those who are not.  

This not only continues to provide a service, but also provides an opportunity for part of the audience to fully appreciate the filmmakers artistic vision.  

Mariana Lopez adds that "a lot of the sound design techniques I’m looking into in order to improve accessibility can be considered as part of a ‘spectacle’, in particular those associated with spatial audio and new object-based mixing techniques".  

Does the Cinema really need a 4th Dimension?

The whole concept of bringing an additional dimension to the world of cinema is nothing new – 3D cinema has had several revamps over the last 50 years.  Almost half of digital cinema screens in the UK are digital 3D screens, with 1,655 screens in total, with Gravity being the most popular 3D film of 2013.  

BFI Statistical Yearbook 2014.  Source

After trying to match the record-smashing success of 2009's Avatar, which generated $2.97 billion worldwide, becoming the highest grossing film of all time, the last 5 years has seen a string of films attempting to recreate James Cameron's success.  

The percentage of people opting for 3D when a 2D
option is available. Source

The number of 3D films released in the UK were up in 2013 than 2012, but only by 3, and that was only a small percentage of the total films released at the UK Box Office (46 3D films out of a total of 298 - BFI Statistical Yearbook 2014: p10) However, this declined in 2014 with only 28 being released.  it seems that the number of people going to see 3D films are also declining, suggesting people are becoming more selective.  

Box Office 3D sales are also in decline. Source

Research at the University of Utah looked into whether watching 3D generated anymore of a psychological response than the its 2D counterpart.  Showing 4 clips of films, which intended to provoke fear, amusement, sadness and excitement.  Other than a few more sweaty palms from watching a particularly exciting scene of The Polar Express, there appeared to be no difference in reactions.  

Sheila Crowell, the author of the report of the study said that, "both 2D and 3D were equally effective at exciting emotional responses, which also may mean that the expense of producing 3D films is not creating much more than novelty". 

Therefore, if 3D has proven to be no more than short-term novelty, then what makes the film industry think that 4D will be able to do any better?  Well South Korean firm, the CJ CGV, Asia's largest multiplex chain, thinks it can.  The conglomerate owns almost 700 screens in South Korea alone, including what is currently the largest screen on the continent. Developed with its subsidiary CJ 4DPlex, 4DX was born.  

It's aim is to not only stimulate your eyes and ears, but your other senses too, with a whole variety of different effects, including motion seats, which heave, roll and pitch whilst your sat down, and environmental effects like blowing wind and scents towards the audience and creating lightening with special lighting effects.  This could be argued that this brings another sense of 'spectacle' to films, which is not only a visual 'spectacle', but a 'spectacle' which forces you to use all your senses in order to further immerse the viewer into the film, to fully embrace the escapism that viewers often look for in films.  

Although already having small 4D films in places like Disney World, whilst using them on rides, 4DX celebrated its commercial debut back in 2009 the the South Korean release of Avatar. Since then, the conglomerate now operates 150 auditoriums in 30 countries, with the U.S. seeing it's first one last year. Now the UK has it's first with the launch of a 4DX cinema in Milton Keynes at the end of January with spy film Kingsman: The Secret Service.   

The technology has been greeted with mixed reviews, with some saying that not all the special effects were that 'special', with the smoke and scents hardly made a difference, "While they were strong in the back room near the blowers, they were barely noticeable during the film. In fact, we'd go so far as to say they seemed not to be turned on at all during our screening."  Another critic has argued that, "4DX is a gimmick at best and distracting at worst" but recognizes that "if you're the kind of person that enjoys the occasional big-screen 3D movie to set the experience apart from the what you'd get at home, you'll probably get a kick out of 4DX".  

However, despite the doubts, Cineworld, who the South Korean company has licensed it's technology with, plans to open up 4DX cinema's in Sheffiled and Glasgow this year, and a further four or five each year nationwide.

The screening of each 4D film is a joint venture between the cinema, the distributor and CJ CGV, meaning that the converted film has to get the all-clear from each party before the profits are split 3-way.

It's certainly promising to hear that distributors are continually searching for new and exciting ways to make the viewing experience a unique one in order to create that 'spectacle' that directors and distributors strive for. Particularly because Choi Byung-hwan, CEO of 4DPlex, says that the LA 4DPlex studio receives regular visits from movie producers and actors because "they are interested to see how their film is converted". Apparently, one of the fans of the 4DX technology is Gravity director Alfonso Cuaron, who said he wished he had known about the technology sooner. 

However, there has been no more notable interest from people in the industry since last year and considering 3Ds track record, it suggests that 4DX's prospects don't seem bright. An issue with the technology at this early stage is whether filmmakers will take the technology seriously and see it as a sustainable distribution format, and therefore creatively use it to produce a film that benefits from this type of technology rather than using it as a gimmick to sell tickets. Like Avatar made use of 3D, 4D technology needs a film like this in order to establish itself as a worthy platform.

In order to do this, the technology may need to get past a few hurdles, including the view that stimulating more than just your vision "may stunt creativity by inhibiting viewers from tapping into their imagination."  Also, at a higher price of twice the average cinema ticket, people may be more inclined to spend their money they know will gurantee an enjoyable experience, rather than risking their hard-earned cash on something that may not be.

Nevertheless, the 4DX technology seems to be gaining momentum within in the industry with over 200 feature length films having 4DX technology being tailored to them, including The Hunger Games and Puss in Boots in the U.S and in 2013, 4DPlex adapted 58 films in its conversion labs in LA, 42 of which were from Hollywood.

Drones are Beginning to Take Flight in Hollywood

Photo Credit: Tony Carmean Source

When we think of Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles (UAV’s) or drones as they’re better known as, most people think of surveillance and air strikes – and they’re not wrong! The use of unmanned aircrafts originated from within the military, and the use of drones in intelligence and warfare are constantly in the news, with a U.S. drone strike in Yemen killing 3 suspected al-Qaida fighters in the news yesterday. There have also been sightings of unidentified drones flying over Paris which sparked security concerns from the French Government due to the recent Charlie Hebdo killings. 

However in recent years, the use of drones within the commercial sector has begun to take off, with drones being used for a variety of different purposes. For example, Amazon announced in 2013 that it plans to use drones as part of a new delivery service, and Facebook is planning to use them to provide internet to areas of the world that don’t have access to the internet

Drones have been used within film and TV for the past 10 years, most notably to film the motorbike chase sequence in Skyfall where the company who shot the scene won an Oscar last year for the Scientific and Engineering award.  

Skyfall (2012) Motorbike Chase Scene

However, The U.S. has been extremely strict with its rules about the use of drones for filming. Skyfall and Harry Potter used camera mounted drones to gain aerial shots in other countries where the use of drones were more lenient. However, last September the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in America announced that it will allow the restricted use of drones on film and TV locations to six aerial and video production companies, which include: Astraeus Aerial, Aerial MOB, HeliVideo Productions, Pictorvision Inc., RC Pro Productions Consulting, Vortex Aerial and Snaproll Media.



This means that the unmanned vehicles can only be used on closed sets during the day, they cannot be flown more than 400ft high and must remain within the seeing distance of the pilot of all times, who must hold a special license.
 


Costs: Drones Vs. Helicopters
Source

This comes to a great advantage to production companies as the use of drones is considerably cheaper than hiring a helicopters and a whole flight crew to film aerial shots. Hiring a helicopter for the day can range from $20,000 to $40,000 with a crew whereas operating a drone with a crew only costs around $9,000 to $15,000, considerably lower. Drones also cost much less to insure. Because of the size of drones, they can also become more dynamic, getting higher than a crane, but closer to the subject than in a helicopter, which can cause noise disruption to people on the ground. 

The technology is also beginning to gain recognition within the film industry as a valuable storytelling device.  Earlier this year it was announced that the first drone film festival was being held later this month in New York, The New York Drone Film Festival. According to its website, “the festival provides a platform for aerial filmmakers to showcase their work, emphasising innovative flight technique, aesthetic and beauty, and even epic crashes.” 

Founder of the festival, director, landscape photographer and aerial cinematographer, Randy Scott Slavin, has said that he set up the festival because he wanted the perceptions of drones to change, commenting that “I’m tired of drones being synonymous with questionable legality and FAA regulation. I want to celebrate the art of aerial cinematography”.

Some of the films to feature in the festival next month is feature what people are now describing as “dronies”, an aerial selfie where the camera begins close to their subject, and then move out to reveal the whole setting. 

Additionally, Sundance Film Festival held a panel about drones within the film and TV industry. It was co-hosted by Jigabot LLC, a Utah based provider of robotic devices, and Quadrocopter, where they discussed drone cinematography, safety and new regulations for the industry.

However, there are still major safety concerns surrounding the use of drones, although there has only been one incident since the FAA approval in the U.S, which was in December when the operator said he lost contact with the drone. The drone automatically initiated ‘lost link’ procedures when it lost contact but on its return to the location, is struck “rising terrain”. It was located with “no damage to people or property”, the FAA said. 

In response to the FAA approval, the drone community launched a push to emphasise safety for both recreational and professional use. The campaign was called Know Before You Fly – an effort which was supported by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

Nevertheless, it seems that as drones are becoming more commercial and popular as a recreational activity, there's no denying that drones have the visual spectacle that a crane or helicopter can achieve but for half the price, and could provide the epic cinematic shots that can be worked into a compelling film or TV programme as a narrative device, particularly with the launch of a new film festival dedicated to the technology.

If you still have doubts, take a look at some of these examples where drones have been used. 

Drone in Pripyat

A drone was used to film the forgotten city of Chernobyl by Danny Cooke. The smooth movements of the controlled drone, against reflective guitar music sends shivers down your spine as you look out over the deserted landscape.

OK Go - I Won't Let You Down

Drones were also used to film the alt-pop band, OK Go, music video, 'I Won’t Let You Down'.  It uses a drone to capture fantastic aerial shots, all done in one take at half speed to create this visually spectacular and vibrant piece video.

VFX Artists: Are they getting the Recognition they Deserve?

There’s no escaping Visual Effects these days – it’s become a ubiquitous part of film making.   Of course they’ve always been used in fantasy specials like The Hobbit and Harry Potter, or Sci-Fi films like Gravity and Interstellar but they’re also used in films you wouldn’t think they have.  Apparently historic dramas like Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, the biopic starring Idris Elba, have benefited from the use of VFX.  For Godzilla, in order to complete 960 visual effects shots it required 762 visual effects crew, spending months working on each aspect.  Visual Effects have become a necessary part of the post-production workflow.  

;width:320;wrap:false;" width="320" height="266" style="display:block;margin:5px auto;text-align:center;" class="igm">

'Harry Potter' Visual Effects team reveals Amazing work behind 'Deathly Hallows'

However, over the last few years, there have been backlash at the VFX Industry over working conditions.  Over the last two years “The Association of Digital Artists, Professionals and Technicians (ADAPT) – a trade group formed to address the business interests of the VFX community – organised demonstrations, calling for an end to the subsidy race that has created an uneven playing field, forcing VFX artists to frequently move around the world in order to stay in employed.” Most notably, there was a rally over 500 members of the VFX community along Hollywood Boulevard before the Academy Awards last year. 

OVer 500 VFX artists sport the iconic green of a green screen to demonstrate their anger before the Oscars in 2014.  Source. 

This was a result of notorious VFX company, Rhythm and Hues, filing bankruptcy on 11th February 2011 where 254 employees had to be laid off, which sparked the protest outside the Academy Awards.  It was up for an Academy Award for Life of Pi, which eventually won. Although the company received a $17 million loan in order for the company to finish the projects it already had in the pipeline, there was still uproar within the VFX community.  The company is famous for its creatures and character animation, specialising in digital animals.

The VFX industry is often determined by tax incentives, and as a result VFX studios have decided to move work away from the US to places such as Canada and the UK, which have either forced their employees to move with them in keep their jobs.

For example, last May, after fears that they would shut down their VFX studios all together, Sony announced that its Imageworks special effects facility would move from Culver City, LA to Vancouver, Canada, leaving the VFX industry in LA in “full collapse”

In response to this, an amendment to a proposed legislation to expand California’s film and TV tax credit was changed. The amendment expressed the views of ADAPT:

"which is to pursue a complicated legal process in which trade officials would be compelled to pursue tariffs on things such as visual effects and music scoring, the type of work that has been lost to other countries. Such tariffs would help bring parity to the cost of such work"

Of course this legislation was opposed by major studios which benefit greater from the subsidies offered by other countries. 

Adapt Logo. Source

However, the legislation did not include any funding for the legal efforts of ADAPT. As a result, in an attempt to challenge the film subsidies offered by other countries, a group of visual effects dropped their effort earlier this month due to lack of funds to pursue a legal strategy that would allow US officials to pursue trade action.  As a result, ADAPT was dissolved in January.


The working conditions are also undesirable for VFX artists, particularly in the UK. A report by BBC Newsbeat argued that VFX artists are overworked, often working unlimited unpaid overtime. The studios do not recognise that visual effects is a time consuming process that requires highly skilled professionals. Employers reported that cheques had bounced, and some still have not yet received payment for work completed several months ago, despite the VFX industry contributing around £250 million a year to the UK economy.

So what now for VFX artists? You can tell that VFX artists are not as well valued as you'd think they'd be seeing as they have become an integral part of the film making process in recent years.  Just take a look at end credits to films, the names of VFX crew are almost always listed towards the end, often underneath the name of the receptionist and the caterers.

If VFX artists continue to struggle in getting their rights and efforts recognised by the industry, Elly Hart warns that, 

"Films would halt production, release dates would be missed, merchandising agreements would be broken, the cinemas would have nothing to show, and we would have nothing to watch. If we don’t start addressing these problems soon, there might not be any other way around it."

Is VR Virtually a Reality?

VR – virtual reality – has long been a dream for avid gamers where they can completely immerse themselves within a 360 degree ‘virtual reality’ world with which they can fully interact with. Early versions of VR technology meant that the interaction was limited, graphics were rudimentary, and the technology was primarily marketed at gamers.  With the major landmark hit by Oculus however, its releasing of the highly anticipated virtual reality headset, Oculus Rift, onto the mass market this year, means that the technology is now not only being exploited for gaming, but for cinema too.

On January 26^th 2015, Oculus revealed that it was moving into the realm of cinema with its new film division Oculus Story Studio as it “looks to broaden its horizons and experiment with narrative through virtual reality” .  Oculus Story Studio plans to release five more films this year, one of which is set to be directed by Malificent’s director, Rob Stromberg.

Oculus Story Studio released it’s first ‘film’ at this year’s Sundance Festival with Birdy.  It wasn’t the only VR films to premiere at Sundance with 11 films in total.  Virtual reality debuted at Sundance in 2012 with Nonny de la Peña’s Hunger in Los Angeles which placed viewers in the middle of a food line outside a church. This project was developed by Palmer Luckey, who went on to develop Oculus Rift which was successfully launched on Kickstarter and purchased by Facebook last year for $2 billion.

There were initial concerns with the technology, with limited interaction, static scenes, and even motion sickness.  There have also been concerns with practicality of gaining material to cover 360 degree images, such as the placing of lighting, and to what extent does that viewer interact with the images, and how much, if any, can they alter the storyline.

However, investor Chris Dixon, argues that all the technology needs is a period of experimentation as VR is a completely new medium in which we have to learn how to utilise it.  He wrote that, “filmmakers had no idea what worked and what didn’t: how to write, how to shoot, how to edit, etc.  After decades of experiments they established the grammar of film. We’re about to enter a similar period of exploration with VR.”

Visionary VR has already started to uncover new film making techniques for VR by creating new editing software, which is itself is a Virtual reality. The editing suite is purely situated with a Virtual Reality.  The issue with VR is that it’s easy for viewers to miss the action as things can happen from all different directions, and not just what you see in front of you like the traditional film. “Visionary introduces the concept of partitioning a 3D world into zones, dividing the narrative frame from everything else,” where narratives are temporarily paused whilst viewers cross into different zones, in order to minimize the viewer from missing anything.

A top down view of a 3D world with Visionary's frame system. Source

VR is looking to be more than just ‘hype’ this year, and more of a reality, with VR heading into the mainstream market. Google released a series of apps which allows you to turn your mobile phone into a VR headset with the aid of their Google Cardboard.  For a pricey $200, you can purchase Oculus Rift’s VR headset, as mentioned earlier.  Although there are already several cameras on the market which can film in 360 degrees, a French Company has even developed a portable camera which lets you create your own Virtual Reality by allowing you to film in 360 degrees, which they debuted at this year’s CES.

Additionally, the National Basketball Association announced earlier this week that it was planning to film some of their events with VR cameras from BigLook360 where viewers will be able to access 360 degree 'highlights' for free from Samsung Milk VR store.  Although the viewer can’t interact within the basketball court directly, it is a huge step for VR technology.

So although right now VR is only best experienced in short bursts, it’s being proven that the potential for the technology as a narrative device is becoming a reality.  This means that the film industry will have to establish new storytelling conventions in order to accommodate the interactivie nature of the technology so that they can eventually create a full feature length film (although that’s way into the future!)

IMAX Cinema's: A New Genre

It’s been confirmed that the new Star Wars film Star Wars: Episode VII will shoot part of the film on IMAX cameras, a trend led by Christopher Nolan, who has previously experimented with the large format footage.  Other films had been digitally converted to IMAX format, but Nolan was the first to use IMAX cameras in a major feature length film with The Dark Night, filming 6 sequences using the camera, totalling 40 minutes, and over an hours’ worth in The Dark Knight Rises. 

And Nolan has reached another fete with IMAX technology as Interstellar reached over $100 million profits through IMAX cinemas, and grossing over $185 million worldwide last month.  This milestone has only ever been reached by three other films – Avatar, The Dark Knight Rises and Gravity.

Paul Franklin, Oscar-winning visual effects supervisor who's worked with Noal on numerous occasions, said that it used all four IMAX cameras in existence to film over an hours worth of footage of Interstellar (with the fifth destroyed during the filming of The Dark Knight).  He said that "there's no visual system that comes close to [IMAX].  We chose IMAX because it's the biggest canvas we could to be able to tell the biggest story that we were going to tell".

;width:320;wrap:false;" width="320" height="266" style="display:block;margin:5px auto;text-align:center;" class="igm">

Journey Through Space: Interstellar IMAX Featurette

What is IMAX?

IMAX is both a film format and a projection style that allows for a much higher resolution. IMAX cameras use a much larger film than the standard film camera, allowing a lot more information and detail in its images. As a result, when projected in an IMAX cinema, these images can be displayed on a much larger screen without losing any image quality. IMAX film cameras use 70mm film which is run sideways as opposed to normal film cameras where it’s run vertically.

No feature films have yet been filmed entirely using IMAX cameras (but IMAX has been making short documentaries since the 70s).  One of the reasons for this is that compared to a typical 40lb 35mm movie camera, an IMAX camera weighs a total of 240 pounds that requires special support and rigging to move it around. The 70mm film means that the camera can hold only a three minute reel, taking 20 minutes to reload. It is also extremely noisy whilst it’s running, and most sound has to be done in post-production as a result. 

The average IMAX screen is 16m high by 22m wide, although they can be much larger - the largest IAMX screen in Sydney, Australia is almost twice the size standing at 30m high (equivalent to 8 storey's!) and is the largest format at the moment in which film can be shot on and projected in. 

 Although the average cinema screen serves the acoustics in the room, with the screen angled down towards the audience and special speakers behind the screen to enhance the sound, IMAX seems to offer much more than that.  Each individual IMAX venue has custom, patented speaker systems in which there are a higher frequency response, meaning that higher highs and lows so low they’re as much vibrations as sounds. They also use Proportional Point SourceSound technology so that loud speakers emit greater energy to more distant seats and lesser to closer seats in order to ensure that the ‘sweet spot’ is enlarged to cover the whole cinema rather than just hovering around the centre of the room.

IMAX is not only restricted to flat screens but it has developed the technology for Dome screens, usually situated in museums, which allows for a truly immersive experience, mimicking the average human vision.

;width:320;wrap:false;" width="320" height="266" style="display:block;margin:5px auto;text-align:center;" class="igm">

IMAX Dome 101.  How it works

A new Genre?

The IMAX experience is something that no other type of cinema can provide.  It’s almost as if it has set its own characteristics of film making and consumption, creating its own style of cinema.  Sitting in an IMAX cinema is not just about the spectacle but is an entirely different experience to a normal cinema (even if it as at a higher price than the average £6.54)

Of course there is the larger than life screen which provides a spectacle like no other, however it's also the seating, and the acoustics.  They not only allow you to listen to the film, but also feel it. The style of the large film and big screen distinguishes it from other types of film consumption.  You are forced to sit extremely close to the screen, meaning you have to move your head around to catch what's going on on the other side of the screen. 

In light of the constant improvement of technology at home, as mentioned in the previous post, IMAX is arguably becoming one of the only places where you can fully immerse and view a film in this unique way, which consciously chooses content that utilise the epic style and tone of the cinema with which the technology permits.  

People actively make a decision to view a film in an IMAX, and likewise, IMAX specifically chooses which films, and now TV shows (with Game of Thrones becoming the first TV show to ever be screened on a an IMAX screen), to show on their big screens.  Additionally, using their own technology to create some of the films to exhibit in their theatres is beginning to establish a set of 'conventions' of what an IMAX film should entail, almost creating it's own 'genre' of cinema.

Is TV Becoming the New Cinema?

The International Consumer Electronic Show,
Las Vegas, 2015 Source

Earlier this month, the annual International Consumer Electronic Show (CES), held in Las Vegas between (6^th - 9^th January), was once again the breeding ground for thousands of manufactures around the world to showcase their newest technological innovations.  One of the most highly coveted technologies was the TV screen, with particular focus on 4K (Ultra HIgh Defintion (UHD)).  Sony had four more 4K TV monitors on exhibition than 1080p TV (High Definiton) series putting them further along the transition to 4K than any other TV maker. 

Ross Rubin, Reticle Research Principle Analyst, reckons that 2015 is the year for 4K Televisions: “We have seen 4K television in the past few years, but this certainly marks the year of them becoming affordable and much of the premium over high-definition vanishing”. 

4K seems to be so mainstream that CES was inundated with additional display enhancing technologies, in order to attract attention.  For example, LG unveiled one of their new 4K Ultra HD Television monitors to feature the new Quantum Dot display technology, one of the first products to use this technology. 



Quantum Dot Display Technology Source 

It uses light-emitting crystals “100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair and the crystals range in size from two to 10 nanometers, and emit different colours depending on their size”.  LG claims that Quantum Dot can display an extremely wide colour gamut which is ideal for 4K content.   “By adding a film of quantum dots in front of the LCD backlight, picture colour reproduction rate increases by more than 30 per cent, and overall brightness is also improved, ” making the images more vibrant.

The Samsung UNHU9000, Samsung's most expensive
curved TV monitor which was shown at the CES.  Source

Samsung announced two new series of curved TV monitors, the only TV maker to do so in the lead up to the CES, including a curved 4K TV monitor and a curved 1080p monitor.  





Curved technology has been met with mixed reviews from critics, with some arguing that because you have to sit a very specific position to reap the limited benefits, the cost is too high for such a limited enhancement, it’s just a gimmick that no one will pay the price for the premium.  However, fans of the technology claim that the sense of depth is enhanced as the curved edges of the screen towards the viewer enhances the visual perception of depth, and therefore become more immersed as the screen ‘wraps’ around the viewer.

An Aliance was born

Ofcom Consumer
Research 2012 (Click here)

Major television manufacturers, movie studios and streaming video services have joined forces in hopes of showing that 4K ultra High Definition television is not a gimmick, unlike 3D televisions.  This is because from 2012, significantly more people opted to purchase TV sets that had Digital Video Recorders (DVR) built in rather than those that were 3D ready. 

Therefore, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, LG and Sharp, plus Netflix and movie studios Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Brothers and Disney have all united to form the UHD Alliance in order to "push the adoption of 4K video and help cement it as the next video standard".  

Both Netflix and now Amazon Instant have announced a selection of titles available to stream in 4K, but this alliance "will ensure UHD content and devices are ready for the mainstream, for a healthy UHD economy with the best possible content delivered in the easiest and best way to consumers", argues Hyunsuk Kim, Samsung's president of visual display.  Although it probably won't boost sales dramatically, the formation of such a group will put confidence in the technology for consumers. 

UHD Alliance was announced at a press conference at the CES, 2015.Source

Is TV the New Cinema?

Answer is, not any time soon.  Firstly, one problem with Quantum Dot technology is that it requires the chemical, Cadmium, which is on the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) regulation list, although LG has said that it has found a way to employ the technology without using cadmium.  Curved monitors are still in its infancy, with many people sceptical over its benefits outweighing the high cost of the monitor, and most cinema screens are curved because of audio benefits, not visual.   Although 4K TV monitors are dropping in price, in a time where disposable income is still limited, people are not going to buy a new TV when their HD TV is suiting them just fine.  And with better cameras coming out which can film up to 8K, cinema projectors will adapt and 4K TV screens will eventually become obsolete, just like VHS tapes, and even newer, even better technology capable of doing things we can only dream about now, will become mainstream.

The combination of the larger than life screen, the cinema seats, the immense sound, the atmosphere and the popcorn, all make the cinema going experience all the more unique, one which is hard to emulate at home, even with technology enhancing screens at home. Although people can watch films in much better quality than they could 5 years ago, technology is always going to change, and by the time home technology has caught up with cinema technology, cinema technology will be doing something completely new, which is one of the reasons film formats, and film technology is always changing - and it keeps the films coming out of Hollywood interesting.