The Hobbit.. in HFR (high frame rate) 3D

[darkewaffle]

Edited to add: I don't know if it was the framerate, the 3d or something else, but I didn't think that the scenery and buildings looked as good as they did in the original trilogy. Particularly Rivendale. It just looked....fake.

To be fair, when I watched LOTR on blu-ray over one weekend last year, you notice how crappy some of the little things in that movie are as well. Whenever Frodo meets the elf maiden in the woods and sees the Shire burning in his 'vision', it looks awful. And some of the shots of Gandalf on the stone bridge facing off against the Balroc are real bad too, Gandalf looks like he was copy and pasted right out of paint at times.

I think the increased frame rate will ultimately be a good thing, but it's essentially the first "movie" (big movie, at least) to ever use it. It'll take time for the people who make the movies to adjust to the technology and understand what looks good in it, what doesn't, what needs to change, etc.

 

[slayernine]

Seriously? "It doesn't look fake enough, I hate it!"

I know right, I for one much prefer realism. high frame rates for the win.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

i hate the soap opera affect. I read a review on rottentomatoes and the guy said you can see how cheap everything looks also. I'd check it out at least once though. Never know if you'll prefer it over the other.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/..._new_tolkien_movie_is_too_long_and_looks.html

 

[kache]

Any theater showing 48fps 2D version, by chance?

 

[kache]

I'm looking forward to experiencing it. I hate watching anything fast paced at 24fps, it's just a blurry mess.

*

 

[KeithTalent]

Really? first you are hearing of this? Ignored all of the other threads on it did you? :hmm:

KT

 

[JimKiler]

Any theater showing 48fps 2D version, by chance?

No, originally they discussed they would do 48fps 2D but Warner is only do it on 3D, perhaps because 3D has more to gain from a HFR.

To be fair, when I watched LOTR on blu-ray over one weekend last year, you notice how crappy some of the little things in that movie are as well. Whenever Frodo meets the elf maiden in the woods and sees the Shire burning in his 'vision', it looks awful. And some of the shots of Gandalf on the stone bridge facing off against the Balroc are real bad too, Gandalf looks like he was copy and pasted right out of paint at times.

I think the increased frame rate will ultimately be a good thing, but it's essentially the first "movie" (big movie, at least) to ever use it. It'll take time for the people who make the movies to adjust to the technology and understand what looks good in it, what doesn't, what needs to change, etc.

But we all loved and embraced 3D when Avatar came out. /sarcasm.

 

[kache]

No, originally they discussed they would do 48fps 2D but Warner is only do it on 3D, perhaps because 3D has more to gain from a HFR.

Meh, 3d is a pain for me, because of my glasses. I might just wait the 48fps 2D bluray and watch that.

 

[purbeast0]

Meh, 3d is a pain for me, because of my glasses. I might just wait the 48fps 2D bluray and watch that.

i watch 3d at home with eye glasses and 3d glasses on top of them no problem.

 

[KeithTalent]

Meh, 3d is a pain for me, because of my glasses. I might just wait the 48fps 2D bluray and watch that.

Yeah, this, even when I wear my contacts it's awful. Fuck all that 3D bullshit.

Regular 2D for me in the theatre I guess.

KT

 

[JimKiler]

Meh, 3d is a pain for me, because of my glasses. I might just wait the 48fps 2D bluray and watch that.

Yeah, this, even when I wear my contacts it's awful. Fuck all that 3D bullshit.

Regular 2D for me in the theatre I guess.

KT

You are forgetting there is no 48fps standard for current Blu Ray. I suppose when they go 4K they will add 48fps and 60fps.

Maybe the X Men sequel will have 48fps in 2D for us.

 

[KeithTalent]

You are forgetting there is no 48fps standard for current Blu Ray. I suppose when they go 4K they will add 48fps and 60fps.

Maybe the X Men sequel will have 48fps in 2D for us.

Ah ok, then just regular 2D then. Though after thumbing through some reviews, not sure I am going to be buying this on baby Blu anyway.

KT

 

[kache]

There is only one reason I am interested in this movie, and it's HFR. Without that I have no reason to watch it at all.

 

[darkewaffle]

Wait so is the 48FPS version 3D-only? I think I'm getting mixed up here.

 

[KeithTalent]

Wait so is the 48FPS version 3D-only? I think I'm getting mixed up here.

Apparently.

KT

 

[randomrogue]

My local paper published an article about the HFR, We're getting a lot of vomiters seeing this movie and they have it down to 2 possible reasons.

1. Illness by suggestion. People hear that the HFR might make you ill and they get ill.
2. They don't think it's the 48 fps. It's that the movie is filmed with two cameras at 24 fps that are at a slight angle to each other. This produces the 3D affect. Unfortunately what your eyes do is try to focus on the screen as well as right in front of the screen for the 3D. This is what's causing problems for people.

I haven't seen it yet. I'm waiting to hear from friends that saw it and then I'll go this weekend.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I'd like to see it in 48fps in 2D. 3D just isn't that great.

 

[K1052]

The biggest problem is that audiences are used to seeing 24fps for generations and set filming in 48fps dramatically changes the feel of what we are used to seeing. Outdoor shots in 48fps look fucking amazing. CGI animated 48fps also is going to be spectacular.

It's possible the backlash against set filmed 48fps might delay more implementation until they can figure out how to soften it up a bit without damaging the quality.

 

[Meractik]

I cannot view 3d movies because one of my eyes is severely under-developed nerve wise so the vision in it is impaired (especially perifieral *sp?* vision) which makes 3d movies look basically like regular movies to me, nothing pops out. So i avoid the extra cost...

But this 24fps vs 48fps leaves me wondering.... is there a difference? I mean eyes see 30fps right but in my understanding boosting the fps helps in high motion pictures because it deters blurring? So whats the real difference between normal 24 and 48?

 

[Worthington]

what do you mean "eyes see 30fps? If you mean that's the highest discernable frame rate the human eye can detect, thats waaaaaay off.

 

[Meractik]

what do you mean "eyes see 30fps? If you mean that's the highest discernable frame rate the human eye can detect, thats waaaaaay off.

What i mean is, according to my understanding is that in order to not see a jitter/skip the frame-rate needs to at least be 30fps, right? I could be wrong but that is what I thought.

 

[randomrogue]

24 fps in a dark room. Not sure where you're getting the 30fps from though.

 

[Meractik]

24 fps in a dark room. Not sure where you're getting the 30fps from though.

ive kinda wondered why the newer MKV formats utilize 24FPS and always thought that when I can see the interlacing take place of the lines on the screen showing up occasionally that the factor that it was '24fps' was to blame.... but i thought they did it to save file size instead of utilizing 30 fps.... aka 5fps not being that big a difference maybe? :/

 

[SKORPI0]

What is the Highest Frame Rate the Human Eye Can Perceive?

the larger the stimulus area, the faster the frame rate needed to saturate human perception. Human perception response drops off at 60fps.

 

[Juddog]

Ugh...it's going to look awful

I can't STAND anything over 24fps

edit:". The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video. T"

yep, my sentiments exactly

So you hate computer monitors then, and games that play above 24fps?