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

[WelshBloke]

Could be like when HD came out some stuff looked worse on it because you could see all the imperfections.

Yeah, that I an agree with. But its not a reason to move on.

Its like saying we shouldn't have moved to colour film as it made the "red" lipstick look green. :biggrin:

 

[WelshBloke]

It's a film...

Which is a visual way of telling a story. The visual bit is quite important.

 

[shortylickens]

Well, HD was weird at first not just cuz of imperfections in the film, but because many studios jumped on the bandwagon too fast and did absolutely horrid transfers. Giant pixels all over the god damn place.

Also, I dont like most HD movies unless the film has been cleaned up somewhat and the color has been restored. And not many folks are willing to do that. Bluray is quick easy cash, why would they invest money to fix anything?

 

[purbeast0]

A generation from now when kiddies are used to it, they will wonder how you got by on slide-shows.

Kinda like people who think B&W is better. It seems silly to those of us who grew up with color.

totally different. soap opera effect makes movies look like they are on a stage in costume. without that it doesn't feel that way at all.

 

[Geosurface]

Which is a visual way of telling a story. The visual bit is quite important.

Well I haven't been following the thread so I'm not sure if you're defending 48 fps, 3D, or both.

But for a moment forgive me for assuming you are defending 3D, at least in part.

If so... let me ask you something.

At what point do you think serious dramas, romantic comedies, etc will start being featured in 3D? What would it bring to those genres?

Would Schindler's List or Shawshank Redemption or Love Actually benefit from having been filmed in 3D?

Or would it end up being a gimmicky distraction from just focusing on the story?

 

[mnewsham]

See I don't find the 3D distracting enough to make me lose focus of the story, so to be honest I wouldn't mind any film in 3D. As long as it is tasteful, ie. don't add in silly leaves falling in 3D just because you can, don't make it obvious that you are trying to point out the 3D bits. I would like to see 3D added in so it is inconspicuous and unassuming, but still adds some depth to the film.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

this is supposed to be a new format though. might as well try it once. if you don't like it sometimes you can complain to the manager after like 10 or 15 mins and get a refund/voucher.

 

[mnewsham]

this is supposed to be a new format though. might as well try it once. if you don't like it sometimes you can complain to the manager after like 10 or 15 mins and get a refund/voucher.

Im going to give the whole showing a shot, if I don't like it I now know, if I do then good for me.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Saw it in IMAX 3d HFR tonight. Would like to see it without the 3D as I personally don't think it adds anything. Noticed the 48fps the most with sequences with high action and running water.

 

[darkewaffle]

I think, even if someone sees it and dislikes it, it's probably not going to accurately reflect on the quality of HFR in the future. The first color movies, the first 3D movies, the first HD videos all pale in comparison (in technical terms) to those that come even just few years later.

I don't know how much of Hobbit 2 has been completed (if any?) yet, but I'd bet the production crew already has a long list of ideas and changes and new things to try in HFR that they picked up from working Hobbit 1. I'm curious if they keep the 'look' of the films consistent or if they let it evolve.

 

[Aharami]

Black & white is amazing and is often better, but I see your point.

However, people have seen soap operas for a long time and they have never looked good. Can't imagine anyone preferring that over anything coming out in cinemas.

KT

if B&W is so amazing, how come we don't see in black and white?

 

[randomrogue]

if B&W is so amazing, how come we don't see in black and white?

That's a very odd argument.

B/W is artistic today. Back in the day it was the only option. Either way there are many photographs that look much better in Black and White. Movies like Schindler's List definitely benefited from the color treatment it got.

 

[purbeast0]

I think, even if someone sees it and dislikes it, it's probably not going to accurately reflect on the quality of HFR in the future. The first color movies, the first 3D movies, the first HD videos all pale in comparison (in technical terms) to those that come even just few years later.

I don't know how much of Hobbit 2 has been completed (if any?) yet, but I'd bet the production crew already has a long list of ideas and changes and new things to try in HFR that they picked up from working Hobbit 1. I'm curious if they keep the 'look' of the films consistent or if they let it evolve.

avatar is probably the best non-animated 3d movie i've ever seen, and that is also one of the first 3d movies that hit the theaters. so im gonna have to disagree with your comment.

 

[darkewaffle]

avatar is probably the best non-animated 3d movie i've ever seen, and that is also one of the first 3d movies that hit the theaters. so im gonna have to disagree with your comment.

3D films have existed in some form since 1915, but had been largely relegated to a niche in the motion picture industry because of the costly hardware and processes required to produce and display a 3D film, and the lack of a standardized format for all segments of the entertainment business. Nonetheless, 3D films were prominently featured in the 1950s in American cinema, and later experienced a worldwide resurgence in the 1980s and 1990s driven by IMAX high-end theaters and Disney themed-venues. 3D films became more and more successful throughout the 2000s, culminating in the unprecedented success of 3D presentations of Avatar in December 2009 and January 2010.

Wiki source but you get the idea. 3D has been around for nearly a century, Avatar was able to draw upon years upon years worth of experience and technological maturation to get it "right".

 

[darkewaffle]

if B&W is so amazing, how come we don't see in black and white?

Reminded me of this.

 

[Exodist]

I cant do the theater 3D because it fucks with my eyes. I wear contacts and the glasses aren't very friendly.

I thought it was just me.. My contacts suck night/dark anyway..

 

[kache]

Got to wait next week to see it in 48fps, dammit.

Can't wait!

 

[KeithTalent]

if B&W is so amazing, how come we don't see in black and white?

I wish I could!

KT

 

[mnewsham]

Just came back from the HFR 3D viewing, and I must say it took about 30-45 minutes to get fully used to the HFR, but once I had it was actually really good, you have to somewhat push out of your mind what you think a movie SHOULD look like, and embrace what you are currently seeing, I found it very satisfying to watch after a short adjustment period.

 

[BrokenVisage]

if B&W is so amazing, how come we don't see in black and white?

Once you go black and white, you never go back amirite?

 

[amdhunter]

Oh my god. I saw the HFR IMAX 3D version.

1) You guys know how 120Hz TVs look? Imagine that on crack. HOLY SHIT the 120Hz effect was in full force. It was like someone threw butter on top of a 120Hz TV, then dipped the screen in KY jelly. It was too damned smooth. You could see the slightest variance in the camera and instantly get disgusted at how fake it looked. Everything was exaggerated.

2) The movie was awful. It's like it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a musical, comedy, drama, or fantasy.

Spoiler

What's up with that 30 minute "tell me a riddle" scene?

I wanted to slash my wrists when that part went on. People actually started to grumble when it went on for more than 2 sentences.

3) Introducing old characters - couldn't they have done it better somehow? They tried to make it all dramatic, and, the corny ways they all got introduced combined with 120Hz, made me want to get up and leave. One of us was a big fan of LOTR, and we only stood there because of him and didn't want to appear rude.

Jesus Hume Christ, that was the ultimate torture.

Only good things about the movie was Superman trailer, and the 10 minute preview of Star Trek.

 

[Savarak]

I just got back, I LOVED the HFR and 3D... all the blurriness that action movies have, is gone, and looks amazing!

 

[Gooberlx2]

Oh my god. I saw the HFR IMAX 3D version.

1) You guys know how 120Hz TVs look? Imagine that on crack. HOLY SHIT the 120Hz effect was in full force. It was like someone threw butter on top of a 120Hz TV, then dipped the screen in KY jelly. It was too damned smooth. You could see the slightest variance in the camera and instantly get disgusted at how fake it looked. Everything was exaggerated.

2) The movie was awful. It's like it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a musical, comedy, drama, or fantasy.

Spoiler

What's up with that 30 minute "tell me a riddle" scene?

I wanted to slash my wrists when that part went on. People actually started to grumble when it went on for more than 2 sentences.

3) Introducing old characters - couldn't they have done it better somehow? They tried to make it all dramatic, and, the corny ways they all got introduced combined with 120Hz, made me want to get up and leave. One of us was a big fan of LOTR, and we only stood there because of him and didn't want to appear rude.

Jesus Hume Christ, that was the ultimate torture.

Only good things about the movie was Superman trailer, and the 10 minute preview of Star Trek.

I'd like to see more opinions, but that pretty much echoes my friend's. According to him, the HFR greatly exaggerates any effect imperfections to the point that you get distracted and can't suspend disbelief. When it worked it was stunning, when it didn't it was glaring. 3D was stunning and takes care of the choppy motion problems with fast action and panning.

Movie is too long and exceedingly boring for the first hour and 45 mins, or so. The feel/atmosphere is inconsistent between being dark or campy. Doesn't live up to LoTR.

Regardless, I wanna see what the HFR looks like for myself, so I'll go see it anyway. I imagine how HFR could be excellent for wildlife documentaries or animated movies...at least until the ability to blend effects with it becomes more convincing.

 

[mnewsham]

I'd like to see more opinions, but that pretty much echoes my friend's. According to him, the HFR greatly exaggerates any effect imperfections to the point that you get distracted and can't suspend disbelief. When it worked it was stunning, when it didn't it was glaring. 3D was stunning and takes care of the choppy motion problems with fast action and panning.

Movie is too long and exceedingly boring for the first hour and 45 mins, or so. The feel/atmosphere is inconsistent between being dark or campy. Doesn't live up to LoTR.

Regardless, I wanna see what the HFR looks like for myself, so I'll go see it anyway. I imagine how HFR could be excellent for wildlife documentaries or animated movies...at least until the ability to blend effects with it becomes more convincing.

It lives up to the book though, the hobbit was a dreadful read for the first part, so boring.

 

[glen]

HRF - 3 things here that were VERY different: 1, the 4k - HOLYS!t is it detailed. This is great with the 3d, because normally 3d looks a little blurry to me. You knwo how a 3d movie looks blurry when you take the glasses off? This was so sharp, with the glasses off, it was almost as good a normal film as far as sharpness. 2, the color and lighting are different. Almost as if the contrast were turned up a bit too much. I think this is what is making people say it looks like TV 3, The 48FPS - wow. Perfect. Normally I hate 3d. It is blurry, hurts my eyes, doesn't look right, etc... This just looked like giant hobbits in front of me.