The Hobbit 48fps/ HIGH FRAME RATE discussion thread.

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I watched the film with my sister and her boyfriend. When I asked their opinion on the 48fps afterwards, neither of them knew wtf I was talking about because they did not notice any change.

I've read a lot of diverse reactions from posts online but I'm wondering what the general consensus is from people who had no clue their viewing was HFR. Did they also notice no difference?

I was looking for differences but experienced none of the distractions others have said regarding "feeling like a BBC production." Azog felt a little like a video-game cutscene during close-ups but that was due to other factors also such as his design, lighting, camera angle etc. Radagast and the wargs also looked iffy chasing across the grassy plains but I don't think HFR was the soul cause of that. A bit more time spent in post-production could've improved that scene. Possibly adding dust and air movement through the grass.

The 3D remained a distraction for me as It has always been but it was more bearable. There were no blurry layers of depth flickering across screen. The part in bold, I think, is the biggest advantage of 48fps and one of the key reasons PJ chose it in the first place.
 
I took my Mom to see it yesterday. We finally got her to watch the original three, and she really enjoyed them, so she was looking forward to seeing The Hobbit as well. This was my first viewing of the film, and I really wanted to see the HFR version, so we chose that one. I'd been following the production/controversy for quite some time now, but I still didn't know what to expect, which was exciting. I told her beforehand that all I knew was that the film was going to look "different," so be prepared.

From the very first second when the New Line logo flew in, I absolutely hated it (the actual film hadn't even started yet,) and for the next 170 minutes, I didn't (even for a moment) get used to it. I enjoyed the film, because the film itself is really, really good, but the high frame rate was unbelievably awful looking.

Afterwards I asked my Mom what she thought, and she said she didn't really notice the difference.
 
To be honest, people who appreciate and love film really don't notice the difference. I know that sounds cocky as hell..but it's true. Most people don't care that much. And that's fine. But for those who do care, it ceases to be a film when it's shot like that.
 
To be honest, people who appreciate and love film really don't notice the difference. I know that sounds cocky as hell..but it's true. Most people don't care that much. And that's fine. But for those who do care, it ceases to be a film when it's shot like that.
I think you skipped a word :rotfl
 
Yes I did. :lol

Haha. I'm trying to work on this project, and drinking absinthe at the same time.

What I meant was...people who DON'T love and appreciate film, that ONLY watch it just for entertainment, and nothing at all, in any way more, they don't know, nor care about the frame rate. :D
 
I watched the film with my sister and her boyfriend. When I asked their opinion on the 48fps afterwards, neither of them knew wtf I was talking about because they did not notice any change.

I've read a lot of diverse reactions from posts online but I'm wondering what the general consensus is from people who had no clue their viewing was HFR. Did they also notice no difference?

I was looking for differences but experienced none of the distractions others have said regarding "feeling like a BBC production." Azog felt a little like a video-game cutscene during close-ups but that was due to other factors also such as his design, lighting, camera angle etc. Radagast and the wargs also looked iffy chasing across the grassy plains but I don't think HFR was the soul cause of that. A bit more time spent in post-production could've improved that scene. Possibly adding dust and air movement through the grass.

The 3D remained a distraction for me as It has always been but it was more bearable. There were no blurry layers of depth flickering across screen. The part in bold, I think, is the biggest advantage of 48fps and one of the key reasons PJ chose it in the first place.

I went with my girlfriend who is not really into movies (she just watches romantic comedies for the fun of it -nothing wrong with that, I like them too) and she complained about the quality of the image. It was distracting to her.
 
I took my Mom to see it yesterday. We finally got her to watch the original three, and she really enjoyed them, so she was looking forward to seeing The Hobbit as well. This was my first viewing of the film, and I really wanted to see the HFR version, so we chose that one. I'd been following the production/controversy for quite some time now, but I still didn't know what to expect, which was exciting. I told her beforehand that all I knew was that the film was going to look "different," so be prepared.

From the very first second when the New Line logo flew in, I absolutely hated it (the actual film hadn't even started yet,) and for the next 170 minutes, I didn't (even for a moment) get used to it. I enjoyed the film, because the film itself is really, really good, but the high frame rate was unbelievably awful looking.

Afterwards I asked my Mom what she thought, and she said she didn't really notice the difference.

I have astigmatism and there have been times that 3D has caused me to have focusing problems. My mother can't watch 3D at all. There's no where around me showing the 48fps so I have no idea if I would have problems with it.
 
That's funny I have an astigmatism as well Ween. Without my contacts I'm legally blind. :lol

That explains why you liked the HFR! You forgot to wear your contacts, and were blind for the showing! :rotfl

Sorry Josh, I couldn't resist a little good natured ribbing. ;)
 
That's funny I have an astigmatism as well Ween. Without my contacts I'm legally blind. :lol

I have contacts but rarely wear them anymore cause of my dry eyes. Maybe I should try wearing them for 3D movies.

I seriously thinking about getting them lasered, but.....:panic:
 
If yu do it, do it as a last resort, as I know two people who have gotten it done and both had major problems afterwards. Mostly build up of eye pressure which medication can help, but it was still a big problem for them.

Did they go to the same doctor?

I know so many that have gotten it and have said they wish they would've done it sooner.
 
If yu do it, do it as a last resort, as I know two people who have gotten it done and both had major problems afterwards. Mostly build up of eye pressure which medication can help, but it was still a big problem for them.

It's something I've thought about the possible issues. I really hate wearing eye glasses so when I can no longer wear contacts it's something I'll check into.
 
It's something I've thought about the possible issues. I really hate wearing eye glasses so when I can no longer wear contacts it's something I'll check into.

I know, I can certainly understand, I have had glasses since Kindergarten and also suffer from astygmatism, so my sight isnt getting any better either. I would hate to dissuade you from something that might make your life better, wherein my limited experience relies only on 2 people.

I guess my best advice would be to go to a Laser surgery provider you know has an excellent track record.

Did they go to the same doctor?

I know so many that have gotten it and have said they wish they would've done it sooner.

I dont know if they were the same Doctor, I suppose it is possible. It sounds like you have a foundation of positive word from which you can draw upon to find a good doctor, I just know my Mother (one of the two people) suffered very bad eye pain and pressure for years after the surgery, but then again, she never said she regretted getting it.
 
I totally am cool with you mentioning it. I've heard of stuff like that and would totally check things out. It's my eyes and I need them. I appreciate the words. :duff
 
Finally got the chance to see this again in good old regular 2D 24 frames per second tonight. I was surprised to see the theater very packed again for this showing. Granted it's the weekend, but the film must be doing very well. I know it beat Django...

Just wanted to chime in one more time on this topic and make some observations. Watching the introductory portion, I felt it was lacking in 2D, and was really made for 3D and even the HFR. I missed it, and was surprised to find I felt this way. But then when I got the the more traditional shots, those being real actors and sets, in normal motion, I was very much more happy with the 2D than I was with the HFR, etc.

So, I'm just saying I actually liked the HFR in some respects. Perhaps 15% of the film benefited from the high frame rate and 3D.

That's all. Thanks for listening. :D

Also, this film is really growing on me. I may even end up preferring this series over the LOTR series! Wow. It's just so fantastical.
 
Did they go to the same doctor?

I know so many that have gotten it and have said they wish they would've done it sooner.

My father-in-law got his eyes lasered 2 years ago & said he regretted not doing it sooner. He didn't have any problems
 
Back
Top