The Hobbit 48fps/ HIGH FRAME RATE discussion thread.

[The Ween]

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

I think my insurance will pay over half of it, so I'd really like to get it. Thinking about them cutting the top of my eyeball off makes me cringe though.

 

[Calcifer]

I need to see this hfr version, I know I might very well hate it but I'm just too curious at this stage.

 

[The Iron Koob]

I saw it but I didn't know what it meant. The movie looked great but I thought it was because it was in 3d. That star trek trailer was the shiznit

 

[Hound]

I think my insurance will pay over half of it, so I'd really like to get it. Thinking about them cutting the top of my eyeball off makes me cringe though.

Same here, that is my one worry, that and your awake while they do it. Well at least, last time I checked into it.

 

[The Ween]

Same here, that is my one worry, that and your awake while they do it. Well at least, last time I checked into it.

You are. I've seen it done several times. It doesn't take long, it's just the idea of it. :shudder:

 

[Khev]

I need to see this hfr version, I know I might very well hate it but I'm just too curious at this stage.

I think everyone owes it to themselves to see it just to judge for themselves.

I did find the 24fps 3D to be the superior movie watching experience but to me the HFR version is the ultimate "special feature" or production diary. Its like watching the extras on a blu-ray on a massive 3D screen and is simply extra information that every true fan of either the created world or the filmmaking experience should see and appreciate.

 

[Jen]

Just saw it in the 48fps and 3D. Wasn't blown away by it. In fact the brightness and clarity ended up taking me out of the film more often than not. With such great detail - you are able to notice more flaws in costuming/makeup/sets that I don't think would be as apparent with 24fps. It was so bright...it felt like I was watching a tv show or soap opera. I just didn't care for it.

24fps keeps things looking soft and more gentle on the eyes...makes it easy to let myself get submerged in Middle Earth.

Also, I didn't really see any need for this to be in 3D.

Anyway....48fps is too distracting for me...and dampened my movie going experience. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie again in 24fps.

 

[BadMoon]

Im going to see this in Imax 3D. Is that the weird 48fps or normal 24?

I'm so excited, my wife found someone to watch our little ones and is taking me for my birthday!

I never thought I would get to see it!

 

[The Ween]

Im going to see this in Imax 3D. Is that the weird 48fps or normal 24?

I'm so excited, my wife found someone to watch our little ones and is taking me for my birthday!

I never thought I would get to see it!

They have it both ways. You'll have to check the list and see if your theater is on it.

 

[Khev]

Im going to see this in Imax 3D. Is that the weird 48fps or normal 24?

I'm so excited, my wife found someone to watch our little ones and is taking me for my birthday!

I never thought I would get to see it!

Good to hear. I'd check in advance and if you're only going to be able to see it once go for 24fps 3D even if it means skipping the IMAX. If you can see it twice I'd recommend 24fps first and then the HFR. The HFR is so iffy (only one or two people here prefer it) that I wouldn't risk it taking you out of your one and only big screen viewing experience.

 

[BadMoon]

I think it's just regular 3D Imax (something believe it or not I've never done ever). I haven't had a desire to go into the city and pay that much per ticket.

It looks like the closest HFR theater is over an hour away. I wouldn't drive that.

 

[lcummins]

Ok, I'll chime in on the HFR... I didn't really know anything about it other than it was 48fps vs 24fps. I hadn't heard of any of the controversies or issues going in, so I wasn't looking for anything. I personally didn't really notice much difference from a 24fps 3D movie. I absolutely had no issues with the HFR 3D version. I'm going to go see it again in 24fps 3D and see if I notice any differences. I wonder how much people are being influenced by knowing about the controversy before seeing it in HFR 3D?

 

[Reinhardt]

So I finally saw it in HFR. My friend said it best. It's like you are watching a play. Or you are on the set. Not in Middle Earth, but in New Zealand. The first hour was horrendous to me, in particular the prologue. But that could have been because I wasn't used to it. It was much better as the movie went on, but it wasn't ever better than 24 fps.

Since it felt like a play, nothing felt as dramatic, or as life threatening. Further, as people have mentioned, it often looked like the camera was under cranked. In particular when people were fighting. Further, during the scenes where the camera was panning, there is no question that it looked really smooth. But as a result, it felt like the pan was moving too fast, and almost as if Jackson was in a rush to finish the panning shot.

Yes everything was clearer, but how much clearer do we want things to be? With 1080p, things are plenty clear.

I really appreciate that Jackson took a risk, and that he is on the forefront of technology. But for me, while I am glad I saw it this way, I am happier that I saw it in 24 fps first. I would have really had major issues with the film if I saw it in 48 fps first.

 

[Adolfo]

The number one thing in regards to different formats is choice...as long as we gottem at the theaters it's ok.....otherwise I will go from now on only to 24fps non 3D shows only till I'm dead.....The day no choice is available then death!

 

[darthviper107]

So I finally saw it in HFR. My friend said it best. It's like you are watching a play. Or you are on the set. Not in Middle Earth, but in New Zealand. The first hour was horrendous to me, in particular the prologue. But that could have been because I wasn't used to it. It was much better as the movie went on, but it wasn't ever better than 24 fps.

Since it felt like a play, nothing felt as dramatic, or as life threatening. Further, as people have mentioned, it often looked like the camera was under cranked. In particular when people were fighting. Further, during the scenes where the camera was panning, there is no question that it looked really smooth. But as a result, it felt like the pan was moving too fast, and almost as if Jackson was in a rush to finish the panning shot.

Yes everything was clearer, but how much clearer do we want things to be? With 1080p, things are plenty clear.

I really appreciate that Jackson took a risk, and that he is on the forefront of technology. But for me, while I am glad I saw it this way, I am happier that I saw it in 24 fps first. I would have really had major issues with the film if I saw it in 48 fps first.

It was higher than 1080p, I'm pretty sure it was 4k

 

[Reinhardt]

It was higher than 1080p, I'm pretty sure it was 4k

I have no doubt that it was higher. My point was simply that do we really need higher resolution? I don't really want to feel like I am on the set (unless I am watching a documentary).

 

[Sachiel]

Most films are and have been shot at a higher resolution than "1080".

 

[Bullseye]

35mm is 4k and much higher than 1080p. It's needed because we watch images on much bigger screens in the cinema. I've recently seen a 4K TV and its amazing, there is also an 8k TV which is essentially 70mm quality of IMAX. You would need a pretty big living room in order to have an 80" or more 4k or 8k TV. And serious broadband capibility to stream movies at that size. It's totally impractible at this time. Maybe in 10years things will be different. But regardless of resolution 45fps is not cinematic and most if not all cinema is 24fps. I'd still prefer to be watching 24fps on my 4k TV.

 

[Khev]

Interesting HFR tidbit from thedigitalbits.com:

[Editor’s Note: Jeff certainly isn’t alone in feeling disappointed by his HFR experience of The Hobbit, but I wanted to add a cautionary note. I’ve also seen the film twice now. The first viewing was an HFR 3D projection using active shutter glasses (I believe from XpanD) at the new Cinepolis in Rancho Santa Margarita, CA. This was very disappointing: Not only did the active glasses give me a headache just an hour into the film, but the 3D experience itself was lackluster and it dampened my enjoyment of the film significantly. My first experience of HFR was a complete letdown and head-scratcher – less enjoyable even than most run of the mill 24fps 3D experiences. Then I saw the film again in HFR 3D a couple days later using passive RealD 3D glasses at the RPX theatre in Regal’s Edwards Irvine Spectrum 21. The difference was shocking. It was – quite simply – the best and most impressive 3D experience I’ve had to date. Clarity was superb and the 3D depth and “pop-out” (to use Jeff’s phrasing) was extraordinary. It was a very enjoyable screening and I wasn’t surprised to find that I liked the film significantly better because of it. The point of all this is to explain that I believe the quality of the HFR 3D experience you’re going to get varies dramatically from theatre to theatre. This may be because of the specific 3D delivery format (RealD, Dolby, XpanD, MasterImage, IMAX, etc), it may be because the projectors aren’t properly set-up and it may simply be because the HFR process is so new – perhaps all three. It’s worth remembering that these are the very early days of the technology. In any case, before you dismiss HFR 3D entirely I strongly suggest you see it in a couple different theatre and delivery format combinations. I suspect you’ll be as surprised as I was at the differences from one viewing location to the next. - Bill Hunt]

I wonder if some members here who despised the HFR were watching it with active glasses. I wore the passive Real3D and found it quite enjoyable thought I do still prefer the artistry of 24fps.

 

[The Josh]

I saw it in IMAX so I don't know what that means as far as that goes.