Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Hobbit at 48fps...

One negative review said, "people move too smoothly." That's not a thing.

Notice that these reviews never say it looks objectively bad but rather that it looks too much like [a lower-production-value medium which is more typically associated with high framerates]. At least some get creative and compare it to a "video game" instead of "home movies."

It's just decades of conditioning. If the industry started today releasing every single film in 48fps, people would stop disliking it by, like, April.

Even 3D will be fine once it can be done without the ridiculous glasses.
 
even though it's all being distributed in 2k, i'm sure there are some 4k projectors showing it.
 
Saw it tonight in 3D HFR (48 fps).

Didn't like it. The magic was gone. This is definitely not for everyone.

Will see it again in 2D at 24 fps in a few days.

Other than the frame rate - and the 3D which I'm not a fan of - the movie was beautiful.

Can't wait to rediscover it in 2D !
 
just watched the movie last night, IMAX 48FPS 3D version

though we do not like 3d movie, we just gone "wow~"

beautiful images that we never felt, 48fps was better to see with glass

and 3d streoscopic was accurate

Congrats
 
Good lord, how cheap are some of you? It's $10.00 for a night of entertainment. An entertainment that you should invest in especially if its your business. It's also a write off. If you want to see films on the scale of the Hobbit no matter how much you disagree or agree with the HFR or 3D or it being shot digitally etc etc etc than you shouldn't complain about the price of admission. Don't forget this is a business and the only reason guys like Peter Jackson have a job and get to make BIG movies is because people go and see them and pay for the over priced popcorn and soda which helps keep the theaters going. It's pretty simple. Going to the movies is a great treat and the price of admission is very reasonable IMO. Oh, and I almost forgot, there is always the matinee at the less expensive price point. The only reason it's "flawed" is because there are a bunch of thieves out there pirating everything on the web and thinking that some guys cell phone recording of the hobbit is good enough for them and feel entitled. Ill tell you, I've never had a bad day at the movies.
 
You must not be talking to me. I said nothing of $10. I'm not just one guy. I have a family that also wants popcorn and drinks on a Saturday night. Seriously, multiply your $10 by 10. I can't even go alone for $10 unless I go to a matinee... But I have these kids... Going to a movie in the afternoon alone isn't likely to happen either.

mikeburton said:
Good lord, how cheap are some of you? It's $10.00 for a night of entertainment. An entertainment that you should invest in especially if its your business. It's also a write off. If you want to see films on the scale of the Hobbit no matter how much you disagree or agree with the HFR or 3D or it being shot digitally etc etc etc than you shouldn't complain about the price of admission. Don't forget this is a business and the only reason guys like Peter Jackson have a job and get to make BIG movies is because people go and see them and pay for the over priced popcorn and soda which helps keep the theaters going. It's pretty simple. Going to the movies is a great treat and the price of admission is very reasonable IMO. Oh, and I almost forgot, there is always the matinee at the less expensive price point. The only reason it's "flawed" is because there are a bunch of thieves out there pirating everything on the web and thinking that some guys cell phone recording of the hobbit is good enough for them and feel entitled. Ill tell you, I've never had a bad day at the movies.
Click to expand...
 
Just saw the HFR 3D version of the Hobbit and wow is it mind-blowing amazing!

I do admit that it looks different but not in a bad way and not really like video either.

1. Motion - seemed fine. No motion-sickness vomit feeling or headaches. Some motion blurred while some may not. As a viewer, I didn't notice and wasn't looking for differences (which is how a good movie with good story should do).

2. Make-up - Not as fake as I thought I'd expect. Sure, it's clearer but then again, the better we are at make-up and effects, why shouldn't it look more real and not blurred to suspend disbelief.

3. Video look - As mentioned in 1 and 2, it does feel different but it's soon forgotten as you get into the story.

If you like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, this feels just like it. Grand sweeping scenes, very dynamic camera motion, lots of great looking sets, wardrobe, and effects.

The only thing I didn't like was the 3D. Well done but I never like 3D regardless of any movie with it. Hate wearing glasses and darkening the picture.

Overall, it is worth seeing and just as good as the original trilogy! Well acted too.
 
Scott Crawley said:
You must not be talking to me. I said nothing of $10. I'm not just one guy. I have a family that also wants popcorn and drinks on a Saturday night. Seriously, multiply your $10 by 10. I can't even go alone for $10 unless I go to a matinee... But I have these kids... Going to a movie in the afternoon alone isn't likely to happen either.
Click to expand...

Actually, I wasn't trying to reply to you Scott. I know it looked that way at first but I realized I accidentally replied to you instead of Paul's comment.
 
paulherrin said:
even though it's all being distributed in 2k, i'm sure there are some 4k projectors showing it.
Click to expand...

So there is a 4K master of the movie? Because just getting a 4K projector isn't doing anything.
 
mikeburton said:
Good lord, how cheap are some of you? It's $10.00 for a night of entertainment.
Click to expand...
$18.50 if you see it at the Arclight in LA on a Friday or Saturday night. (Extra charges for 3D, large immersive screen/Atmos, and weekend showings.)

Christoffer Glans said:
So there is a 4K master of the movie? Because just getting a 4K projector isn't doing anything.
Click to expand...
There may be a 4K master, but as far as I know, all the VFX were done in 2K for workflow reasons. Still, uprezzed 2K can look very good when done well.
 
I watched it yesterday in HFR and found it too distracting especially during large head movements in a close up shot.
The landscape sweeps of Hobbiton just reminded me of rural based TV sit coms from the UK.
And I found some of the heavy CG shots reminded me of PS3/XBOX360 scenes.

I thought some of the action CG stuff was ok, whilst in the theatre I kept thinking Peter Jackson said something along the lines of 'it takes your brain about 30mins to get used to it then you'll forget about it'; I didn't - all in all I found myself yanked out from the plot of the film whenever the motion seemed strange to me.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the Smooth Motion engines that a lot of modern TVs have nowadays, which is how I would describe the whole experience.
 
In India you can See "The Hobbit" IN HFR3D(48fps) in 11 Theatres across 10 cities:


Sathyam Cinemas, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India - Second theatre in the world to show "The Hobbit" in 48fps HFR 3D in 14 foot-lambart
Bangalore: Magrath Road Inox
Chennai: Inox
Hyderabad: GVK One Inox
Kolkata: Forum Mall Inox
Mumbai: Nariman Point Inox
Pune: Inox
and 4 more cities...
 
Ouch.....CNN's review

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/13/showbiz/movies/the-hobbit-review-charity/index.html?hpt=hp_c4

"An Unexpected Journey" may look sharp in TV showrooms or on your PS3, but in the movie theater the picture's clarity comes at the loss of texture, shading and consistency. Shifts from exteriors to dark interiors are especially jarring. Look also at the dull, flat orange taint that is meant to approximate candle light in numerous scenes, and compare that with the glow you find in "Barry Lyndon," or "Fanny and Alexander," or your own birthday snaps.
Did Jackson embrace 48 fps to keep himself interested, because he knew he was retreading old ground? Is he really blind to the limitations of this technology at this stage of its evolution? I won't say it has no future, but for now this emperor has no clothes. It's a colossal misjudgment. He's put his name to the ugliest film of the year, a $270 million three-hour epic that looks like a TV show ("Teletubbies" was the first to pop into my head, and "Doctor Who" was the most flattering comparison I could come up with.)
Click to expand...

Now I'm really curious........I'm going to try to catch it in HFR this weekend.
 
I'm gonna go see it today. Probably in regular 3D and then I will see it in HFR3D next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top