Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Cinema-goers complain 48fps...

Some hated it, more liked it. If I read this correctly, he is dragging this out into three movies? If that is the case I am going to pass on this one. This could be a good two hour movie, no need for it to be any longer than that.
 
To be fair, a number of people (seems to be the minority, but always hard to tell, of course) complain about 3D in general with similar symptoms: eyestrain, migraines, queasiness, etc. Not sure the 48 FPS actually changes the equation much for people who have a reaction to 3D in general. So the story here seems more sensationalized than anything. Shocking, given that it's the Daily Mail, I know.
 
I have suffered migraines my whole life, near cluster migraines in fact I'm an anomaly when it comes to a proper diagnosis. There has yet to be a 3D movie I have seen that has not caused me to get a headache migraine or even nausea.

Seems it's more of my issue considering I'm in the vast minority compared to most people's reactions to 3D, just rather unfortunate.

Hopefully one of the new advances will allow me to avoid the nausea and headaches but I'm not expecting it any time soon.
 
About a dozen excerpts of very negative reviews here:

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/12/the-hobbits-hfr-reviews-are-in-and-theyre-not-so-good/

I suspect this will not affect the mass-market very much. On the other hand, let's say the negative reviews affect the box office just 5%. If the movie grosses $800M (not impossible, judging what the Lord of the Rings films made), this could potentially be a $40M loss. But it's anybody's guess if this will really matter.

I'm on the side that says the under-30s won't care, and the over-30s may not matter for a film like this. Technical people will probably be split on it, pro and con.
 
Jason Murphy said:
To be fair, a number of people (seems to be the minority, but always hard to tell, of course) complain about 3D in general with similar symptoms: eyestrain, migraines, queasiness, etc. Not sure the 48 FPS actually changes the equation much for people who have a reaction to 3D in general.
Click to expand...

It does, to an extent, dependent on the type of content and display technology used.

Apart from individual perceptive factors, most of the issues, often over-generalized, emerge from inadequate approach to spacial storytelling and display technology.

48 is just a current, image capture related, transitional and temporary figure, which will be interpolated and multiplied 10-20 fold at home anyway, to the point where frame rate is perceptively non-existant.
 
i'd be more interested in Peter Jackson's work if i was still 13 years old.
 
Marc Wielage said:
About a dozen excerpts of very negative reviews here:

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/12/the-hobbits-hfr-reviews-are-in-and-theyre-not-so-good/

I suspect this will not affect the mass-market very much. On the other hand, let's say the negative reviews affect the box office just 5%. If the movie grosses $800M (not impossible, judging what the Lord of the Rings films made), this could potentially be a $40M loss. But it's anybody's guess if this will really matter.

I'm on the side that says the under-30s won't care, and the over-30s may not matter for a film like this. Technical people will probably be split on it, pro and con.
Click to expand...

So far its been from technical critics... lets see what the wall mart and suburban crowd says :) should be interesting
 
Me and my wife saw the 48fps 3D screening. She has always had problems with 3d, hurting her head/eyes. This was the first 3D movie she has ever watched that did not hurt her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top