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 :)

The Hobbit at 48fps...

dreams aren't made of 24 frames...

i'm in for more. look into it. :)

full review when i get a second here.
i recommend seeing 48/3D and not worrying about it any more than that, just watch the movie.
 
A lot of the reviews say more about the reviewers, than the actual movie, lol. "Old hat Peter Jackson", oh dear, oh dear...
 
paulherrin said:
dreams aren't made of 24 frames...

i'm in for more. look into it. :)

full review when i get a second here.
i recommend seeing 48/3D and not worrying about it any more than that, just watch the movie.
Click to expand...

i agree, there are few film I can think of that if I go in looking to pick it apart visually that I won't find things that will dump me out of the movie.

Never watch a disaster movie with a geologist or similar as they often struggle to suspend disbelief and will pull you out too.

simiarlly never watch any with some who is knowledgable or thinks they are about how they are made, they also often suffer from the same thing.

Saw looper a few months back, good movie but there were a number of moments I felt they were trying to hard to cover a jarring cut with an overly loud gunshot and because I noticed something I thought was going on I dropped out of the movie for a few seconds.
 
Not so kind review

Not so kind review

http://collider.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review/217718
"Personally, I find that 3D creates a barrier between a film and the viewer, but if it’s used well, we can accept it (or at least those of us who don’t get a headache from it; 3D is physically impossible for some people). The HFR 3D in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey isn’t something we accept. It’s something we endure. We endure how characters move in a completely unnatural way and with creatures that somehow look less convincing that what Jackson and his team conjured in the early 2000s. Middle-earth looked alive in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. HFR 3D makes it look undead. When I saw old Bilbo (Ian Holm) reach for a pen and that movement didn’t look right, I audibly said, “Oh no.” "
"The 3D allows Jackson to fill the frame with more stuff, but the result ends up feeling more like a theme park ride than a breathless escape. Relying on “bigger” and “more” ties into the travesty that is HFR 3D."
"First, let me say that I applaud ambition, but there are two kinds of ambition when it comes to filmmaking. There’s artistic ambition, which is abstract, and then there’s technical ambition, which is a straight line. Technology gets better over time. Visual effects improve, but they all had to start out a place where they were likely less-than-impressive."
"So it is with HFR 3D that someone had to be first, it had to be someone with budget and freedom, and that person was Peter Jackson with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I don’t know if HFR 3D will ever get better, but in this movie, it is downright abysmal."
Rating the film: B-
Rating the film in HFR 3D: C-
 
Wow. What a horrible experience is The Hobbit HFR 3D 48FPS. And I wasn't the only one in the theater that thought the same. Very dissapointing and verry jarring experience. I like 3D and have a 3D projetor in my home theater, but if every future 3D film will go the HFR route I'll be very dissapointed. I hope this "experiment" dies with The Hobbit part 1!
 
CNN said:
Look also at the dull, flat orange taint
Click to expand...
I did not see a single taint in The Hobbit. Did the reviewer walk into an adult movie by mistake?
 
A warning to my fellow Redusers, Do not see this film in HFR48fps. Its looks awful, really really awful. I can't even begin to describe how unpleasant this experience was. You can tell the budget for this film is through the roof but the 48fps makes it look cheap, plasticky just terrible all around. I know you may be curious to see it for yourself but resist this urge as much as you can. It is not ok to make movies this way and if this is the future, I'm seriously considering changing careers. Peter, how could you possibly think that this looks good? James Cameron is a lost cause but you too Peter?I'm am totally serious, this experiment needs to die right now. 48fps looks like crap. It's not cinema, its some theme park ride movie hybrid. Everyone I saw it with thought the same thing, and most of them are just casual film viewers, not film snobs. If this really is the future, we are in trouble. Red has taken us five steps forward but using them to shoot films at 48fps has taken us three steps back. Movies are meant to be shot and projected at 24fps. We don't need 48fps, we don't need 3D. We need good stories told by creative individuals, that is the future. The film itself was pretty good, nowhere near as good as the original trilogy. I'm seeing it again tonight in 24fps which i'm sure will be a much better experience.
 
Sounds pretty darn reasonable to me. That's about 8$ an hour per person.

Scott Crawley said:
Why don't people go to the movies?

@ $14.95 per seat, and $10 each for soda and popcorn it will cost a family of four $100 to see the Hobbit once at 48fps 3D in our local multiplex.

That's insane. It doesn't matter how grand of a spectacle the film maker creates, at these prices it's a horrible value IMHO.

Going to the movies used to be a common family activity for a Saturday afternoon. At these prices it is a rare treat for some and impossible for many.
Click to expand...
 
Serenity now...

Andrew Rieger said:
A warning to my fellow Redusers, Do not see this film in HFR48fps. Its looks awful, really really awful. I can't even begin to describe how unpleasant this experience was. You can tell the budget for this film is through the roof but the 48fps makes it look cheap, plasticky just terrible all around. I know you may be curious to see it for yourself but resist this urge as much as you can. It is not ok to make movies this way and if this is the future, I'm seriously considering changing careers. Peter, how could you possibly think that this looks good? James Cameron is a lost cause but you too Peter?I'm am totally serious, this experiment needs to die right now. 48fps looks like crap. It's not cinema, its some theme park ride movie hybrid. Everyone I saw it with thought the same thing, and most of them are just casual film viewers, not film snobs. If this really is the future, we are in trouble. Red has taken us five steps forward but using them to shoot films at 48fps has taken us three steps back. Movies are meant to be shot and projected at 24fps. We don't need 48fps, we don't need 3D. We need good stories told by creative individuals, that is the future. The film itself was pretty good, nowhere near as good as the original trilogy. I'm seeing it again tonight in 24fps which i'm sure will be a much better experience.
Click to expand...
 
I do sympathise with this point of view - HFR is both aesthetically displeasing and too close to reality for my personal tastes. However if Jackson wants to make his movie at 48fps then that is his choice - providing he is happy for me to shoot my movies at 24fps.

My concern with 48fps is that somewhere down the line 24fps will be stigmatised/forbidden due to it being deemed an inferior viewing experience. Many modern digital cinema projectors already use high refresh rates which imho already blur the line between 24fps film projection and 48/50fps.

If we all have the freedom to choose, everybody will be happy. Time will tell...
 
Yeah hard to say if HRF will one day become the norm stigmatizing 24fps as inferior. It's like those that argued that film grain in "film" was better then the clarity of digital.

This argument continues going back to sound in movies to colour and then aspect ratios. We have innovated and well, usually the majority rules. 3D has never fully caught on (past or current) cause it's a neat gimmick but still have drawbacks (like wearing glasses and darkening the film).

Truly hard to say.
 
Andrew Rieger said:
A warning to my fellow Redusers, Do not see this film in HFR48fps. Its looks awful, really really awful. I can't even begin to describe how unpleasant this experience was. You can tell the budget for this film is through the roof but the 48fps makes it look cheap, plasticky just terrible all around. I know you may be curious to see it for yourself but resist this urge as much as you can. It is not ok to make movies this way and if this is the future, I'm seriously considering changing careers. Peter, how could you possibly think that this looks good? James Cameron is a lost cause but you too Peter?I'm am totally serious, this experiment needs to die right now. 48fps looks like crap. It's not cinema, its some theme park ride movie hybrid. Everyone I saw it with thought the same thing, and most of them are just casual film viewers, not film snobs. If this really is the future, we are in trouble. Red has taken us five steps forward but using them to shoot films at 48fps has taken us three steps back. Movies are meant to be shot and projected at 24fps. We don't need 48fps, we don't need 3D. We need good stories told by creative individuals, that is the future. The film itself was pretty good, nowhere near as good as the original trilogy. I'm seeing it again tonight in 24fps which i'm sure will be a much better experience.
Click to expand...

i beg to differ. i recommend watching this @48 if you have an open mind. if you've already decided you don't like it before you set foot in the theater [ahem] - don't. and chill out while you're at it. it's a movie.
 
Haven't see it yet....BUT....I have to wonder if the movie itself was better, not the exposition laden, way too long and too slow hit & miss vehicle most everybody agrees on it being, if people would just get on with it and not be bothered by technicalities. Every time a technical aspect derails the viewer from the experience, the culprit is first and foremost, the story. Then the technical stuff. Always. Nobody is ever bothered by the unnatural motion of Chaplin and Keaton films, or the grain, lousy sound and black and white. They transport you, plain and simple, the rest is nitpicking.

On the other hand, everybody seems to agree the 24 fps version is acceptable, BUT, it was still filmed at 48 fps, which still means each and every one of those frames has double the sharpness than it had been shot at 24 fps. So acquisition that yields higher detail does not seem to be the problem, exhibition that presents too much information apparently is. With that in mind, problems can be ironed out because there are infinite ways to modify how images are presented, but acquisition is either this or that. And though I'll reserve judgement till I see both formats, if I can bear the double dose of 3 hour bombardment, I will say that capturing images with better accuracy and detail, and devoid oh the horrible judder of 24 fps acquisition, HAS to be a good thing.
 
48FPS was a mistake. I feel like it ruined the experience for me, even though the movie itself was pretty good.
The HFR was really distracting.
 
Most people fear change. This is change. They like the comfortable 'old' way of doing things. Look at your parents and grandparents and see the major changes they had to just accept whether they liked it or not. The truth is, as a previous poster said, for 48fps to become the norm it will be on majority acceptance. If 48fps becomes the standard then your kids and their kids will view that as normal and if they were to see 24fps they might think it looks choppy (remember the old silent movies and how everyone was moving really fast?). Read up on the history of 24fps, it was more about saving money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top