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...

The few scenes it worked in, it really worked well. The rest of the time, especially the closeups in Bag End, were especially jarring. The deep depth of field made it hard to know what to focus on. I wasn't impressed with the depth. 48fps might be better suited to a tech-head like Cameron than Jackson - at least until conventions are established. My recommendation is to see it in 24fps first and then 48fps. Get the story, enjoy the film, and then experience the new tech.
 
Started watching it in 24fps 3D and the strobing was terrible. They definitely didn't have it adjusted properly. Doesn't matter though, because the image locked up 20 minutes in. Looked like a dirty Blu-Ray freezing. So we switched to the 2D version down the hall. AMC was quick to give us passes and were cool to just let us into the other showing. The movie was wonderful and now I'm actually glad I saw it in 2D first.

As we were walking out, I realized the 48fps version was playing right next to us so we snuck in for 2-3 minutes. It was REALLY jarring to see it back to back. Instantly, that film magic was gone. Toast. I'm still going to go see it in 48fps, because I want to see what it does for action. But the dialog scenes...horrendous.
 
Saw the midnight show in HFR 3D last night. Overall I really liked it, but I'll need to see it again.

The resolution, colors, clarity, and motion looked great in 3D. Even though I'm not a huge fan of 3D.

It took me at least 45 min to "get used" to the high frame rate, and then I became angry with myself because I wasn't paying attention to the story for that first 45 min.
I'm all for pushing technology forward, and I give a huge congratulations to RED.

After the showing, I heard how "real" people thought it was, and "I never want to see a 'normal' movie again." But I felt just the opposite.

My favorite films, the original LOTR trilogy included, take me away to another place. The HFR made me aware of the film the entire time, but maybe that's because I was looking for it.
Is making a film as REAL as possible really what we want?

Like Michael Cain says in The Prestige, "You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled."
 
Al Lougher said:
Does anyone even know how the studio is going to determine success of HFR for this film? They've released it on 450 screens across the US so they cant exactly judge it off box office results. So what? Reviews?
Click to expand...

Ticket sales. The theatre chains are now making specific mention of the various presentations on the ticketing so that they can track what people are buying. At the theatre I go to, there is HFR3D, 3D, 2D, and a digital IMAX-like 3D known as XTREME. All the listings and tickets say which is which and after the first week or two, they will have a measure of success based on continuing ticket sales for HFR3D screenings.
 
Last edited:
Cinemark in Katy Texas, Has the XD (4k)Huge Screen, HFR 3D. Saw the Film tonight.. Its definitely Different. I dint like it at first but about an Hour Into the Film I was sold. It does make the Movie look a lot like TV or the 240hz true motion Tvs...
My Honest opinion, Not all Films will look good using this Method. Now the VFX in this Film are WOW>.
 
I just saw it in HFR 3D And I must say, it is a very different experience unlike anything I ever experienced in cinema before. At first it was a lot to get used to but then I tried not to sit there and judge it as a Cinematographer but rather for its experience they way P.J. would want the audience to view it. Its different but I believe its obvious that its not for everybody. Some will love it, some will hate it....I actually enjoyed the clarity and realism and love what technology can do these days.

I will say this as well,...RED has produced a camera with unparalleled excellence in image quality and not for the EPIC's superior R3D files, I don't think we could experience this film in this way. I hope that other Directors & DP's follow suit with the options that P.J. has delivered. Options is not ever a bad idea, but I don't think that the future will be 48fps...I think that the "options" however will be!!! I recommend everybody at least try viewing it with an open mind that everybody is different. Thats what is truly exciting about this, not that its good or bad, its because we CAN!!!
 
Seeing it tomorrow, but I thought I'd drop this reminder here:

A001_C006_121348.0000030.jpg

(5K 3:1 50mm anamorphic)
 
Like others noted, I thought the begining was extremely poor looking and distracting. Lighting was blown and distracting looking and the sets and stuff looked really hokey. However, I would say from the inside of the house on it improved dramatically. I thought the ending was phenomenal looking and the Golum scene was simply amazing looking. Certain scenes were definitley better looking than others. I was really amazed at how real the CG characters looked. They really came to life.
 
Saw it in 2D, 24fps, digital.

There was definitely something wrong with the grading of the beginning, not only the blown up highlights, but the close ups had a plasticky feeling in the skins. I don't get that with my Epic. My guess is that it was a poor combination of two much in camera (and even post production) filtering, with plain wrong sharpening (you could see some very slight ringing in the fine detail).

Maybe it had something to do with the projection itself because the HD trailers at Apple look much, much better.

There was as well something wrong with the motion blur. It was subtle as well, but very noticeable in the prologue, when the camera pans in the great halls of Erebor. There is a slight strobing easily seen in the vertical lines when panning.

Other than that I enjoyed it very much. I'm going to see it once again in 3D HFR.
 
Just got back from the theatre. HFR 3D. I felt the same as some of the other posts. In most movies the props, sets, makeup usually end up looking better on film than what you see on set, but in this case it was very noticeable, the sets looked plastic, you could see the makeup, the "movie magic" wasn't there. it felt like I was watching a stage set in a play. However, it began to grow on me, the CG did mix very well, and the 3D was easier to watch. I felt the 48fps worked better during the fly throughs and fight scenes. I can see the benefit of 48fps with the fast action, I thought it looked good and even excellent in some scenes. The more I watched it the more it grew on me, especially towards the end. Lots of amazing visuals. Overall I really enjoyed it. I can see both 24, and 48 having a place , they each seem to have their benifits, but I don't think one will replace the other, or should replace the other. I think it can be an artistic choice, just like picking film stock, and it breaks down to the look you want for your film.
 
Went last night and watched the HRF 3D version, was waiting to be blown way! unfortunately that didn't happen. I felt 50% of the filming was a total distraction being in 3D.
The CG part of it was good, but as soon as you had vistas/landscapes etc it was very poor a real downer.

Having watched Lord of the Rings many times which l feel is fantastic, the Hobbit should have been in 2D, and knowing the story only in two parts, it will become very laboured and loose the sense of this quite compact book.

Missed the mark, but will look forward to watching the 2D version very soon as a comparison.

3D for CG films cartoons etc, with traditional film stories 2D all the way, 2K or 4K. 3D is once again a fad for traditional film making, it will pass.
 
L. Langer said:
Ticket sales. The theatre chains are now making specific mention of the various presentations on the ticketing so that they can track what people are buying. At the theatre I go to, there is HFR3D, 3D, 2D, and a digital IMAX-like 3D known as XTREME. All the listings and tickets say which is which and after the first week or two, they will have a measure of success based on continuing ticket sales for HFR3D screenings.
Click to expand...

Ticket sales is a poor indication of whether 48fps is considered a "success" IMO. For instance, I have (below) zero interest in this film's subject matter other than the 48fps. I will go and see this in 48fps purely to check out the tech. Once that's done for me, I will not go and see films 2 and 3 in the series. If there are others like me, then ticket sales alone will be in part a measure of curiosity and the 48fps box office might drop for 2 and 3. I might add that getting crowds to a film based on allegedly new and astounding tech that simply *must* be checked out is something I observed in the marketing of 'Avatar'. Blockbusters often rely on "must-see" special effects and "must-see" technology more than the story themselves. This is not new though, however, I remember the 1978 'Superman' film being marketed along the lines of "must-see" how they made him fly. And there's many examples that pre-date this. Anything to get bums on seats I guess and vacuum $$$ out of your wallet.
 
Mark Warren said:
Ticket sales is a poor indication of whether 48fps is considered a "success" IMO. For instance, I have (below) zero interest in this film's subject matter other than the 48fps. I will go and see this in 48fps purely to check out the tech. Once that's done for me, I will not go and see films 2 and 3 in the series. If there are others like me, then ticket sales alone will be in part a measure of curiosity and the 48fps box office might drop for 2 and 3. I might add that getting crowds to a film based on allegedly new and astounding tech that simply *must* be checked out is something I observed in the marketing of 'Avatar'. Blockbusters often rely on "must-see" special effects and "must-see" technology more than the story themselves. This is not new though, however, I remember the 1978 'Superman' film being marketed along the lines of "must-see" how they made him fly. And there's many examples that pre-date this. Anything to get bums on seats I guess and vacuum $$$ out of your wallet.
Click to expand...

i would not go see a three hour movie just to see 48fps. unless, how did you put it, you simply want $$$ vacuumed out of your wallet for the 'must-see' tech.
 
Box Office Update

FRIDAY 11:15 PM, 4TH UPDATE: This is the largest Christmas release of all time. The latest from my esources has The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey looking around $37M and $96M for the weekend with an ‘A’ CinemaScore from audiences. (My Warner Bros insiders peg the numbers tonight at $36M-$39M and the weekend at $81M-$89M. I’ll know more specifics in the morning.) There are two records shattered – biggest December Friday and biggest December weekend for the domestic box office.
Click to expand...

My insiders believe it’s very possible for the movie to end this weekend with approximately $200M worldwide. Yowza! In the U.S. and Canada, MovieTickets said box office advance tickets for the pic accounted for nearly 91% of sales going into Friday, with nearly 18% coming from those wanting to see the film in standard 3D format, 8% in High Frame Rate 3D, and 7% in IMAX 3D.
Click to expand...

http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/the...dnight-u-s-canada-opening-sets-december-mark/
 
Petri Teittinen said:
There was certainly something "off" with the opening sequence with old Bilbo and Frodo messing about in the house. Highlights were definitely blown out and it was not caused by the projection. Also, not sure if anyone mentioned this already, but I felt the sound mix was quite odd in the opening sequence: dialogue did not sound like it usually does in movies. It was more like "live theater", which is kinda fitting on hindsight.
Click to expand...

I saw it with Dolby Atmos, and I felt exactly what you are saying about the sound
 
The skin at the beginning was makeup- likely digital, that just felt weird. We all know what Frodo and Bibo looked like 10 years ago. Why they tried to de-age Ian Holm that much is beyond me.
 
Well I officially hate HFR. I have to watch it again because I missed half the movie cringing in my seat. I agree with everyone how it made everything look fake. I'm seeing it again in regular IMAX 3D.
 
I was disappointed...this is a film Ive waited to see my entire life, and the first hour was hard to watch. The entire sequence in Bilbos hole was so distracting, I couldn't enjoy the film.
Once the journey began and the action scenes started, the 48fps wasn't so distracting, but the first half was a disaster imo.

I saw it in Cinemark XD HFR 3D, I would like to see it again in 2D.
 
On the Apple trailers they have a clip of Gandalf talking with Bilbo in the beginning. It looks 100x better on a low resolution screen, regular speed, and 2D, than in 4K HFR 3D.

I might not even see it in 3D again, I'll probably just go to the 2D version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top