The Hobbit at 48fps...

[ChrisLyon]

The entire sequence in Bilbos hole was so distracting, I couldn't enjoy the film.

I felt the same way. It was mighty claustrophobic. The closeups with fast motion were super-distracting. That feather pen of Bilbos - holy cow! That thing whipped across the 40 foot screen so fast it made my head spin. I never have problems with 3D and I had to look away from the screen a few times.

Again, the scenes where it worked were awesome - particularly the slow motion battle scenes had a little something extra that was fun and exciting. There are definitely more speed traps with 48fps than with 24 - only instead of stutter and strobing it's unrealistic speed that has to be watched out for. My favorite shots in Bag End were of the Mist Mountains song where the camera speed was slow and mellow. I want to shoot some of my own now to find out what those sweet spots are.

 

[Elsie N]

What a brilliant marketing scheme. Release a movie in multiple formats and get repeat box office from the same movie-goer. P. T. Barnum would have been proud.

 

[Cedric Larvoire]

I saw it in 2D 24fps, there's no 48fps cinema anywhere close to me unfortunately. I was excited to see it in 2D (that doesn't mean I don't love Red), but sadly, I was also disappointed. Is it that lots of V/SFX were made for 3D and somehow look dodgy in 2D? I don't see how the 48fps>24 could cause so much problem, but the whole screening was jerky, flickering and really eye-tiring. And, apart from all that -or is it related?-, I didn't like the movie

 

[PatrickFaith]

Just saw it in HFR IMAX ... totally loved it, was my best 3D experience ever (normally I hate 3D). I really enjoyed the plot and character development, i was completely immersed by the middle of the movie(did take about 20 minutes to get immersed). Congrats to the entire Hobbit Team!

 

[Dave Archer]

Just saw it in HFR IMAX ... totally loved it, was my best 3D experience ever (normally I hate 3D). I really enjoyed the plot and character development, i was completely immersed by the middle of the movie(did take about 20 minutes to get immersed). Congrats to the entire Hobbit Team!

Didn't take me that long to get into it.

I loved every second.

I looked hard for things people were griping about but it was great in Imax3D HFR.

If you're looking for 'filmic' I have a 30-40's 16mm print of 'Steamboat Willie' I can lend you...break out the Bell&Howell.

My only 'gripe' was the sound. Imax is an image house and when you see films on a huge screen they never are 'placed' corectly (speaker is never where mouth is).

I will see it again at the Downtown Disney theater is Dolby Atmos and hope that helps.

Jim try and make a deal with Dolby and standardize ODEMAX on the Atmos soundtrack. I think it should be a purchasable option in any event and I'd pay extra for all those channels of sound.

 

[paulherrin]

Just saw it in HFR IMAX ... totally loved it, was my best 3D experience ever (normally I hate 3D). I really enjoyed the plot and character development, i was completely immersed by the middle of the movie(did take about 20 minutes to get immersed). Congrats to the entire Hobbit Team!

i'm wondering if the bigger screen helps... i saw it in imax as well. i definitely want to watch it again in hfr, maybe on a non-imax screen for comparison. heck, i just wanna watch the movie again, i don't care. the closer i can get to the 'original', the better.

 

[Scott Crawley]

What a wonderful film!

I didn't get to choose my frame rate. You might say it chose me. There was no HFR 3D showing available in my window of opportunity, so I saw vanilla 3D.

Obviously I can't speak to the HFR but I too was pulled from the experience several times through the Bag end sequence and perhaps once more afterward due to the 3D, but after the first third of the film it was never a bother. 3D has always been a spectacle. Hell to it is meant to be that way. After all, how will audiences appreciate the special magic of cinema if we don't bonk them over the head with it? *sarcasm* Seriously though, it is a fun movie, and given the apparently playful nature of Mr. Jackson one can hardly expect a sequence like Bag End to pass without having a lot of cheeky, reflexive fun with it. I think it is legit to call attention to the effects from time to time. OTOH, there were just a few occasions in The Hobbit that I might characterize the 3D as distracting. Of the 3D movies that I have seen none has been less obtrusive than Prometheus. The 3D in Prometheus is sublime. Prometheus is solmn. The Hobbit 3D isn't that kind of film.

To get back on topic to the best of my ability, given my experience, I would observe if the 3D alone is enough to pull folks out of the fantasy for a moment, imagine the difficulty of adding this new frame rate to the mix without adding to the distraction! It is a lot to expect from the audience and your team. I won't fault them if HFR doesn't quite work out for The Hobbit because ultimately it is a fun, fine film that I will enjoy for many years. Thank you Peter Jackson and company. Well done!

P.S. I'm sorry I was unable to stay through the credits as is my custom, but after 2.75 hours, I had to take one hell of a piss!

 

[Sean Cruser]

HFR on The Hobbit is going to be much more divisive than 3D ever was, but it's definitely something everyone should see if they can. There are kinks thanks to our own conditioning, but it is something wholly new that finally validates the choice of 3D.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I felt the same way. It was mighty claustrophobic.

I have to go the opposite with respect to Bag End. I thought the 3D gave Bag End in particular a scope and dimension that i was previously lacking. It made the hole seem cavernous to me. That is to say, until it became crowded, at which point it was supposed to invoke a feeling of claustrophobia. Don't you think? It seemed to achieve that IMHO.

 

[Ido Karilla]

Well.
I just saw a 48fps 3D screening of the Hobit.
I was not converted!
there where some beautiful close ups that appeared to be very realistic and appealing but most of the wider shots along with the contrast choices made (while shooting or in post) looked DV.
The depth of field choices did not work, it was hard to decide what to look at and as a result it became un pleasant to see the movie.
All and all without the technical thrilling event it was a very boring movie.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Ok, just saw this in 48fps. Will try to be the most concise possible:

First, every Red owner should see this. Its surreal the beauty of each single shot of this piece of cinema. Wonderful looking imagery. And the 3D really shines in 48fps. This is a very good showcase piece for 3D and the Red camera in terms of technical achievement.

Second, and this is personal: I didn't like the 48fps effect as a cinema storytelling frame rate. Its true, at least for me: 48fps takes out some of the "magic " of cinema vs TV. Call 24fps an archaic frame rate, or not technically optimal, but it helps me, as an audience, appreciate more each single frame of the film and the performances. 48fps really does look "too smooth".
Being someone from the end of the 70'ies, i followed the video game revolution until the "Final Fantasy-Spirits Within" moment of transition of Videogames to film. The CG in the film, camera movements, everything just felt a bit like a "video game", specially the CG bits with the Ogres and where there was huge CG battles going on. The problem is, the more the frame rates, the more is demanded from animators, from the actors, from the set design, from camera movement- FROM EVERYTHING. A CG animal moves, you notice the keyframes, a mountain falls or the actors are in a green screen moment, if its just a bit off, you notice. Its absolutely unforgiving. Don't get me wrong, I can see the huge achievement that is this film, but it still unforgivingly points out its imperfections. In 24fps, a small camera "jerk" or not so smooth movement, an actor dodgy sword swing, a bad CG animation could some how come away with, but at 48fps, it all becomes a lot more apparent and it takes you out as an audience very fast.

Another aspect that I find important here, and I hope no disrespect to Peter Jackson, is that, if not to make the 3D pop out more and to create smoother action sequences, I find no point of 48FPS in this film: it doesn't make the performances stand out, or the CG, or helps the story. I have to say I'm not a big fan of 3D, but a film like Hugo and Avatar really made me think again about 3D as a viable storytelling tool. 3D was used to complement the storytelling in both cases. I can Honestly add the Hobbit to the list of films where 3D was well integrated in the storytelling process- its definitely, with those mentioned 2 films, one of the top 3 3D films ever made in terms of storytelling and 3D integration. However, 48fps just doesn't add anything to the visual storyteling or to the layers, or "Depth", of the story here.

I hope this wasn't too harsh. Maybe I'm too "old fashioned" in my analysis. Its just my opinion, but watching "the Hobbit" made me realize how 24fps is important in my movie going experience. I see a space for 48fps films though, you know for what? CG Animation films. I feel like I would absolutely feel confortable with a 48fps CG movie. My 2, very personal, cents...

 

[Tai Wah Lim]

Watched the HFR. Only feasible with Epic shooting that amount of footages. Just sit back and enjoy the movie.

 

[Thor Melsted]

Saw 3D 48fps at the Burbank digital IMAX yesterday morning.

Where 48fps helped, it was astonishing.
Where 48fps didn't help, it was occasionally distracting, meaning, it was different enough where I noticed it which reminded me I was watching a movie - which might have more to do with my conditioning - the "moving too fast" effect did happen in the very first few shots while my brain adjusted, which I think is a fascinating phenomenon worth exploring to find out how to avoid.
At no point did I feel like I was watching a soap opera or a reality show like some reviewers have said - if anything I felt more immersed in the world than with any other 3D film, with the exception of the 2.35:1 ratio which I felt actually worked against it.
At no point did I feel the sets/makeup/costumes were fake - I've seen enough movies to know they almost always are fake and my suspension of disbelief was not affected, so I don't understand why some people are complaining about this - it didn't look any worse than what I've seen before.

Overall, I'm impressed enough by the 48fps experiment to think messing with projection frame rates is a tool that should absolutely be at the filmmaker's disposal, just like stereo depth, shutter speed and camera movement. I think it should be utilized on a shot by shot basis. Maybe shooting 120fps with a 360 shutter and then deriving 24, 30 or 60 from there, so one project could use any of those rates (plus 120fps of course) depending on the shot for a greater overall experience.
I don't really see the point in using faster than 24fps for simple dialogue scenes, except for maybe a few shots where subtlety in performance might otherwise be lost, but for action scenes and fast moving "god camera" shots like PJ used throughout the goblin and orc sequences, faster frame rates are simply breathtaking to behold.

Just my subjective $0.02

 

[Christopher Barrett]

Saw it in 3d this morning. No idea what framerate. I could have done without 3d, but whatever. It was fucking awesome. 3 hours and I left wanting more. Really well done. We're watching The Two Towers at home right now and Hobbit easily outshined the original series in cinematography.

Killer.

 

[mikeburton]

I saw it HFR 3D on a 55ft screen. I admit I am one of those that thought I wouldn't like it going in but was hoping to be proved wrong. I love going to the movies so no matter what I knew it wouldn't be a terrible experience. But, it's not for me. In certain dialogue scenes when the camera wasn't moving too much I didn't notice it after a while. However, soon as the camera would move I was reminded again that I was seeing something strange. This effect did not get better over time, in fact it got quite a bit worse to me. It kept taking me completely out of the film and that is what's considered to me to be a direct distraction.

Overall, I thought the film was slow and could have moved quite a bit faster. The makeup and prosthetics were atrocious. Oh well.

 

[Dan Frenkel]

HOBBIT

HOBBIT

This is funny!!

 

[Tehben Dean]

Just read the article in Popular Mechanics about how they did the scale effects with Gandalf using green sets and a robotic dolly crane for the second set. Very interesting and pretty amazing!

However not so sure those guys did enough research before writing up some of the trivia, see images below

 

[Justin Kirchhoff]

I saw it the HFR 3D version last night.

It was beautiful.

I don't understand what everyone is complaining about with Bag End. What??

The cinematography was gorgeous, the scenic helicopter shots were spectacular. The action scenes were wonderful. The story was great, the movie was just a bit long.

I have to admit, reading most of these posts was a complete buzz kill. Embrace the technology and get used to it, because it's not going anywhere and it'll only get better.

 

[Stivan Widick]

I think mixed frame rate movies are the future.

 

[Häakon]

This is the first movie in about ten years that I've actually gotten up during the middle and walked out of the theater. I found the higher framerate to be utterly abysmal.