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...

saw it in 2D 24fps - as I know this is the better version. Fantastic movie.

The only thing I can complain about PJ's movies is the lack of realistic animation on some CGI elements / creatures, while others are animated just fine. Same as in the first Hobbit, this is mostly visible on the wolves that the Orcs ride, best seen when they're in a pack from birds eye view... very jerky animation...

but man, Smaug looked great and Cumberbatch's voice was fantastic...
 
Mike Nagel said:
saw it in 2D 24fps - as I know this is the better version. Fantastic movie.

The only thing I can complain about PJ's movies is the lack of realistic animation on some CGI elements / creatures, while others are animated just fine. Same as in the first Hobbit, this is mostly visible on the wolves that the Orcs ride, best seen when they're in a pack from birds eye view... very jerky animation...

but man, Smaug looked great and Cumberbatch's voice was fantastic...
Click to expand...

In ten years or so, when PJ goes back and re-does all of the LOTR films in 4K, I'm sure he'll fix all that.
 
Marc Wielage said:
You be dreamin'.
Click to expand...

Not dreamin. He's said multiple times that he plans to revisit the films in the future for another release because he had to make a lot of compromises in the theatrical and extended editions for various reasons. Doing the Avatar films will put a big pile of money in WETAs warchest and advance VFX tech to the point where they will likely be doing 4K VFX with ease. The 20th Anniversary of the LOTR films is not too far away and by that point, we'll likely have 4K 3D in cinemas, so re-doing The Hobbit VFX for that format is a no-brainer.
 
Hafta say...

I stayed away from the Hobbit, mostly because it sounded so shitty here.
And then my son wanted to see it, so we watched it on TV. 24 fps and all.

And gee... we actually had a pretty good time.
Then we knew that there are 2 more films left (ths was the first), so we did not expect them to finnish the journey.

I thought a lot of the VFX looked like... well VFX in LOTR as well. I was not really turned off by that.

Had fun.

My son commented when they came to the elfs, that "wow, now comes another boring meeting"

And I replied something along the line of
"Yup, sure, but they need to make this break for the audience to be able to absorb more fights"

But

It was silly.
But mostly silly fun.

Gee guys.

"It is only a movie" :)
 
I do not put any of the perspectives or critiques in question of this thread. Not my business here.

Having said that, Peter Jackson and all artists as well technicians of his projects have my unlimited respect. I believe that includes the whole RED team as well.

There are only a few like Peter Jackson. … and I'm happy that he uses RED ;o)
 
Jens Rosengren said:
I watched the first one in 48 FPS 3D and the second one normally, with no 3D. I enjoyed the 24 FPS version way more than the 48 FPS version. But I might only not be used to 48 FPS. Liked the second movie better!
Click to expand...

I also watched the first Hobbit in 48FPS HFR 3D. During locked shots, the 3D was unbelievably good - lots of depth - but I didn't care for how the motion looked, such as the intro scene where Bilbo was writing (the closeup shot of the hand & pen) or the long shots where characters or animals were running - it looked like it was running too fast, a bit like PAL. I'd say perhaps my eyes/brain just weren't used to HFR 3D yet, but I didn't have any problems with Avatar's polarized-glasses 24FPS 3D from the start. However, Peter Jackson did say that the HFR is improved in the second Hobbit, so I may see it again in HFR: (for science, of course!)

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/13/peter-jackson-better-hfr-desolation-of-smaug/

I opted to see the second Hobbit in 2D in the theater and really enjoyed it. I also picked up the Hobbit on Bluray for Christmas. First time I've seen it since I saw the HFR version in theaters; it looks amazing in 2D!
 
Too fast is what i've heard from a lot of people and the sad thing is most of them don't want to give HFR a second chance after Hobbit 1. Funny side-note, one of them had all this crazy motion-upsampling activated on his tv and said he likes to watch blurays that way. WTF? ;)

From my little experiments with my Scarlet i can say i like HFR, 48fps with 270 shutter looks nice. Sure you have to get used to it and i wouldn't use it for everything, but it can look great and i don't think it destroys the "film-look" in general. It's different, but doesn't look like video or tv, just because it has more fps.

I would like to know what has been improved for Hobbit 2. On a side-note, i think varying the fps from scene to scene would be interesting. In a 48fps-release, you could easily include 24fps-shots. This would probably help people to adapt too and well stay a bit more with the "classic" look and feel. Think of HFR more as an effect.

That being said, i haven't seen Hobbit 1 or 2 in HFR yet, as there are no 2D-HFR-screenings and i'm not 3D-compatible. I hope there will be a way to watch it in HFR and 2D at some point (REDRAY!) ;).
 
Maik Müller said:
Too fast is what i've heard from a lot of people and the sad thing is most of them don't want to give HFR a second chance after Hobbit 1. Funny side-note, one of them had all this crazy motion-upsampling activated on his tv and said he likes to watch blurays that way. WTF? ;)

From my little experiments with my Scarlet i can say i like HFR, 48fps with 270 shutter looks nice. Sure you have to get used to it and i wouldn't use it for everything, but it can look great and i don't think it destroys the "film-look" in general. It's different, but doesn't look like video or tv, just because it has more fps.

I would like to know what has been improved for Hobbit 2. On a side-note, i think varying the fps from scene to scene would be interesting. In a 48fps-release, you could easily include 24fps-shots. This would probably help people to adapt too and well stay a bit more with the "classic" look and feel. Think of HFR more as an effect.

That being said, i haven't seen Hobbit 1 or 2 in HFR yet, as there are no 2D-HFR-screenings and i'm not 3D-compatible. I hope there will be a way to watch it in HFR and 2D at some point (REDRAY!) ;).
Click to expand...

That's why I'd be curious to see what the new tweaks are in HFR in the second Hobbit. One of the things that threw me off, in addition to the "too fast" issue, was that I kept getting thrown out of the film because I realized they were acting. It was like being on set at times, because of the way the motion looked - similar to the soap opera effect that a lot of new televisions have turned on by default - you could tell it was being taped, instead of constantly flowing with the slightly-ghostly film look of 24FPS. But the locked-down shots were so good that I'd be willing to give HFR 3D another chance. There was one static shot with an elf (they can have pretty stoic facial expressions, so not much movement) that looked extremely real in 3D - very sharp, very clear, and a huge amount of depth. It looked great! So there's definitely hope, but it's also an extremely new technology so I'm sure they'll just keep ironing the bugs out...
 
I saw the Hobbit HFR 3D in a normal theatre when it first came out. I thought it looks really nice. Recently I was incline to see it again at an IMAX theatre to see what it was like on a really big screen. The IMAX version was terrible. Not sure if it was because of the warped screen, or the two projector system it takes to run the IMAX…but there were some very unusual results. Objects that were supposed to be in the background would randomly flicker into the foreground. There are all kinds of watering distortions throughout the movie. It was so bad the much of the crowd would move their seats constantly, people kept taking off their glasses, kids were complaining…and my wife and I left with a headache (for the first time on a 3D movie.)

Anyone else had that kind of experience watching 3D IMAX. Of coarse I tried to explain this to the manager…his response was…its supposed to be that way. This was in Short Pump VA. Probably best to avoid that theatre.
 
it looked great at our imax in knoxville, tn - saw it twice. nothing like the problems you're talking about. there must be a glitch somewhere, maybe a corruption on the hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top