48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 314 Old 12-29-2012, 02:13 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 119
cakefoo- the Star Trek was several cuts from the movie; typical trailer style.

Saw The Hobbit today at 48 HFR and as soon as the movie started with the titles, I knew the visual was going to be different from all the previews and other 3D stuff they put up for 30 minutes before the main feature. After reading all these raves on the PQ I kept telling myself, I'll believe it when I see it. Well, I'm now a believer. For about 90% of the movie I liked the extreme sharpness of the image as well as the HFR and how real it looked. The 3D was what I call full negative to positive parallax in many scenes and this made me feel like I was in the scene most of the medium shots as it was happening. That was fun! Then there were some scenes that the realism reminded me that something wasn't quite right. for example the action battle scenes appeared choreographed rather than a fierce battle. I don't know if it was just bad action acting or the HFR absent of motion blur was the cause but something wasn't quite natural about that. On the other hand, the fast action movement of a bird fluttering around looked more natural here than one seen in 24 fps. I also now understand what some refer to as the soap opera look but I didn't mind it in this movie.
I know some 3D enthusiasts claim they hate edge violations of objects forward of the screen. The Hobbit made no attempt to avoid these and the entire movie was loaded with edge violations. Personally they don't bother me but I know they do some viewers so I mentioned it.

The sound track was superbly mixed and quite clean. However, for a 2 hr + long sitting the volume level in our theater was so loud that it became fatiguing toward the end.

As for the story, my wife and I both enjoyed it, liked how the prequel was tied into LOTR. The scenery in The Hobbit was more exciting and generous as well as the action being bigger. My wife and I want to dig out our LOTR and watch those again now.
Don Landis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 314 Old 12-29-2012, 05:35 PM
Senior Member
 
maintman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
^^^^ On the contrary, they are showing the normal Star Trek trailer in non-IMAX theaters. The IMAX one is the prologue, lasting nine minutes. It's like how some of us got to see the bank robbery scene before The Dark Knight came out. At the end of it, there is a quick trailer-like flash of several scenes, but otherwise, yes, it is an uncut scene. Again, I thought it was killer, and was an awesome bonus to seeing The Hobbit via the IMAX 3d experience!!

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/14/analysis-of-star-trek-into-darkness-imax-prologue-open-thread-for-prologue-trailer-2/
maintman is offline  
post #273 of 314 Old 12-30-2012, 08:07 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 119
maintman- I'm not happy with how the IMAX movies are presented here in town. They are uncomfortable theaters causing neck strain and the sound is clean but so loud it is painful. My best IMAX experience was at the Space Center in Cape Canaveral. I won't waste my money on IMAX here in town again.

Overall, the Star Trek trailer did not impress me and I will probably wait to see the movie on bluRay.

Thanks for the link to detail the difference in the trailers.

As for The Hobbit, I plan to re watch my LOTR collection and will be ordering the book for my next read. The movie was that inspiring for me.
Don Landis is offline  
post #274 of 314 Old 12-30-2012, 03:06 PM
Senior Member
 
maintman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Don't worry Don, you saw The Hobbit in the right format in my opinion. I just went with a group to see The Hobbit again, this time hfr instead if IMAX. That's now 2 viewings of the IMAX and 1 for hfr.

Even though I really enjoyed the 'bonus' Trek prologue in the IMAX, I found The Hobbit to be more enjoyable in the hfr format compared to IMAX. I'm kinda surprised, because I do not like frame interpolation under normal home tv viewing, but it elevated The Hobbit to a new level in 3d.

Yes, it was weird-ish at times, but overall, it provided for a more immersive experience. I caught a lot more details than on IMAX, and the being there or looking through a window effect had quite a bit bigger wow factor to it imo.

So there you have it, I've gone from hfr naysayer/hater to believer! Kudos to Peter Jackson. I'm eagerly awaiting the next two.
maintman is offline  
post #275 of 314 Old 12-30-2012, 10:00 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Well, I just ordered in 7 Tolkien books for my ipad reading to fill in the gaps between these next two. I finished one short book that was an Amazon freebee today on the history of the writings/story. The movie has inspired me to do a complete study on the whole middle earth collection.

And, don't worry about me either. I don't feel I missed a thing skipping the IMAX version. In recall, I feel the only time I have enjoyed any IMAX movie has been the ones about the Universe and the ISS, Hubble variety. I have never enjoyed seeing the closeups of people and animals on IMAX screen. The worst IMAX I ever saw was at the Luxor in Las Vegas. It was the theater design. If I go back to see Hobbit again, it will be the HFR version a second time. Meanwhile I dug out my LOTR Blu Ray collection for a watch over the next few days. smile.gif
Don Landis is offline  
post #276 of 314 Old 12-31-2012, 04:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,421
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 205 Post(s)
Liked: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Well, I just ordered in 7 Tolkien books for my ipad reading to fill in the gaps between these next two. I finished one short book that was an Amazon freebee today on the history of the writings/story. The movie has inspired me to do a complete study on the whole middle earth collection.

And, don't worry about me either. I don't feel I missed a thing skipping the IMAX version. In recall, I feel the only time I have enjoyed any IMAX movie has been the ones about the Universe and the ISS, Hubble variety. I have never enjoyed seeing the closeups of people and animals on IMAX screen. The worst IMAX I ever saw was at the Luxor in Las Vegas. It was the theater design. If I go back to see Hobbit again, it will be the HFR version a second time. Meanwhile I dug out my LOTR Blu Ray collection for a watch over the next few days. smile.gif

We'll see you in a few months. tongue.gif

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #277 of 314 Old 01-01-2013, 06:30 AM
Senior Member
 
obveron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
So I haven't seen the movie yet. I don't have a HFR theatre in my town. I may have an opportunity to take a business trip to a city that has a HFR theatre in late January. I really want to see this movie, but I'm not sure if it's worth waiting for HFR. Also there's a chance by late January the movie won't be playing in the HFR theater in the city I'll be visiting.


What do you think, wait a few weeks and see it in HFR? or See it now (in regular frame-rate RealD 3D)?
obveron is offline  
post #278 of 314 Old 01-01-2013, 10:09 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Decide if it's the story you want or the technology?
Don Landis is offline  
post #279 of 314 Old 01-01-2013, 01:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
My RealD theater was not on the list of HFR theaters, but was HFR, so be careful.
tory40 is offline  
post #280 of 314 Old 01-01-2013, 03:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
neveser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near St. Loser, Misery
Posts: 565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I have the chance to see the RealD HFR or IMAX 3D (which is not HFR).
I think I'm going to see the IMAX version next week. I'll skip the whole HFR thing.

Pain Gauge - my electro-industrial music project

neveser is offline  
post #281 of 314 Old 01-01-2013, 06:15 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 119
At our HFR theater the screen was quite large but the IMAX theater offers a square aspect ratio ( same width but much taller). It also uses 3 times the loudness of the sound which wears me down. Hobbit is a long movie so better take an some aspirin and some ear protectors for the duration. I would. smile.gif

PS- Just listened to your Pain Gauge- Never mind about the need for an aspirin and ear protectors. I realize you are well conditioned for 15,000 watts of IMAX pain biggrin.gif
Don Landis is offline  
post #282 of 314 Old 01-01-2013, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
johnsmith808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by neveser View Post

I have the chance to see the RealD HFR or IMAX 3D (which is not HFR).
I think I'm going to see the IMAX version next week. I'll skip the whole HFR thing.

I think I would have enjoyed the movie much more in 24fps. HFR took me out of the whole movie immersion.
johnsmith808 is offline  
post #283 of 314 Old 01-02-2013, 12:58 AM
Senior Member
 
AVTrauma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
My daughter and I saw this at Cinetopia/Vancouver Mall (Washington State, not BC) with Dolby Atmos & HFR just before Christmas. We both really enjoyed the movie too. Dolby Atmos was subtle, but definitely added something to the surround sound and immersion. The HFR wasn't a problem for my daughter or I, yet there were a few times where I was pulled "out of the movie" with what I was seeing on the screen. These times were, to the best of my recollection, when there was significant CG utilized... like in the fight scene, escaping from captivity under the mountain. Looked good to me, crisp and clear, and I have no problem watching something with 48FPS it seems. Now just have to wait for next December for "The Desolation of Smaug", and then summer 2014 for the conclusion.
AVTrauma is offline  
post #284 of 314 Old 01-02-2013, 07:30 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 119
I want to check out Atmos theater but quick search tells me the closest one to me is at Disney Village which is about 2:30 drive from here. I go to Disney about every other month so it's on my list to do in February for our next weekend there. Hope there is a good Atmos movie then.
Don Landis is offline  
post #285 of 314 Old 01-02-2013, 09:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
Steve Tack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
10 days ago I saw The Hobbit in HFR + Atmos. I had seen it early in HFR in a non-Atmos theater. I don't know, maybe The Hobbit isn't the best showcase for that. Most of the time it wasn't obvious that there was anything special going on with the audio, though there were a few scenes that stood out. The Atmos demo that played before the movie was really cool though.

For anyone in the Denver/Boulder area, one of the Flatiron Crossing theaters has Atmos.

On a side note, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and it held up very well the second time.
Steve Tack is offline  
post #286 of 314 Old 01-02-2013, 12:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I wonder if 30fps is where the "made for TV movie" stigma comes from.
tory40 is offline  
post #287 of 314 Old 01-02-2013, 01:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
Steve Tack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Steve Tack is offline  
post #288 of 314 Old 01-02-2013, 03:31 PM
Senior Member
 
maintman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Thanks for the link. I'm lord of the nerds; I've seen it now 4 times total - 2 IMAX, 2 HFR tongue.gif. I enjoy both formats. Imax is nice for the familiarity of the LOTR look, and HFR was just a surprisingly fun and different experience.
maintman is offline  
post #289 of 314 Old 01-03-2013, 01:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tack View Post

Nice article on 48 fps:
http://collider.com/hobbit-hfr-48-frames-science/220981/
I don't know... too many graphs, not enough good examples of 48fps movies. :P

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is online now  
post #290 of 314 Old 01-03-2013, 11:30 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Nice read, Steve, Thanks for posting that link.
I agree with some comments in the article that the conversion to a newer technology will be a fought with cries to stay with the present. Then, once we get used to the new frame rate, looking back will be like returning to black and white only movies. Today, it's very difficult, almost painful for me to view any of my TV productions I did in the 90's all shot in SD 4:3 AR, even at betacam SP quality. I am too used to seeing HD on 16:9 AR. Some day we will say the same for HFR 48 fps and 3D stereo.

Movie set and makeup techs will need to up their game, just as they did for color, HD and 3D.
Don Landis is offline  
post #291 of 314 Old 01-03-2013, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,527
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 504 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Even watching the movie at 2D and 24 fps, I noticed how glaringly bad many of the visual effects were. The 48 fps version only made it worse.

The movie itself was indeed bloated and had far less magic and whimsy than the best parts of the Lord of the Rings. I could sit through the three-hour plus extended versions without a break, but seeing just the theatrical cut version of The Hobbit, I was squirming in my seat far too many times. It was almost a chore and I'd hate to think that the inevitable extended cuts will increase my discomfort. It was an event or action driven movie, not one of depth and breadth.

Much of it has to do with the characters... most of them didn't make any big impression on me at all. I just didn't give a darn about any of them, except for Gandalf, Bilbo, and Gollum (and they didn't seem to have a lot of over all screen time... frequently being pushed aside. Obviously, Gollum made only a cameo appearance in Tolkien's original book). The dwarves, the villainous orcs, goblins, and trolls, and the overall plot seemed one dimensional, and I blame the bland, by-the-numbers screenplay more than anything for those issues.

Sadly, Peter Jackson seems to have been caught up in the same technological trap that ensnared James Cameron and George Lucas: the allure of the digital special effects and wiz-bang electronic toys at their disposal became far more important to them than the actual story, script, and acting quality. But even then, in The Hobbit, that didn't save it from looking downright cheap sometimes. You spend hundreds of millions of dollars and many of the effects look poor and video-game-ish, something doesn't add up. Did Jackson spend one too many days on hyping 48 fps and forget to do some quality assurance checking at WETA??

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #292 of 314 Old 01-03-2013, 02:51 PM
Senior Member
 
maintman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
You can't expect a Lord of the Rings type of movie based on this different story. I was just the opposite - I was surprised how fast 3 hours went by. I was at first turned off by how silly some of the dwarves looked, and expected a bunch of Gimli esque dwarves, but it ended up not bothering me as much in the end. After I thought about it, I actually thought their looks fit the sound of their names pretty well.

Seems like if you don't like the story, you would have to blame the source more, Tolkien, rather than Jackson. I thought both Thorin and his Orc nemesis were both very cool. Guess I'm in the minority. Ohh well, to each their own.
maintman is offline  
post #293 of 314 Old 01-03-2013, 02:53 PM
Member
 
Blacklight82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Saw this movie in HFR and I thought it looked fantastic. The HFR wasn't distracting at all and the 3D was very immersive. The part with the eagle had me thinking that one of the eagles came in from the theater. Very sweet looking.
Blacklight82 is offline  
post #294 of 314 Old 01-03-2013, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,527
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 504 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by maintman View Post

You can't expect a Lord of the Rings type of movie based on this different story. I was just the opposite - I was surprised how fast 3 hours went by. I was at first turned off by how silly some of the dwarves looked, and expected a bunch of Gimli esque dwarves, but it ended up not bothering me as much in the end. After I thought about it, I actually thought their looks fit the sound of their names pretty well.
Seems like if you don't like the story, you would have to blame the source more, Tolkien, rather than Jackson. I thought both Thorin and his Orc nemesis were both very cool. Guess I'm in the minority. Ohh well, to each their own.

I can't blame Tolkien because Jackson stuck in a lot more than was actually in the book in the first place. Taking one fairly short book (compared to each part of LOTR) and stretching it into three long movies equals a fair amount of padding. I thought the dwarves looked very odd and very latexy...

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #295 of 314 Old 01-03-2013, 06:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I can't blame Tolkien because Jackson stuck in a lot more than was actually in the book in the first place.

The extra stuff Tolkien himself wrote, even though it wasn't in the original book. He wanted to make the Hobbit more consistent with the Lord of the Rings, which was something he wrote as he went. Let's remember that The Hobbit isn't a prequel. The Lord of the Rings is The Hobbit's sequel, and took on a very different tone and scope. Later editions of The Hobbit included some changes to reflect this (the scene with Gollum is a big one), but it was never published to include all that he had written into a conclusive whole. The movie version of The Hobbit is essentially doing that. In some way's it's Tolkien's Director's Cut of The Hobbit.

Still, given the source material, I think there's no way The Hobbit could be as good as Lord of the Ring's. I think Jackson is for the most part making the best movie that can be made given Tolkien's material.
Airion is offline  
post #296 of 314 Old 01-03-2013, 08:04 PM
Senior Member
 
fritzi93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I can't blame Tolkien because Jackson stuck in a lot more than was actually in the book in the first place. Taking one fairly short book (compared to each part of LOTR) and stretching it into three long movies equals a fair amount of padding. I thought the dwarves looked very odd and very latexy...

I couldn't agree more.

And yes, lots of the effects were cheesy. The entire sequence from their capture through their encounter with the goblin king and escape was like a bad video game.

I have to wonder if there's another alternate universe version of The Hobbit (the book, that is) that some people are referring to. Dammit, Jackson added lots of stuff that Tolkien never wrote. That whole business with Radagast being the most egregious example. Then there's Azog. What the hell? Thorin had beheaded him at the battle of Azanulbizar. Bolg, *son* of Azog gets a mention near the end of the book, that's all. I could go on... PJ took a perfectly serviceable story and just had to jazz it up.
fritzi93 is offline  
post #297 of 314 Old 01-03-2013, 08:04 PM
Senior Member
 
maintman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I just reviewed some of the changes that Jackson changed and added. I thought they all mostly made sense. Guess I need to read the book now since I don't remember much of anything whenever I read it as a class assignment as a kid, but I'll have (want) to wait until I've watched all three films.

Btw, my cousin just told me a few minutes ago that Tolkien would've been 120 today.
maintman is offline  
post #298 of 314 Old 01-04-2013, 10:03 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Since the movie Hobbit opens with Bilbo telling a story to older Frodo, "there are some things I never told you." then we go to the story beginning with the unexpected party where the dwarfs show up at a much younger Bilbo home to convince him to go with them to reclaim the kingdom. This opening to The Hobbit told me that the Hobbit complete story takes place after the trilogy of The Lord of the Rings has completed some years before. That would make The Hobbit a sequel to the trilogy of The Lord of the Rings. The prequel to The Lord of the Rings trilogy would be The Children of Hurin.

I recognize that this timing conflict with the story and the dates written is confusing but I prefer to disregard the dates written and follow the actual story. This is a similar confusion as we have with Star Wars.

Note I have not yet read the books The Hobbit nor The Children of Hurin but I did read the purpose of the Children of Hurin by Chris Tolkien
Don Landis is offline  
post #299 of 314 Old 01-04-2013, 10:14 AM
Senior Member
 
Kamikaze13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I've watched the Hobbit now in 2d, 3d, and 3d HFR. The big difference for me was the reduced motion blur with the HFR, mind you it was the only 4k screening of my 3 viewings. The goblin lair especially was much clearer and far more detailed in HFR. I did noticed though that zoomed in scenes (bilbo reaching into the chest at the beginning for ex.) seemed sped up, almost in FF. And there were a few scenes where the characters looked soap opera-ish which I tried to ignore. So I've gone from a HFR skeptic to HFR optomist.

JVC DLA-RS57U Projector - 106" Grandview fixed frame screen
Onkyo TX-NR3009 Receiver
Oppo BDP-103 Blu-Ray Player - PS3
Paradigm Monitor 11 Mains
Paradigm Monitor CC-390 Center
Paradigm Monitor ADP-390 Surrounds x 4
Velodyne DPS-12 Subwoofer
Kamikaze13 is offline  
post #300 of 314 Old 01-04-2013, 12:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,527
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 504 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Could some of the odd, sped-up-like behavior of the 48 fps footage be blamed on the camera shutter speed and degree of angle Jackson chose to shoot that frame rate? Wasn't there something about wanting it to translate to 24 fps better during the down-conversion, so there was some kind of compromise made? You cannot just halve the frames and expect it to look okay without adjusting the shutter.

The doubled frame rate should make panning and motion look smoother (more visual data coming at you), but not like somebody accidentally hitting the fast forward button to 1.5x speed. However, it takes a specific shutter speed and angle to accomplish this.

The reason you get a weird, sped up effect with native 24 fps content is due to the fact modern TV's are using frame interpolation... basically guessing via an algorithm what kind of frames should fill in the gaps to smooth out the motion. They're adding things that weren't there before. HFR is not that, nor should it be.

And as for the Radigast The Brown and the Necromancer scene, I can only assume there is more to that side story filmed for the extended cut. As is, that whole Radigast segment seemed odd and completely out of place and didn't really add anything to the story. In fact, it should have been left out completely. It's kind of like King Kong all over again. Talk about self indulgence.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
Reply 3D Content

Tags
Blu Ray Movies

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off