or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 25

post #721 of 944
I saw it in 48fps this evening and I have to say I'm at a loss at many of these reviews. I Think this is a great example of how audiences today are spoiled and see what they want these days.

First of all, there's the 48fps. It was strange at first. I think we are used to the modern post production softened, and gritty fake film look these days. Even moreso in epics. Well, that's not what you get here. Instead you get what looks like live action. Very crisp and clear. Even in 3D, its as bright as a normal movie. Its ok during more quiet scenes. Still very clear and picture like. The mountains and sunsets came through very clear. Where it was great was during the battle scenes. Obviously more clear. This is where it does look like the motion interpolation on a tv. But I thought, what really made it work for me was how the framerate really smoothed out the CGI. I guess the best way to put it is, CGI creatures are often slow moving. Slow facial expressions, slow motions. They look much clearer and more natural at 48fps. Not to mention you lose the motion blur. This would totally change the look of all those movies that use semi-closeup and fast moves or even the crazy cam to make a more chaotic look. It looks far clearer here.

As for the movie, I loved it. I think we're seeing a bit of the Star Wars affect here with many. You can't even compare the movies because you always go back to the first trilogy(which I have always thought was overrated, especially RTOK). This movie to me was the same. You can almost go blow for blow with FotR as to how its put together, so I don't get the comments about when action is shown or how characters are introduced. Its damn near exactly the same. The immersion into the world is the same as well. What I was impressed with was the natural urge not to imbellish in the new series and try to make it more sensational like you generally see with sequels and prequels. It feels the same. The acting feels the same. The world is the same and doesn't hit you over the head with trying to tie itself to the Lord of the Rings though there are some ties if you've seen them. Just no "I have a bad feeling about this" type of stuff. I actually loved the integration of what's not in the book that was taken from Tolkien's notes. It adds depth and more immersion into the world.

Guess I'm saying, if you like to see new tech, go for the 48fps. It looks cool and is the best 3D immersion out there. If you liked the Trilogy, just go to enjoy and accept that its a different story with some new characters and a different kind of motivation. This is no Phantom Menace, and I say shame on many critics for reviewing it as such
post #722 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Exactly why I couldn't get thru the book....I just didn't care.
You are not the only one....see above.

The Hobbit was Tolkien's "warm-up," LOTR was the masterpiece. wink.gif

Good point! That is exactly it. The Hobbit feels very much like a warm up film after the LOTR films. Not a bad film, but certainly on a lower level vs LOTR ALL AROUND. It is impossible not to compare it to the LOTR films and while similar in many ways, it just feels flat, a bit lacking and underwhelming in general in comparison.
post #723 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

The paper this morning gave it 1 1/2 stars.

Definitley not a good start.
post #724 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Saw this today in IMAX 3d and have mixed emotions about the movie. Definitely does NOT grab you like the LOTR movies did. Besides the returning characters such as Bilbo, Gandalf, etc....I just did not care about any of the new ones. I could not find much emotional attachment like I could with the cast of FOTR and the other movies as well. It also felt a bit padded IMO. I think they could have done a ~3 hour theatrical showing and made just one movie, and then put out an extended version for blu ray to flesh it out a bit more. Spanning this over 3 films though seems a bit much.
I think another problem is that while The Hobbit is a great book/story, it does not have that sense of urgency, intensity and forbidding possible doom like the LOTR does which came through on the big screen as well. There is much more at stake in the LOTR vs The Hobbit and you can feel it watching the movie. The Hobbit is just a bit more laid back or something and while a fun adventure, it lacks the degree of purpose that LOTR has.
It was a fun movie and the cinematography was certainly LOTR worthy, but it just seems to be missing that "X" factor that makes the LOTR films so great. I need to see it again though, and at home where I can really dig into it and see how I feel then.
As far as the 3d, it was very conservative which is not really a bad thing. You certainly are not missing anything if you see it in 2d though. The 3d did not add (or take anything away for that matter) anything significant to the experience overall IMO.
Audio I cant judge. I need to view it at home in my own HT to evaluate that.
So yeah, kind of luke warm to the whole experience right now. Certainly not a bad movie and definitely worth seeing if you enjoyed the LOTR movies, but it does fall short of those masterpieces for sure.
Oh, they did have an extended ~10 minute (eek.gif) preview of the new Star Trek movie that is coming out which looks VERY good IMO. Really looking forward to seeing this.

Thanks for the review Todd. Might wait for the blu ray release now.
post #725 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Thanks for the review Todd. Might wait for the blu ray release now.

Another plus waiting for the blu release is it is cheaper! I dont get out to the movies much, but me and my friend were both amazed at the $17.00 asking price. eek.gif Throw in food/drinks and this would make for an expensive trip to the movies for those with families.
post #726 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

If 48 fps is showing less blur, that is the reason it would show more detail (though that's dependent on shutter setting too). The higher frame rate also helps the eye track the detail better, with 24 fps you'd have the judder/strobing (as well as blurring) obscuring the details. The higher rate will also give more 'information/detail' about the scene, even if the spatial resolution of each frame was the same as a 24 fps film.
OK, thanx for the explanation.smile.gif

I have always hated judder and motion blurring.
I really have to see it at 48FPS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post

I saw it in 48fps this evening and I have to say I'm at a loss at many of these reviews. I Think this is a great example of how audiences today are spoiled and see what they want these days.
First of all, there's the 48fps. It was strange at first. I think we are used to the modern post production softened, and gritty fake film look these days. Even moreso in epics. Well, that's not what you get here. Instead you get what looks like live action. Very crisp and clear. Even in 3D, its as bright as a normal movie. Its ok during more quiet scenes. Still very clear and picture like. The mountains and sunsets came through very clear. Where it was great was during the battle scenes. Obviously more clear. This is where it does look like the motion interpolation on a tv. But I thought, what really made it work for me was how the framerate really smoothed out the CGI. I guess the best way to put it is, CGI creatures are often slow moving. Slow facial expressions, slow motions. They look much clearer and more natural at 48fps. Not to mention you lose the motion blur. This would totally change the look of all those movies that use semi-closeup and fast moves or even the crazy cam to make a more chaotic look. It looks far clearer here.
As for the movie, I loved it. I think we're seeing a bit of the Star Wars affect here with many. You can't even compare the movies because you always go back to the first trilogy(which I have always thought was overrated, especially RTOK). This movie to me was the same. You can almost go blow for blow with FotR as to how its put together, so I don't get the comments about when action is shown or how characters are introduced. Its damn near exactly the same. The immersion into the world is the same as well. What I was impressed with was the natural urge not to imbellish in the new series and try to make it more sensational like you generally see with sequels and prequels. It feels the same. The acting feels the same. The world is the same and doesn't hit you over the head with trying to tie itself to the Lord of the Rings though there are some ties if you've seen them. Just no "I have a bad feeling about this" type of stuff. I actually loved the integration of what's not in the book that was taken from Tolkien's notes. It adds depth and more immersion into the world.
Guess I'm saying, if you like to see new tech, go for the 48fps. It looks cool and is the best 3D immersion out there. If you liked the Trilogy, just go to enjoy and accept that its a different story with some new characters and a different kind of motivation. This is no Phantom Menace, and I say shame on many critics for reviewing it as such
Nice review.cool.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Good point! That is exactly it. The Hobbit feels very much like a warm up film after the LOTR films. Not a bad film, but certainly on a lower level vs LOTR ALL AROUND. It is impossible not to compare it to the LOTR films and while similar in many ways, it just feels flat, a bit lacking and underwhelming in general in comparison.
Probably it's the result of the original material.
The old saying "ya can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" perhaps?biggrin.gif
post #727 of 944
3D versus non-3D. 48 fps versus 24 fps. Some people are just more sensitive to certain visual cues than others. One size does not fit all.

As an aside I recently came across a story about subtitle glasses Sony has developed for the deaf and hard of hearing who want a better experience in a movie theater. I have never been in a theater with closed or open captioning but I can understand how this technology can be a real boon for those affected.

According to the story Regal theaters will be the first to roll this out to customers in March 2013. Hopefully other chains will follow their lead.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/sony-subtitle-glasses/
post #728 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

I like the book and I'm thinking of skipping this until disc.

Saw this yesterday. I would say the movie was fairly faithful to the book and did not seem as bloated to me as I feared. Also, I was not frustrated where they ended the movie as I thought I would be. That said It REALLY should have been just one movie, but was more enjoyable than I thought it would be - especially the last half or so. The Bilbo and Gollum riddle scene was fun and a perfect ode to the book.

The beginning is pretty slow and the characters seem uninteresting AND forced at the same time. The HFR is very soap opera-ry here and makes for a very poor start. Any scene with humans sitting around talking in a basic room, the HFR looks very bad. ALL the other action, vista, creature scenes look GREAT with this extra clarity. I think HFR would be much better if they did a hybrid where it was much dialed back in the human talky scenes.

The Dolby Atmos was pretty fun and ramped up the surround effects and was noticable during the movie. Unfortunately, LFE was pretty light. I saw TDKR in this particular theater and know it is very competent here so looks like it was mixed light.
post #729 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3code View Post

to me it didnt look as frame interpolation. maybe depends on the eyes?
also explain why you thought it was a terrible movie? what didnt you like about it?

Nothing to do with FI its was just a bad movie. It was bit of a clunker, too much dialog and not much adventure. Peter Jackson should have hired a qualified editor.
post #730 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post


The beginning is pretty slow and the characters seem uninteresting AND forced at the same time.
That is how the book starts too.

Quote:
The HFR is very soap opera-ry here and makes for a very poor start. Any scene with humans sitting around talking in a basic room, the HFR looks very bad. ALL the other action, vista, creature scenes look GREAT with this extra clarity. I think HFR would be much better if they did a hybrid where it was much dialed back in the human talky scenes.
Did you end up going to the theater in Tigard?
Was it shoulder to shoulder in the theater?
post #731 of 944
I saw this movie yesterday at one of the local IMAX's. At the time I didn't know what frame the film was being shown in. So with no preconceived notions (finding out after the fact that it was indeed in 48fps), I felt the film looked pretty good overall. My only nit was there was maybe one wide sweeping shot, with lots of action going on, in which to me everything was a blur, and lost detail. But most of the 3D effects were outstanding, and it was a lot of fun seeing some of the familiar LOTR characters in 3D. I can understand some people's thoughts on the length of this film. But overall, I thought this was a very fun film, and just went along with what was being dished out. Knowing that the book of 'The Hobbit', is less 'serious' story telling than the LOTR, I was completely fine with the sometimes over the top silliness and just relaxed and enjoyed the movie.
post #732 of 944
Just came back from seeing this in (Sony 4K) 2D. I'm not a big LotR fan as previously mentioned, but just wanted to see for myself. Big sweeping pans were not judder free, and it was very film-like, so I believe the showing was 24fps. But, most of the early outdoor scenes are way too contrasty (IMO), which is usually a giveaway of a poorly done digital production. Very little audio surround, and dialog was a bit muffled, but I think it was that particular room.

That being said, if you're a Tolkien fan, Hobbit feels just like the previous films.
post #733 of 944
I saw it twice in the past to days. The first time in 48 fps 3D! Th second in plain old 2D 24 fps.
Within minutes of the movie starting I know I was going to hate the hfr. It felt like everything was in ft forward and totally pulled me out of the movie. For me I was so bad that I left not even sure what I thought of the movie itself. For me, there was nothing positive to say about hfr. Maybe it is just what I am used to, and I did try to give it a chance and adjust to it, but it just looked so unnatural. I could not get drawn into the story at all and forget suspension of disbelief. It just did not look like watching a movie at all.

Went back today to see it in 2D 24 fps and loved the movie. It felt so much more natural and cinematic and while the judder was more evident to me having just seen the smoother hfr version, I'll take it over the video game feel of hfr.

Maybe it's just me and maybe over time ill adjust to it, but my initial experience was I hated it.
post #734 of 944
I think what you have here is the is the uncanny valley effect in full force. Movies settled on 24FPS for a reason, and the reason isn't that different FPS variables weren't open to them back when film first came around.

Honestly, I have the same problem with 240hz sets with all the annoying bells and whistles on. It creates an realistic, but quite not right look that pulls me right out of the picture.

Our brains do well with abstractions and reality. Get to close to the edge without making it and they start firing of warning neurons.
post #735 of 944
Just got back from an HFR 3D (non-IMAX) showing. I absolutely hate Frame Interpolation but I really enjoyed the 48fps effect. It really made it seem like you were right there. Definitely had a few strange motion artifacts but I didn't find it distracting enough to pull me out of the movie in any big way. And I feel like the HFR helped with blending the CGI and real-life better together.

The movie itself I really liked. Right up there with the LotR movies IMO. I didn't find it slow at all, the time flew by. Plenty of action, I really don't understand the complaint that it was too slow-moving.

And Gollum was jaw-droppingly life-like. The results of motion capture used in this film is by far the best I have ever seen. By a long shot, IMO.
post #736 of 944
Just got back from the IMAX in San Antonio. Beautiful picture and amazing 3d. But I will NEVER waste my money at the box office again. The IMAX had zero subwoofers working. There was crackle of thunder but no booms. When the trolls were running around nothing.

And to top it off the left channel wasn't working either!! Anytime something offscreen was coming out of that channel it's sounded like it was comingnfrommamtin can. SO annoying.

But great movie. Incredilenvisual effect!! Just can't wait to watch it at home in a properly working theater
post #737 of 944
I have now seen the movie in Imax 24fps and 48fps and I thought the 48fps was much better.The 3d was more real looking and the picture much sharper.On the sound there was not a lot of bass in the movie.
post #738 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Not as exciting as The Lord of the rings trilogy ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Please elaborate.smile.gif

Ok, here I go... The movie simply is lacking. The story isn't bad, but the screenplay felt, to paraphrase Bilbo in FOTR, "It felt thin; like butter, spread over too much bread."

The problem is it's hard to feel a sense of danger for the characters when everything looks and feels childish. Yes I know it's a children's book and PJ did include a great deal of fantastical, brutal battle scenes to mature things, but there's so much extra silly/pointless dialog. I would have been fine with it had it been funny and not cheesy.

I also had a problem with the horribly endless CGI. One of the reasons LOTR drew audiences into a different world was that most every character looked real. In The Hobbit the cinematography is horrible! The lighting makes most everything look cartoony... Except for Gollum/Smeagul, who looked better than ever! Seems like WETA put all their efforts into 1% of the CGI characters.

The acting is 50/50 for me. Sometimes it sounds like a lot of the actors are trying to act (including the returning cast), and other times the actors brought the characters to life.

When it comes to the HFR, there are pluses and minuses to it, and it all boils down to execution. During close ups, of which PJ was obsessed with when shooting this movie, the movement actually looks sped up and loses its fluidity. However, once the camera pans out, everything becomes life-like and the immersion is taken to a whole new level. I don't know how PJ and co. didn't see this in the test footage.

At the end of the day, I didn't hate it, but it is nowhere near the stratospheric brilliance of the LOTR films. The attention to finer details, practical effects and dramatic tension just isn't there. I will give it another go in IMAX 24fps 3D and see if this changes my view. Here's hoping.
post #739 of 944
I just watched FOTR again for the 9000th time and that movie just seems to get better every time. FOTR is SO much better than The Hobbit that I actually feel I might have gone a bit easy on The Hobbit in my posts yesterday. The Hobbit just feels very shallow and thin in comparison. The LOTR films for my money are movie magic at its finest while The Hobbit is a fun enough romp, but does not leave a lasting impression or ever truly capture you. The Hobbit feels like a one night stand while LOTR feels like true love. I care about the characters in LOTR and can relate to the various elements of friendship, love, temptation, good, evil, doubt, confusion, pain, anger, happiness, etc........The Hobbit is severely lacking in most of these areas in comparison which is why it feels so shallow in comparison. I could go on.......

I really wish they would have just made one movie out of The Hobbit, trim up the fat and ramp up the tension.
Edited by Toe - 12/15/12 at 10:59pm
post #740 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Ok, here I go... The movie simply is lacking. The story isn't bad, but the screenplay felt, to paraphrase Bilbo in FOTR, "It felt thin; like butter, spread over too much bread."
The problem is it's hard to feel a sense of danger for the characters when everything looks and feels childish. Yes I know it's a children's book and PJ did include a great deal of fantastical, brutal battle scenes to mature things, but there's so much extra silly/pointless dialog. I would have been fine with it had it been funny and not cheesy.
I also had a problem with the horribly endless CGI. One of the reasons LOTR drew audiences into a different world was that most every character looked real. In The Hobbit the cinematography is horrible! The lighting makes most everything look cartoony... Except for Gollum/Smeagul, who looked better than ever! Seems like WETA put all their efforts into 1% of the CGI characters.
The acting is 50/50 for me. Sometimes it sounds like a lot of the actors are trying to act (including the returning cast), and other times the actors brought the characters to life.
When it comes to the HFR, there are pluses and minuses to it, and it all boils down to execution. During close ups, of which PJ was obsessed with when shooting this movie, the movement actually looks sped up and loses its fluidity. However, once the camera pans out, everything becomes life-like and the immersion is taken to a whole new level. I don't know how PJ and co. didn't see this in the test footage.
At the end of the day, I didn't hate it, but it is nowhere near the stratospheric brilliance of the LOTR films. The attention to finer details, practical effects and dramatic tension just isn't there. I will give it another go in IMAX 24fps 3D and see if this changes my view. Here's hoping.
Thanx for the review.smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I just watched FOTR again for the 9000th time and that movie just seems to get better every time. FOTR is SO much better than The Hobbit that I actually feel I might have gone a bit easy on The Hobbit in my posts yesterday. The Hobbit just feels very shallow and thin in comparison. The LOTR films for my money are movie magic at its finest while The Hobbit is a fun enough romp, but does not leave a lasting impression or ever truly capture you. The Hobbit feels like a one night stand while LOTR feels like true love. I care about the characters in LOTR and can relate to the various elements of friendship, love, temptation, good, evil, doubt, confusion, pain, anger, happiness, etc........The Hobbit is severely lacking in most of these areas in comparison which is why it feels so shallow in comparison. I could go on.......
I really wish they would have just made one movie out of The Hobbit, trim up the fat and ramp up the tension.
PJ was on Stephen Colbert last week and said something about Tolkein, after having written LOTR, wrote some additional or alternate material for The Hobbit because it was too child-like, too light when compared to the trilogy.
Apparently, one of his friends pointed out to him The Hobbit is, essentially, a prequel.
I got the impression from the interview PJ didn't consult it for this Hobbit....that could have been a mistake.wink.gif
post #741 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I just watched FOTR again for the 9000th time and that movie just seems to get better every time. FOTR is SO much better than The Hobbit that I actually feel I might have gone a bit easy on The Hobbit in my posts yesterday. The Hobbit just feels very shallow and thin in comparison. The LOTR films for my money are movie magic at its finest while The Hobbit is a fun enough romp, but does not leave a lasting impression or ever truly capture you. The Hobbit feels like a one night stand while LOTR feels like true love. I care about the characters in LOTR and can relate to the various elements of friendship, love, temptation, good, evil, doubt, confusion, pain, anger, happiness, etc........The Hobbit is severely lacking in most of these areas in comparison which is why it feels so shallow in comparison. I could go on.......
I really wish they would have just made one movie out of The Hobbit, trim up the fat and ramp up the tension.

Well said. There's a serious lack of depth to everyone in The Hobbit.
post #742 of 944
I'm really disappointed. I wanted to see the 48fps version, but it's only showing in f'ing 3D!! And I hate 3D. That just blows.
post #743 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Ok, here I go... The movie simply is lacking. The story isn't bad, but the screenplay felt, to paraphrase Bilbo in FOTR, "It felt thin; like butter, spread over too much bread."
The problem is it's hard to feel a sense of danger for the characters when everything looks and feels childish. Yes I know it's a children's book and PJ did include a great deal of fantastical, brutal battle scenes to mature things, but there's so much extra silly/pointless dialog. I would have been fine with it had it been funny and not cheesy.
I also had a problem with the horribly endless CGI. One of the reasons LOTR drew audiences into a different world was that most every character looked real. In The Hobbit the cinematography is horrible! The lighting makes most everything look cartoony... Except for Gollum/Smeagul, who looked better than ever! Seems like WETA put all their efforts into 1% of the CGI characters.
The acting is 50/50 for me. Sometimes it sounds like a lot of the actors are trying to act (including the returning cast), and other times the actors brought the characters to life.
When it comes to the HFR, there are pluses and minuses to it, and it all boils down to execution. During close ups, of which PJ was obsessed with when shooting this movie, the movement actually looks sped up and loses its fluidity. However, once the camera pans out, everything becomes life-like and the immersion is taken to a whole new level. I don't know how PJ and co. didn't see this in the test footage.
At the end of the day, I didn't hate it, but it is nowhere near the stratospheric brilliance of the LOTR films. The attention to finer details, practical effects and dramatic tension just isn't there. I will give it another go in IMAX 24fps 3D and see if this changes my view. Here's hoping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I just watched FOTR again for the 9000th time and that movie just seems to get better every time. FOTR is SO much better than The Hobbit that I actually feel I might have gone a bit easy on The Hobbit in my posts yesterday. The Hobbit just feels very shallow and thin in comparison. The LOTR films for my money are movie magic at its finest while The Hobbit is a fun enough romp, but does not leave a lasting impression or ever truly capture you. The Hobbit feels like a one night stand while LOTR feels like true love. I care about the characters in LOTR and can relate to the various elements of friendship, love, temptation, good, evil, doubt, confusion, pain, anger, happiness, etc........The Hobbit is severely lacking in most of these areas in comparison which is why it feels so shallow in comparison. I could go on.......
I really wish they would have just made one movie out of The Hobbit, trim up the fat and ramp up the tension.

Thank you both.
post #744 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Another plus waiting for the blu release is it is cheaper! I dont get out to the movies much, but me and my friend were both amazed at the $17.00 asking price. eek.gif Throw in food/drinks and this would make for an expensive trip to the movies for those with families.

Very true and if its a long film I tend to go la premiere ( special seating ) and the tickets can range from $40 each depending on day.
post #745 of 944
Frankly, the only reason I would go to see this movie is because the HT-nerd in me is curious about this whole 48 fps thing. For those of us who live in cultural backwaters without these state-of-the-art theaters, can someone briefly summarize just what kind of showing has this format (2-D? 3-D? IMAX 3-D? IMAX 2-D? LIEMAX?). Secondly, this kind of information isn't typically available in the theater listings and you can't get a theater manager on the phone unless you know the Super-Secret Hidden Number that's not publicly available. The cashiers and ticket takers and concession stand drones have no earthly idea about different theatrical formats, so that's a no-go as well. Thanks.
post #746 of 944
See http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/index.html

Two theaters listed in Charlotte, NC. Be careful, those theaters will likely have multiple showings and only one will be HFR. As far as I know, all HFR screenings are also 3D, so you can ignore any listings for 2D showings.
post #747 of 944
I'm puzzled at the many comments I've read not only in this thread, but around the internet and even in critics reviews, of the 48HFR making the image look "too fast" and "sped up."

What's up with that? I can't think of any technical reason why that would be the case, or even appear to be the case. Are people being somehow influenced by knowing "it's a higher frame rate" and somehow that get's them to interpret some of the image as "sped up" (as if a higher frame rate equates to images being faster).

Anyone?

(Gonna try to see it this week...only for the 3D and HFR to see it with my own eyes. I couldn't be less interested in it's subject matter unfortunately).
post #748 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm puzzled at the many comments I've read not only in this thread, but around the internet and even in critics reviews, of the 48HFR making the image look "too fast" and "sped up."
What's up with that? I can't think of any technical reason why that would be the case, or even appear to be the case. Are people being somehow influenced by knowing "it's a higher frame rate" and somehow that get's them to interpret some of the image as "sped up" (as if a higher frame rate equates to images being faster).
Anyone?
(Gonna try to see it this week...only for the 3D and HFR to see it with my own eyes. I couldn't be less interested in it's subject matter unfortunately).

Those I have talked to who have seen it claim the 48HFR has a very similar look to applying CMD or FI on your home display. On my RS45 if I enable CMD 3 or 4, things do look a bit fast and sped up so those comments make sense to me if it looks similar to enabling CMD. When you apply CMD on your RS55 either mode 3 or 4 to film based content, how would you describe the effect?
post #749 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

...how would you describe the effect?
Uncharacteristically smooth (i.e., doesn't look like 'film' any more).
post #750 of 944
My 20 year old son and I saw the movie in 3D HFR yesterday.
Positives:
I
  • t worked the best in scenes with Golum. The best looking Golum on screen ever.
  • I thought HFR yielded a better integration of the CGI characters with live action
  • Many outdoor landscape shots looked very realistic

Negatives:
  • My son said he felt some motions appeared to be speeded up
  • Many times I felt it looked like CGI from a Discovery Channel or History channel show on cable TV
  • "Soap Opera TV" look and feel kept coming to mind over and over again throughout the movie.

(not related to HFR) - - I could have done without the sub-plot with Radagast. Not sure why it was important to the overall arc of the Hobbit story. Much of it was silly and definitely smacked of appealing to viewers under the age of 6. Yes, the Hobbit is more of a child's story, but it feels odd to be placed in the same movie with orc and goblin battles and heads being chopped off.
I'll take FOTR any day. Give me 24 fps any day of the week too. I'm quite happy with how my Bluray extended version of Fellowship or Two Towers looks on my 8' projection screen at home. Next year I think I'll watch part 2 in 2D.

Bill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home