or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › 48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon - Page 8

post #211 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

I thought of this again just a moment ago, in one of the other threads where a new 3D user was talking about what he described as "excessive" motion blur on 24p movies (even though it's the same motion blur used in 2D prints). And I thought to myself "HFR would help with that..."

Yes, it does seem that 3D increases all kinds of sensitivity to timing and motion irregularity that passes notice in 2D. I wish a local theater would show The Hobbit in 48fps, but I'll have to drive 2 hours to get that. I will, though.
post #212 of 314
If this is shown on RealD projectors I'm assuming it will be 120fps per eye just like every other 3D movie. AFAIC it better be!
post #213 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

If this is shown on RealD projectors I'm assuming it will be 120fps per eye just like every other 3D movie. AFAIC it better be!

Bill you may have missed my comment in another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post

Actually regular RealD uses a triple flash of Left and Right per 24fps frame. It operates at 144Hz:-


L1R1L1R1L1R1, L2R2L2R2L2R2, L3R3L3R3L3R3, ..., L23R23L23R23L23R23, L24R24L24R24L24R24.


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema

What will actually be used for projection of the 48fps 3D I don't know.
post #214 of 314
post #215 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferl View Post

Will they hand out sick bags?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10851611

Have you ever noticed that everytime there is progression in movie presentation technology someone alway reports that it made them dizzy, sick, gave them a headache, eye strain......(pick one). They were complaining in 1910 and they will complain now. I have seen Douglas Trumbull's old Showscan tech, which was 70mm film running at 60 fps, and really enjoyed it. It made the screen appear more like a window. Movement was flawless, no blur. Of course higer frame rate makes film look more like video and lets face it, The Hobbit really a video. So, HFR 3D should look even more like a window than Showscan did and that is going to make many people who like the "classic" (old fashioned) look very unhappy. It should not make them throw-up or have a stroke.

I'm encourged as it has been a long time since we have seen any major upgrading of image in theaters. Sound yes....image not so much. The HFR goes great with 3D and should make it eaiser on the eyes. Of course this will also be an opportunity for 3D haters to get even more bent out of shape. Someone has to start the change and Peter Jackson and James Cameron are just the inovators to show the way. I'm surprised Warner Bros. is being so non-aggresive with the HRF 3D promotion. If you really are interested in cinema I believe you owe it to the films creator to see it the way he suggests. I can not imagine after seeing Life Of Pi not having seen it in 3D. Things change........deal with it.
post #216 of 314
I'll make up my own mind about how well HFR works. I have every intention of seeing the film that way, hopefully next weekend.
post #217 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

I'll make up my own mind about how well HFR works. I have every intention of seeing the film that way, hopefully next weekend.

Same here, but I have to drive to another state to see it.
post #218 of 314
I was at the hobbit premiere and NO ONE as far as I can tell felt in the least bit sick. In fact, it was by far the best 3D I've ever seen because it was so bright (12fl reportedly) and with zero flicker, ghosting, edge bluring. I can already hear people on this forum screaming over the 48fps however. It is a shocking difference when you see it. The very first scene looks startlingly different. The best way I can describe it is watching with frame interpolation turned way up. It is SUPER clear. I for one, loved it, but all those purists who rant and rave about "film-like" smoothness over "digital" or "video" looking picture will hate it. To me, it was the best theater experience of my life. The combination of bright super clear 3D and dolby atmos (and 48fps) was incredible. I would definitely put in the effort to find a 48fps theater and especially one with Dolby Atmos (it is used brilliantly in the film).
If you got any questions, etc, PM me.
post #219 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallnick View Post

I would definitely put in the effort to find a 48fps theater and especially one with Dolby Atmos (it is used brilliantly in the film).

First, thanks for posting your experience. Sounds awesome.

Finding a 48 fps theater should be easy enough for most I think (there are five in the Denver area where I am), but one with Dolby Atmos appears to be quite rare at the moment. Here's a list of all Atmos theaters worldwide - a tiny list:
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos.html#Locations
post #220 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tack View Post

First, thanks for posting your experience. Sounds awesome.
Finding a 48 fps theater should be easy enough for most I think (there are five in the Denver area where I am), but one with Dolby Atmos appears to be quite rare at the moment. Here's a list of all Atmos theaters worldwide - a tiny list:
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos.html#Locations

I know too bad. I heard it wasn't that great for Brave, but for The Hobbit they really used it well. The speakers in the ceiling are awesome for the case scenes (and there are a lot of them). One scene with gollum is AMAZING. (no spoilers!) Still worth the effort for 48fps I'd say, even to just see what all the fuss is about.
post #221 of 314
Going to see Life of Pi at the Cinetopia/Vancouver Mall 23 (that's Washington State, not BC tongue.gif) and it has Dolby ATMOS... and that's where I'll be seeing The Hobbit the following week! biggrin.gif
Looking at the list of where it will be playing with 48FPS with Dolby ATMOS, I am looking forward to a precious presentation indeed!
post #222 of 314
I'm close enough to a theatre with HFR....but no atmos.

I will say though, that I dont think people are exaggerating when they said it made them sick. Im a heavy gamer, and I have no problem handling 60fps games, in 3d....Ive been doing it for decades. But once, during a market research survey, I was asked to use a car simulator to do some sort of usability test. The visuals were striking, the framerate looked like it could have even been 120fps, it was smoother than anything Ive ever seen before. (wasnt in 3d though) I commented to the person running the test, "wow, this is really an impressive simulation, the way the car moves around when I turn and brakes and everything". She told me "its not moving....", and then instantly I began to feel sick. For the next hour, every time I touched the brakes, it was almost like insta-vomit. By the end of it, I was pretty used to it though.

If people are commenting that it feels "too real", it might catch someone off guard in the same way. I dont think the vast majority will have the issue, but Ive played hundreds of hours of racing games, she warned me that it might make me sick, but I just brushed it off, and it still got me really, really bad. I just hope the story doesnt end up being about how many people threw up their nachos, cause Im sure it will get a few people that way.
post #223 of 314
I completely agree with bd2003. I don't think most will have issues with motion sickness, but it makes perfect sense that some will. It's proof, and consequence, that the visuals are very convincingly real.

Here's the example of my wife who is somewhat susceptible to this kind of motion sickness. Given a first person video game like Minecraft on a small laptop screen at 60fps 2D, she has gotten motion sickness within 30 minutes roughly 30% of the time, but usually she's fine, or at least it takes a good amount of time before she feels uneasy. Given a 24fps 3D movie, she has never gotten motion sickness. Perhaps this is due to the lower frame rate, and the fact that it's not a first person perspective. Given a 60fps first person 3D video game , she always gets motion sick within two minutes.

It just makes sense that a first person perspective (which is how we see the world), combined with a high frame rate (which is how we see the world), and stereoscopic 3D (which is how we see the world!), gives strong evidence to our brain that we are in fact moving. However, our other senses, such the stones sitting on hairs in our inner ears, report that there is in fact no physical acceleration or movement of our bodies. This mixed messaging, and our brain's attempt to reconcile it, can lead to motion sickness. Very similar to car sickness or sea sickness I think.

That said, most people don't get car sick, so most people can handle all of this just fine. Humans are adaptive by nature afterall.
post #224 of 314
Tough choice to travel 40 minutes to see in real IMAX non frs 3D or an hour and a half for LIEMAX frs 3D..... decisions decisions.
post #225 of 314
Hey, Nick, how was the depth of the film? I saw a 3D trailer on YouTube, and the effect looked very conservative. How would you compare it to, say, Prometheus, in terms of how well the 3D pulls you into the experience (with or without HFR).
post #226 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Hey, Nick, how was the depth of the film? I saw a 3D trailer on YouTube, and the effect looked very conservative. How would you compare it to, say, Prometheus, in terms of how well the 3D pulls you into the experience (with or without HFR).
The 3D is definitely used conservatively. That is, there are no gimmicky pop outs and is used purely to make the movie more immersive. I thought Prometheus was awesome in its use of 3D and in my opinion the hobbit is an even better experience. It's not just the 3D depth but the brightness and clarity of the 48fps. It really is the best looking movie I've ever seen in a theater. It reminds me of Avatar the first time I saw it but the 48fps is even more shockingly innovative that avatar was.
post #227 of 314
I think some people were going to find an excuse to not like 48FPS. It's just the way some people are, negative by nature.
I will wait until the 20th to see the HFR 3D experience for myself but I would be VERY surprised if motion sickness or feeling dizzy is an issue. Its irregular movements compared to what is happening in my site line that causes issues for me, rough sea being a good example. The fluid in my ears tells me something is different to what my eyes see, its hardly an issue in a theatre though where the seats don't move.
post #228 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

The fluid in my ears tells me something is different to what my eyes see, its hardly an issue in a theatre though where the seats don't move.

Some people get motion sickness playing certain video games (or The Blair Witch Project), so the fact that the seats don't move doesn't necessarily help. I assume the issue is a mismatch between fluid in the ears NOT moving and strong visual movement cues.
post #229 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallnick View Post

I thought Prometheus was awesome in its use of 3D and in my opinion the hobbit is an even better experience.
That's why I brought up Prometheus as an example, because that one was also pretty conservative, all about immersion over wow-factor. Good to hear.

I'm already very curious how they plan to release these on home video.
post #230 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tallnick View Post

I thought Prometheus was awesome in its use of 3D and in my opinion the hobbit is an even better experience.
That's why I brought up Prometheus as an example, because that one was also pretty conservative, all about immersion over wow-factor. Good to hear.

I'm already very curious how they plan to release these on home video.

Id def swing for a 720p/60/3D version.
post #231 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tack View Post

Some people get motion sickness playing certain video games (or The Blair Witch Project), so the fact that the seats don't move doesn't necessarily help. I assume the issue is a mismatch between fluid in the ears NOT moving and strong visual movement cues.

Some people do, that's true but I would suggest they are in a small select minority.
post #232 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

Some people do, that's true but I would suggest they are in a small select minority.

I tend to agree. The media can really blow stuff out of proportion.
post #233 of 314
I imagine that's exactly what happened.. one, maybe two people who are overly sensitive, probably sitting too close to the screen, got a little woozy and suddenly the film makes "everyone" blow chunks.

I'm sure it'll take some getting used to, but I'm pretty sure I won't be getting sick. I run all my video games at higher framerates than this film, after all.
post #234 of 314
Got my tickets for HFR tonight. smile.gif
post #235 of 314
Me too! My theater had both Digital IMax 3d and RPX. Only the RPX has the HFR here.
post #236 of 314
Well, I've definitely never seen anything like that before. The difference is not minor, its absolutely staggering. While watching it I couldn't even imagine what it must look like as a "normal" movie, the difference is really that big.

At first, it felt like I was watching a movie in fast forward. The initial impression is that you hit the FF button once and you're watching everything at double speed. Didnt take long to adjust. At times, yes, it did feel very video gamey (which isn't a bad thing to my eyes). A soap opera - not quite. The 3D is actually *less* noticeable in HFR, because it all looks so natural.

The best way to describe the effect is like you're watching live theater. This is both good and bad - on the one hand, you see "the actor" quite clearly. Every twitch of the eye, every minor movement - you see it clear as day. It's absolutely unforgiving of a weak performance. But it raises the bar, and heightens the peak of a great performance, of great visuals.

Honestly, I think it might be even more transformative than 3D. Having seen it in HFR, I'd feel like something would be absolutely missing in 24fps 2D. I don't know how well it would work without 3D, but its the least objectionable 3D I've ever seen. Part of this I'm sure is just good stereography, but the combination looks so natural.

It's such a radical change that I do think many wont like it. Even the most uninformed will notice the difference absolutely immediately. For my part, I loved it.....can't wait to see more HFR.
post #237 of 314
I keep saying that 4k HFR films must also be available in 2D and for regular movies. Not every genre should have 3D (I don't even like 3D as even it is an unnatural version of how our eyes "see"), but straight 2D HFR... perhaps...
post #238 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

The best way to describe the effect is like you're watching live theater.

I saw it tonight in HFR and I had the exact same thought. It's almost like watching a live play, but it's like they have some kind of crazy technology that creates a holographic world around the live actors.

It took me quite a bit of time to get used to it - probably a good hour or so. I did perceive the Soap Opera Effect for sure. But after that I was just immersed in the world and it started to feel natural. The 3D seemed almost understated, but it could be that the HFR was so much more noticeable that I barely thought about the 3D. On a side note, the 3D glasses provided were far more comfortable than any I've used.

There were a couple of times when the HFR called attention to itself in a negative way. A couple of times the camera motion was less than 100% smooth; you really notice even the tiniest hiccups. There was also a rather unfortunate sequence involving an eccentric wizard that looked fake to the point of distraction and the HFR seemed to amplify that. It was a short sequence though.

As far as the movie itself goes, I really enjoyed it. It does take some time to "spin up." They took some time to introduce a large number of characters at once and I had no problem with that. Once things get rolling, it's quite a ride. The tone is appropriately a little bit sillier than LOTR. I was surprised at how many music cues were used from LOTR. Seems like a bit of a missed opportunity to give it its own feel. I mean, I get that there are certain themes you want to reference, but it felt more like copying and pasting at times, rather than simply referencing.

I'm glad I checked out the HFR version. Very interesting.
post #239 of 314
I'm hearing a lot of positive things about the 3D from the "I hate 3D" camp, and they're all saying that the framerate is what made it tolerable for them. Interesting.
post #240 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

I'm hearing a lot of positive things about the 3D from the "I hate 3D" camp, and they're all saying that the framerate is what made it tolerable for them. Interesting.

I'm not surprised at that one bit. There really is synergy there - the HFR makes the 3D less objectionable, it all combines into something just that looks believable. Even in the occasional part where the 3D pops out, it looks absolutely natural.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › 48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon