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 9

post #241 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tack View Post

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.

Yeah, I agree. That sequence was a little ridiculous, and the HFR didn't help sell it. I dunno if it looks less ridiculous in 24fps though....it just seemed like bad acting or an impossible part. It definitely vindicated PJs decision to cut bombadil from the original trilogy.
Quote:
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.

Yeah, as far as the movie goes, I really enjoyed it too, and agree with pretty much everything you said. The tone is perfect for the book....but seriously, its too long. I'm as big a fan of LOTR as anyone, I've seen the extended cuts half a dozen times, read the books twice....they just stretched this to an unnatural length. Three 2 hour movies or two 3 hour movies would have been much better. There are so many flashbacks, new characters created out of thin air, repeated exposition, etc. Villains are introduced from the next 2 movies and then never heard from. There's no way they make an extended cut - the theatrical releases are already it. I'm already unsure where they are going to find the material for two more movies since they're already a solid halfway through the book.

If I had a little bit of a hard time watching it at times, and I'm super easy to please....I dunno how the general public will react to it. Its certainly no phantom menace, but its going to be nowhere near as huge as LOTR. The theater wasnt even sold out on opening night.
post #242 of 314
Saw the Hobbit yesterday at the Pittsburg Mills Imax theater in Tarentun, PA. Don't think it was shown at HFR (how would Ifind this out)?

I had one third of the book finished but decided to see the film and finish the book later.

Contrary to other views I diid see "ghosting" on a number of occasions. I'm always looking for this ever since I bought the first Samsung 55" 3D that was availaible a couple of years ago ( returned this set along with the first Sony 3D also because of ghosting).

One item more disturbing andnmay be accentuated (sp) is the blur of people and scenery when the camera pans the film left and right. This has always botherd me and don't understand why this can't be fixed.

I have sinced purchased a BenQ 7000 DLP projector and am very satisified with it's lack of ghosting; just which it had better contrast of black images.

Any and all comments will be appreciated!
post #243 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by bontrager View Post

Saw the Hobbit yesterday at the Pittsburg Mills Imax theater in Tarentun, PA. Don't think it was shown at HFR (how would Ifind this out)?

I had one third of the book finished but decided to see the film and finish the book later.

Contrary to other views I diid see "ghosting" on a number of occasions. I'm always looking for this ever since I bought the first Samsung 55" 3D that was availaible a couple of years ago ( returned this set along with the first Sony 3D also because of ghosting).

One item more disturbing andnmay be accentuated (sp) is the blur of people and scenery when the camera pans the film left and right. This has always botherd me and don't understand why this can't be fixed.

I have sinced purchased a BenQ 7000 DLP projector and am very satisified with it's lack of ghosting; just which it had better contrast of black images.

Any and all comments will be appreciated!


It can be fixed by watching it in HFR. smile.gif. If you saw it in HFR, you'd know it.

I'm assuming PJ decided to use faster than normal pans, to accentuate the HFR. I imagine itd look pretty ugly in standard film.
post #244 of 314
Makes me wonder if they went back and added more motion blur to the 24fps version to compensate for the lack of motion blur in the original plates. Otherwise you'd probably get people complaining about a strobing effect during pans. I'd have to see a 24p presentation, which I probably won't do until they release on Blu-ray.
post #245 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Makes me wonder if they went back and added more motion blur to the 24fps version to compensate for the lack of motion blur in the original plates. Otherwise you'd probably get people complaining about a strobing effect during pans. I'd have to see a 24p presentation, which I probably won't do until they release on Blu-ray.

Could very well be. I imagine the end result would look something like apocalypto. Smoother, but blurrier. Even the HFR had a little blur on the pans, it kind of looked like LCD blur actually.

I never want to see it in 24p though. If they dont release it in 48hz at home, theyre messing up.
post #246 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Makes me wonder if they went back and added more motion blur to the 24fps version to compensate for the lack of motion blur in the original plates. Otherwise you'd probably get people complaining about a strobing effect during pans. I'd have to see a 24p presentation, which I probably won't do until they release on Blu-ray.
itll be interesting to see if theyre going to re-add the motion blur. if they followed the 180 degree shutter rule for the hobbit at 48p (meaning they captured it at 1/100 sec shutter speed) a simple halving of the fr to 24p would look choppier than the industry standard 24p captured at 1/50 sec.
post #247 of 314
Today I saw it in 24fps 3D with three of my friends. The screen was smaller than we would have hoped, but the image was bright and the 3D was very easy to take in. RealD. No ghosting, no problems at all really. It looked like any other high quality 3D 24fps presentation I've seen.

It looked perfect, so it's amazing to think we only saw half of the movie's frames! I look forward to seeing it in 48fps at some point, but in my experience the 24fps version didn't suffer one bit from it being filmed in 48fps. Totally indistinguishable from native 24fps high quality 3D content.
post #248 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

itll be interesting to see if theyre going to re-add the motion blur. if they followed the 180 degree shutter rule for the hobbit at 48p (meaning they captured it at 1/100 sec shutter speed) a simple halving of the fr to 24p would look choppier than the industry standard 24p captured at 1/50 sec.

I noticed a lot of motion blur in early scenes with fast action in the 24fps RealD 3D showing at my local theater last night. But, I also noticed some doubling and blur in the credits.
post #249 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by bontrager View Post

One item more disturbing andnmay be accentuated (sp) is the blur of people and scenery when the camera pans the film left and right. This has always botherd me and don't understand why this can't be fixed.

Motion blur can easily be "fixed" by simply using a faster shutter speed. The problem is then you get a very stylized look like the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan or the strobe-like effect in the opening scene of Blade. You typically wouldn't want an entire movie done in that style. Motion blur smooths out the motion. In fact, many video games add fake motion blur to give a smoother feel.

This is just a guess, but at 48 fps, they likely used a faster shutter speed, since less motion blur would be required to reduce that strobe effect. Also, there's the inherent limitation of 1/48th of a second being the slowest shutter speed available, though I don't know what a normal shutter speed when shooting a movie. Anyway, as a result (as others have mentioned too), it's possible that they had to artificially add motion blur to the 24 fps version, or there'd be too much of the Saving Private Ryan Effect.
post #250 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

If they dont release it in 48hz at home, theyre messing up.
I'm kind of wondering how they're going to do that, though... as far as I'm aware, the Blu-ray spec doesn't actually include 48fps, especially in 3D. At this point, it looks like we'll be getting just a 24p 3D home release. Unless they include it as some kind of digital file on a bonus disc or something, that we can play in our computers. Which suits me, since that is my 3D home theater, so to speak.. it's the only 3D display in the house right now.
post #251 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

If they dont release it in 48hz at home, theyre messing up.
I'm kind of wondering how they're going to do that, though... as far as I'm aware, the Blu-ray spec doesn't actually include 48fps, especially in 3D. At this point, it looks like we'll be getting just a 24p 3D home release. Unless they include it as some kind of digital file on a bonus disc or something, that we can play in our computers. Which suits me, since that is my 3D home theater, so to speak.. it's the only 3D display in the house right now.

They could pack it into 720p or 1080i at 60hz. It might be a little juddery, but we already tolerate 24hz converted to 60hz, so probably not a big deal.
post #252 of 314
Saw it Sat in HFR IMAX 3D (well pseudo IMAX at the AMC Tysons in Northern VA.) I would say that I'd agree with the assessment that the movie looked like 'live theater.' This makes the makeup artists, actors and definitely the CGI folks have to be pretty much perfect at their craft cause all errors are emphasized. Hobbit soared mostly in these areas cept for that Radaghast chase scene. At first it seemed the film was 'sped' up...but did get adjusted to that and the soap opera look while it was prominent at the beginning was something that seemed less as the film wore on (though not totally gone.) The darker/night scenes were spectacular in 48fps and the detail and smoothness was very much taken advantage of. The daylight/outdoor scenes (Hobbiton, plains, outdoor shots, even daylight Rivendell) seem to loose their grandeur and had somewhat an artificial look. It was a different look Middle Earth than what you remembered from the LOTR trilogy. That being said the 'new' Middle Earth has it advantages and they are spectacular in the 3D presentation. I did see a bit of ghosting (IMAX vertical polarized so don't tilt your head!) but no judder, no smearing, and fast action looked absolutely spectacular. Hobbit/HFR raises the 3D bar just as Avatar did. 3D becomes quite natural and perfectly viewable. Best 3D presentation ever. I do hate the artificial soap-opera look frame interpolation gives but native 48fps content as Jackson has provided I think has a future. My feeling is that with a bit of computer enhanced touchup to the 48fps 'look' the format will become a nice, new standard (especially 3D) with the best of what 48fps offers massaged/compromised a bit with some of the look of traditional 24fps film format we all grew up with.
post #253 of 314
They just need to go more natural with everything (lighting, acting, composition, sound effects). No touching up in post required, just make it more theatrical and less filmic. It's funny how the silent to sound era took acting one way, and now I feel that HFR is taking film back to its silent era roots.

Seeing this in HFR confirmed all of my suspicions- it's not that 48fps looks unnatural- it just exposes the unnatural that has hidden behind a low framerate "filter." It serves as a microscope for examining the fakeness of Hollywood films and it forces the entire crew to step their game up.
Edited by cakefoo - 12/16/12 at 2:34pm
post #254 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tack View Post

This is just a guess, but at 48 fps, they likely used a faster shutter speed, since less motion blur would be required to reduce that strobe effect. Also, there's the inherent limitation of 1/48th of a second being the slowest shutter speed available, though I don't know what a normal shutter speed when shooting a movie. Anyway, as a result (as others have mentioned too), it's possible that they had to artificially add motion blur to the 24 fps version, or there'd be too much of the Saving Private Ryan Effect.
The Hobbit HFR was shot with 270 degree (1/64sek) shutter speed. Normal shutter speed for 24fps movies are 180 degree (1/48).

https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/your-comments-on-48-fps/10150235459531558
post #255 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Seeing this in HFR confirmed all of my suspicions- it's not that 48fps looks unnatural- it just exposes the unnatural that has hidden behind a low framerate "filter." It serves as a microscope for examining the fakeness of Hollywood films and it forces the entire crew to step their game up.

Much like High Definition has done to some degree. You only have to watch the Blu-Ray Release of Cliffhanger to see glaring examples of fake matt back drops in certain scenes that looked perfectly ok on DVD but stand out like sore thumbs in HD. Film makers upped their game for HD knowing that what they could previously mask just wasn't going to work. Now they will have to do the same for HFR.

It will be interesting to see the next movie if only to find out how much the cgi artists and set designers have learned from the first movie and what improvements they have incorporated into their work. I have a feeling with Weta and Peter Jackson working on the trilogy, we are going to see dramatic improvement over the next couple of years.
post #256 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Seeing this in HFR confirmed all of my suspicions- it's not that 48fps looks unnatural- it just exposes the unnatural that has hidden behind a low framerate "filter." It serves as a microscope for examining the fakeness of Hollywood films and it forces the entire crew to step their game up.

Much like High Definition has done to some degree. You only have to watch the Blu-Ray Release of Cliffhanger to see glaring examples of fake matt back drops in certain scenes that looked perfectly ok on DVD but stand out like sore thumbs in HD. Film makers upped their game for HD knowing that what they could previously mask just wasn't going to work. Now they will have to do the same for HFR.

It will be interesting to see the next movie if only to find out how much the cgi artists and set designers have learned from the first movie and what improvements they have incorporated into their work. I have a feeling with Weta and Peter Jackson working on the trilogy, we are going to see dramatic improvement over the next couple of years.

I sure hope so. Honestly though, as much as I appreciated the difference it made....there's a part of me that didnt like it. Mostly because it was so different from the original trilogy, there just felt like there was less visual continuity. It didnt feel like the same middle earth.
post #257 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

Much like High Definition has done to some degree. You only have to watch the Blu-Ray Release of Cliffhanger to see glaring examples of fake matt back drops in certain scenes that looked perfectly ok on DVD but stand out like sore thumbs in HD. Film makers upped their game for HD knowing that what they could previously mask just wasn't going to work. Now they will have to do the same for HFR.
It will be interesting to see the next movie if only to find out how much the cgi artists and set designers have learned from the first movie and what improvements they have incorporated into their work. I have a feeling with Weta and Peter Jackson working on the trilogy, we are going to see dramatic improvement over the next couple of years.
Set design and CG are definitely areas that don't hold up quite as well, because you're seeing this realistically smooth framerate and these fake looking sets and CG. Sound mixing is another. At times what I was hearing sounded like series of sound fx, rather than something that was occurring organically. I've never noticed that in a 24p film before, strangely.

Stunt/fight scene choreography is another thing, this is something that is directly exposed by the HFR. It's like I could sense people were holding back their attacks, and were wearing lightweight armor. Any time humans or cameras are moving, really, is a time to evaluate how something will look in HFR.

Another thing is editing and shot composition. I reacted towards HFR the most positively when the takes were longer and the camera was relatively still and showing multiple characters at once. This is when I felt like I was right there.
Edited by cakefoo - 12/17/12 at 10:57am
post #258 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Seeing this in HFR confirmed all of my suspicions- it's not that 48fps looks unnatural- it just exposes the unnatural that has hidden behind a low framerate "filter."

I saw The Hobbit yesterday in HFR 3D with Dolby Atmos. The Atmos was fantastic, but also subtle. The 3D was RealD and very clean with minimal pop-outs. First film I have seen since Avatar that I think the experience would be "poorer" not viewed in 3D. The HFR was the wild-card to me. It was so completely different than anything I had experienced before that it really threw me for a loop. It makes the movie seem so real that my brain was having a really hard time processing what was happening for a least the first 30 minutes. But by the time the group leaves the Shire, I was able to begin to better appreciate/enjoy the film.

Thinking back, it's not that it seems unnatural, rather just not at all what we've come to expect from a film presentation.
post #259 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by roknrol View Post

I saw The Hobbit yesterday in HFR 3D with Dolby Atmos. The Atmos was fantastic, but also subtle. The 3D was RealD and very clean with minimal pop-outs. First film I have seen since Avatar that I think the experience would be "poorer" not viewed in 3D. The HFR was the wild-card to me. It was so completely different than anything I had experienced before that it really threw me for a loop. It makes the movie seem so real that my brain was having a really hard time processing what was happening for a least the first 30 minutes. But by the time the group leaves the Shire, I was able to begin to better appreciate/enjoy the film.
Thinking back, it's not that it seems unnatural, rather just not at all what we've come to expect from a film presentation.
I was perfectly fine with certain scenes, depending on shot composition, lighting, acting, sets, etc. My theory is that the fakeness of Hollywood was what was causing me to not like certain scenes.
post #260 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by roknrol View Post

Thinking back, it's not that it seems unnatural, rather just not at all what we've come to expect from a film presentation.
This is it exactly. It's not bad, it's just different.
post #261 of 314
Saw the HFR on accident at a RealD theater. The list of HFR theaters is not complete i guess, mine certainly wasn't on it. Perhaps all RealD theaters use the HFR, i don't know. I intended to watch the 24fps first as i didn't want to chance ruining the opportunity of reliving a amazing childhood adventure. I do not like the frame interpolation on TVs and this was basically identical, at least my eyes. When it started i was assuming it was 24fps and it slowly dawned on me that it wasn't until the scene with a large amount of people running around where it dashed any hopes i had as it clearly looked like a [high production] made-for-TV movie.

Over-all conclusion: Too jarring. I think i would prefer staying at 24fps or trying out 25-40 fps instead (for 3D). Or even better i think: variable framerates, since HFR did seem to contribute in certain scenes. I don't see why 48fps has to be a magic number (it certainly seemed to take a bit of the magic away from the film). Although it seems they could improve it to the point of liking it, but it seems like a lot of work.

Some parts that i did like about HFR: Many panning shots with no people in them, or where people that weren't moving much were very nice. The shots in Rivendale were nice. I liked the effect during the dragon's assault on the castle,, specifically where they were outside on the balcony, which made the scene look real and the action seem immediate. The slow motion panning shot of the dwarf leader after having won the battle where he cut off the Orcs arm. A shot or two over Gandalf when he was leading the party on horseback in the beginning. A few others too. I kept thinking that the movie would look much better with a little bloom effect. In the end it seemed to me that HFR could actually enhance a fantasy movie, making magnanimous scenes look dead real (good thing), but that that would take a lot of effort.

Some notable parts i personally didn't like: Like others have said, any negative elements in the film seemed to be more pronounced. For me, Bilbo's home seemed to be even more still, uneventful and uninteresting in HFR. Human movements seemed to have their "normalcy" revealed. The sequence with the 3 Trolls, the tree climbing sequence and the underground escape sequence seemed to suffer at least a little bit under HFR, leaving nothing to the [perhaps more capable] imagination.

The 3D: The RealD 3D showing that i saw was crystal clear and very bright, as least where it was in focus, which was a great sign of things to come. There were even a few "window to the world" scenes, but over-all the dimensionality was still the standard subdued 3D effect movies have used thus far, or worse. No in-your-face Captain Eo or the holodeck-like look of 3D games. I also saw clearly that they didn't take full advantage of the typical 3D space movies operate in.
post #262 of 314
Jackson said that he didn't even pay attention to the 3D as he was shooting; that he didn't change his style for it at all.

And usually that means that sure you get a slightly more realistic look, it's certainly not going to look like a work of art or anything.
post #263 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

Much like High Definition has done to some degree. You only have to watch the Blu-Ray Release of Cliffhanger to see glaring examples of fake matt back drops in certain scenes that looked perfectly ok on DVD but stand out like sore thumbs in HD. Film makers upped their game for HD knowing that what they could previously mask just wasn't going to work. Now they will have to do the same for HFR.
I dont think they can though. For example with HFR all the bluescreen scenes became readily apparent, like when you turn on smoothmotion on tvs. What are studios gonna do, stop using blue screen? it just isnt possible.
post #264 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post

I dont think they can though. For example with HFR all the bluescreen scenes became readily apparent, like when you turn on smoothmotion on tvs. What are studios gonna do, stop using blue screen? it just isnt possible.

They're just going to have to create more believable effects that can stand up to the scrutiny of 48fps. 24fps let them hide a lot behind a ton of motion blur. Now it has to just be that more realistic because every little thing is visible. Something about the pale orc seemed a little off. Same when they were falling out of the goblin cave....it looked like a video game, the physics of the wood cracking and everything....just felt off.

Gollum, OTOH, looked absolutely believable, because it just wasn't going to be acceptable if he wasn't. If they can do it for a humanoid, they can do it for everything....they just can't get away with less than perfect anymore.
post #265 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tack View Post

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.

There were some scenes, mostly in the beginning 15-20 minutes, that felt weird and Fast forward-y. I feel like there was more than me just needing to adjust as it happened briefly in the second half of the movie a couple of times. There were also some scenes that I wish were 60fps because even 48 want smooth.

But the couple of bad cg scenes probably had nothing to do with frame rate. Every LOTR movie had a few effects shots where it looks like SciFy channel crap and it stands out so much because the other 95% of the effect shots look so good it seems real.

I think the 3d was even more subtle than Prometheus, which I liked, and we were only concentrating on the frame rate so it was partially forgotten.
post #266 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by drhill View Post

I think the 3d was even more subtle than Prometheus, which I liked, and we were only concentrating on the frame rate so it was partially forgotten.
It's funny, because we went to go see both in 3D, and she had completely forgotten that we'd seen Prometheus in 3D, but she loved the 3D in The Hobbit. The HFR probably helped, she also really liked that.
post #267 of 314
Spectacular. I'm spoiled! Can't wait for the next one. Yes, doesn't look like film. It's better. If there ever was a reason for a 4K 3D TV, this is it. Here will come the active 4K 3D TVs with this bundled. It's going to be like Avatar.
Edited by Bill - 12/26/12 at 10:53pm
post #268 of 314
WETA, ILM, and other effects houses better start upping their game in the visual effects department if HFR takes off. Even running at the traditional 24 fps, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy had some fairly spotty and glaring effects shots. They focused all their time and computational power on Gollum and forgot a lot of the rest when it came to character animation.

Bad visual effects and makeup effects are now going to look that much worse at 48 or more fps.
post #269 of 314
I watched it on 24fps IMAX 3d. I'm glad I did that for the first viewing just because I felt I was able to better judge the movie itself that way. In order to avoid any possible distractions, I wanted to be able to see and go back to the Middle Earth realm as I remembered from LOTR. Since i enjoyed the movie a lot, (it's not on LOTR level, but I don't understand some of the hatin') I now look forward to trying the HFR version.
As a sidenote, it was also worth the price of admission of the IMAX viewing just for the 9 or 10 minute Star Trek prologue they did before the movie. It looked incredible! It kinda stole the show and took some thunder away from the Hobbit. I guess it's supposed to be a conversion, but filmed mostly in the IMAX format from what I have read. Whatever technique, the 3d and just overall look was quite impressive.
post #270 of 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by maintman View Post

I watched it on 24fps IMAX 3d. I'm glad I did that for the first viewing just because I felt I was able to better judge the movie itself that way. In order to avoid any possible distractions, I wanted to be able to see and go back to the Middle Earth realm as I remembered from LOTR. Since i enjoyed the movie a lot, (it's not on LOTR level, but I don't understand some of the hatin') I now look forward to trying the HFR version.
As a sidenote, it was also worth the price of admission of the IMAX viewing just for the 9 or 10 minute Star Trek prologue they did before the movie. It looked incredible! It kinda stole the show and took some thunder away from the Hobbit. I guess it's supposed to be a conversion, but filmed mostly in the IMAX format from what I have read. Whatever technique, the 3d and just overall look was quite impressive.
Cool, I was wondering if you could answer something, not specific, about the Star Trek preview. Was it an uncut scene or was it hand-picked clips?
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