48fps 3D preview of 'The Hobbit' gets mixed reaction at CinemaCon - Page 11

Originally Posted by Kamikaze13 

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.

Originally Posted by threed123 

You can duplicate the 48fps look by using Pure Motion, now found on some projectors like the Optoma HD3300. It does create the weird soap opera effect and for 2D 24fps movies, it makes them look like cheap made for TV movies, so I never use it. I think the difference here is for 3D, the 48fps adds realism and sharpness to make the scenes come alive. Of course, just speeding up the fps isn't going to add anymore sharpness, but it might make 3D movies at home seem more realistic. It's been awhile since I used Pure Motion. Perhaps I will try it again with Avatar and check back with the forum as to what it does for 3D.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze13 

I thought so but I could be wrong. Now you have me wondering?
I'm pretty Peter Jackson mentioned special cameras in one of his earlier hobbit blogs and I thought they were 4k HFR 3D cameras.

Originally Posted by obveron 

I wish Jackson made HFR the full jump to 60fps so it would be compatible with our home displays/theatres. All we need (sarcasm) is another film rate cadence to concern videophiles every where with judder and compatibility.
60hz has been a display standard for decades. WTF Jackson?.. did the CE industry give you a nice incentive to invent a new standard so we all have to buy new stuff?

Originally Posted by ssjLancer 

The movie was shot in 4K 3D HFR I believe. Its theatre projecters that arent capable of HFR 4K 3D irc.
If Im not mistaken the decision for 48fps has to do with theater projectors only being capable of so much.

I too would have liked to have seen a HFR 2D version.

Originally Posted by threed123 

While I haven't seen the Hobbit yet, I was intrigued with using Pure Motion on my Optoma HD3300 after this discussion to see what 3D movies looked like. I tried Avatar and Titanic both in 3D, and I have to say the pure motion added a sense of realism I wasn't expecting. I've tried it on 2D movies in the past and didn't like the soap opera look--so forgot about it, but for 3D it added a clarity that made me want to watch Avatar all over again, and I've been bored by that movie in the past. It made the flying dragons come alive as it reduced the judder I normally see in fast motion scenes. I'm totally grateful that this discussion of 48fps led me to try something that I had completely forgotten about.

Originally Posted by hellotv 

sorry dumb question but what is pure motion. i have a sony 950 led and have off all the processing picture options but turn on reality creation for 3d(is that similar to pure montion)..

While I haven't seen the Hobbit yet, I was intrigued with using Pure Motion on my Optoma HD3300 after this discussion to see what 3D movies looked like. I tried Avatar and Titanic both in 3D, and I have to say the pure motion added a sense of realism I wasn't expecting. I've tried it on 2D movies in the past and didn't like the soap opera look--so forgot about it, but for 3D it added a clarity that made me want to watch Avatar all over again, and I've been bored by that movie in the past. It made the flying dragons come alive as it reduced the judder I normally see in fast motion scenes. I'm totally grateful that this discussion of 48fps led me to try something that I had completely forgotten about.