or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Page 3

post #61 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I had been waiting for years and was very excited to see it in action.
Unfortunately, it didn't work with The Hobbit.

What is perceptually wrong with 48fps? Even the old film cinemas presented 24fps film as a pseudo 48fps via a shutter.

I haven't seen anything in 48fps, so was curious what the fuss was about.
post #62 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

What is perceptually wrong with 48fps? Even the old film cinemas presented 24fps film as a pseudo 48fps via a shutter.

I haven't seen anything in 48fps, so was curious what the fuss was about.
It looks more like live TV than cinema. Pretty jarring.
post #63 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

It looks more like live TV than cinema. Pretty jarring.
Exactly.
It is very disconcerting.
post #64 of 357
If I could see a 2D 48fps version of the The Hobbit, I'd probably go check it out. HFR sounds like a concept I'd quite like. 3D, on the other hand, is a pile of gimmicky trash. It was gimmicky in the 50s. It is STILL a gimmick.
post #65 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I had been waiting for years and was very excited to see it in action.
Unfortunately, it didn't work with The Hobbit.

Watching it in 3D oink ?
post #66 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Mike TJG View Post

3D, on the other hand, is a pile of gimmicky trash. It was gimmicky in the 50s. It is STILL a gimmick.

In your opinion. Alot of us like the way 3d is done with depth in screen. I don't have to have things flying out the screen at me but adding depth like I could step into the world like JC did with Avatar was way cool. Sitting only 12 rows back from the screen, my hair was standing up on the back of my neck.

I do agree with others though that HFR and 3D wasn't great for this type of movie. Atmos was the only addition that I felt added anything to the movie. Now in a Sci-fi type flick or say Avatar 2-3 would love to see what JC could do with this tech. Hell I hope when J.J. shoots the next Star Wars he uses all 3.
post #67 of 357
I thought the HFR made it look like a SYFY movie of the weekday of the time. When I saw it in 24fps it looked much better to me. I know I'll be skipping HFR for the other two films.
post #68 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Watching it in 3D oink ?
I watched it in 3D HFR.

The 3D was excellent, the HFR wasn't.
post #69 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

The 3D was excellent, the HFR wasn't.

I thought both aspects were very well executed.
post #70 of 357
Same here. Didn't go see it in the other format to compare, but it was fine for me.
post #71 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

I thought both aspects were very well executed.
Although it may have been well executed from a technical POV, I thought the HFR was distracting and kept me from enjoying the film further.
post #72 of 357
I thought the HFR was fine too. Yeah, it looked different, and more closely resembled television framerates or interpolated frames, but it was supposed to look different, so I didn't mind that. But I don't think it really looked real either. The way I'd describe it is that 48fps is just "a different kind of fake". Like 3D, it's another aesthetic that a filmmaker can choose to use to give their film a different look. Also like 3D, I'm not convinced it's possible that this aesthetic can actually add something to any film, but I'll keep giving it a fair chance to prove itself. Although I don't think they'll be able to pay me enough to watch another Avatar movie.
Edited by CatBus - 2/13/13 at 10:02am
post #73 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

The way I'd describe it is that 48fps is just "a different kind of fake". Like 3D, it's another aesthetic that a filmmaker can choose to use to give their film a different look.

Indeed.
post #74 of 357
Haven't seen this movie yet....But I just heard the Soundtrack, and despite the dwarf theme to be 'cool', the ENTIRE SOUNDTRACK sounds just like LOTR to the T. I got a little depressed after that, thinking that this film has the same exact formula as the LOTR Trilogy frown.gif
post #75 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBMAN View Post

Haven't seen this movie yet....But I just heard the Soundtrack, and despite the dwarf theme to be 'cool', the ENTIRE SOUNDTRACK sounds just like LOTR to the T. I got a little depressed after that, thinking that this film has the same exact formula as the LOTR Trilogy frown.gif

It does.
post #76 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I watched it in 3D HFR.

The 3D was excellent, the HFR wasn't.

My brother saw it on HFR and told me too skip it. I'm definitely hanging out to watch it on 2D blu ray.

Btw wonder happened to Lee, the 3D man on this forum. Haven't read his impressions on it yet.
post #77 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Although it may have been well executed from a technical POV, I thought the HFR was distracting and kept me from enjoying the film further.

Indeed. The HFR totally pulled me out of the movie. It didn't look more realistic although it looked clearer. It actually looked worse than FI to me. The Shire scenes were just awful, seeing as how I know exactly how these scenes are supposed to look. I sincerely hope that 48fps dies a quick and painful death. Or at the very least, it's an option, alongside 24fps.
post #78 of 357
There were certain things in HFR that I really enjoyed. Most of the CGI creatures looked more realistic in HFR, particularly Gollum. Many of the shots he was in looked very real to my eyes. It was almost startling. The three "monstrous trolls" look just as convincing.

Then there were certain things like CG smoke and embers that looked very dated, almost as if they belonged in a movie from the early 90's. One of the earliest scenes that featured young Bilbo smoking his pipe before Gandalf arrives featured some funky looking smoke that stood out.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. Actually, I enjoyed it more in HFR than I did when I saw it at IMAX, though the audio was better at the IMAX presentation (the HFR theater I saw it at had horribly low volume and no bass to speak of). Plus, I didn't get any eye-strain or headaches from the HFR 3D version, but the IMAX version made me feel a bit fatigued about an hour in. Granted I had already seen the film, so knowing everything that happens kind of hurt my stamina.

I'll be grabbing it on Bluray when it comes out in March, though.
post #79 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Indeed. The HFR totally pulled me out of the movie. It didn't look more realistic although it looked clearer. It actually looked worse than FI to me. The Shire scenes were just awful, seeing as how I know exactly how these scenes are supposed to look. I sincerely hope that 48fps dies a quick and painful death. Or at the very least, it's an option, alongside 24fps.
I am not quite ready to throw in the towel on 48fps, but I need more examples to form a defendable opinion (bring on Avatar 2&3 wink.gif ).
post #80 of 357
I'm finding all the complaints about 48fps quite curious from a technical perspective, since the only thing it should do is make motion appear smoother (ie not as large jumps between frames as in 24fps standard film).

Anyone know how the 48fps is being projected? Perhaps that is the principle difference if majorly dissimilar to old 24fps film in a cinema. I know I appreciate frame interpolation on my TV when watching 24fps Bluray as it is too juddery without and takes me out of the movie.

I sort of like the idea of higher native frame rates to make the presentation look more "natural" (as in closer to nature) as my eyes don't see in 24fps, just as I was overjoyed to lose the 3:2 pulldown judder of NTSC material when 24p Bluray was released. However, if I wanted to retain the film grain and framerate look of old film as some sort of fantasy identifier to distinguish film from real life, then I guess I might be ambivalent about the changes.

There are going to be some interesting times ahead as people come to grips with advancing technology changing the look of what they have been used to for so long. I wonder if the change from B&W to colour elicited similar hair pullings, between those who couldn't leave the "artistic" flavour of B&W for the more natural colour.

I don't think I will get an opportunity to see 48fps at home, since Bluray doesn't support that format and I probably won't be able to see 48fps at the cinema, so for me the debate will go unanswered subjectively.
Edited by IanD - 2/14/13 at 1:56am
post #81 of 357
There's nothing inherently wrong with 48fps from a technical perspective. I just don't like how it changes the cinematic look as we know it. There were similar reactions to the move from silent to talkies, black and white to color, probably even people that disliked the move from 4:3 to scope. We know that 3-D is a fad that comes an goes (I think we're on the 4th attempt right now).

You can go online and find plenty of native 48fps, 60fps, and 120fps video samples to play back on your PC if you want to see more examples.
post #82 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

You can go online and find plenty of native 48fps, 60fps, and 120fps video samples to play back on your PC if you want to see more examples.

The only problem is that I don't have any displays that will show 48fps natively or at suitable multiples (damn, I should have held onto that 96Hz capable 21" CRT monitor).

"Well, that was kind of weird, but we're back in the club..."

I'm looking forward to watching Hobbit on Bluray, but I'm cringing over whether it will be a Teal/Orange fest or a blanket green tint like FOTR: keeping my fingers crossed FOTREE was an orphan and they don't all get (re)-released with the eau de nile treatment for consistency.
post #83 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

The only problem is that I don't have any displays that will show 48fps natively or at suitable multiples (damn, I should have held onto that 96Hz capable 21" CRT monitor).

Another reason I'm glad I still have my FW900. The thing is damn-near limitless in its choices of resolutions and refresh rates. It's a travesty that the whole world got duped into accepting 60Hz LCDs as the norm - huge step backward. I digress, sorry. rolleyes.gif

As I understand it, 48fps is a stopgap anyway to transition toward HFR while still being relatively compatible with 24fps standards. The next two Hobbit films are 48fps (all shot at the same time) and then Animal Farm will probably be 48fps (Serkis and Jackson are tight). Cameron is shooting the Avatar sequels at 60fps and Battle Angel will be at least 60fps (120fps?). Since the long range industry target appears to be Super Hi-Vision (8K 120fps 22.2 surround sound), I imagine that the shelf life of 48fps content will be short (doesn't scale well to anything) compared to 60fps (scales well to 120fps) and eventual native 120fps content. On the one hand, I really want an 8K 120Hz display for gaming, live TV, and computer use. On the other, I don't really like HFR for movies. How to promote one without the other? confused.gif
post #84 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Brad View Post

. Actually, I enjoyed it more in HFR than I did when I saw it at IMAX, though the audio was better at the IMAX presentation (the HFR theater I saw it at had horribly low volume and no bass to speak of).

How was the bass at the Imax?

I saw it at a Cinetopia and the Dolby Atmos was great for surrounds but, imo, the LFE was very light and hardly used. This is the same theater I saw the Dark Knight Rises that did a very good job with the great bass in that movie.
post #85 of 357
post #86 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

How was the bass at the Imax?

I saw it at a Cinetopia and the Dolby Atmos was great for surrounds but, imo, the LFE was very light and hardly used. This is the same theater I saw the Dark Knight Rises that did a very good job with the great bass in that movie.

The bass at the IMAX theater I saw it at dug fairly deep in certain sequences but didn't over power the mix. I also saw The Dark Knight Rises at this same IMAX theater and the bass was overwhelming (that movie had a particularly bad mix overall if you ask me). I also didn't have any trouble understanding some of the thicker accented characters at the IMAX viewing where as some of the dialogue was lost at due to the low volume at the HFR showing.

I only hope that when the next Hobbit film is released there will be some HFR IMAX presentations near me.
post #87 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

Another reason I'm glad I still have my FW900. The thing is damn-near limitless in its choices of resolutions and refresh rates. It's a travesty that the whole world got duped into accepting 60Hz LCDs as the norm - huge step backward.

At the risk of going back off topic: it was a technical travesty that CRT was dropped for LCD, however realistically you couldn't expect the public to remain hunched over a 23" viewable screen for movie watching.

I think thelonelyisland's video of Jack Sparrow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI6CfKcMhjY should become the mascot for "Off Topic" discussions wink.gif
post #88 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

At the risk of going back off topic: it was a technical travesty that CRT was dropped for LCD, however realistically you couldn't expect the public to remain hunched over a 23" viewable screen for movie watching.

Which is why they should never have stopped making CRT projectors! frown.gif
post #89 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

Which is why they should never have stopped making CRT projectors! frown.gif

HERE HERE!!!!!
post #90 of 357
I found the other editions for the The Hobbit (Walmart, Best Buy, Target, and WB Shop) but they're all 2D.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-3D-Blu-ray/37899/ (middle of the page)

I take it no special 3D editions then?
Edited by neveser - 2/27/13 at 6:07pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey