My local imax is not showing the hfr version. RAGE!
I watched it yesterday, the 48fps seems fine in certain scenes.
In others it seemed similar to getting video desync on an underpowered PC whilst watching a HD video, the audio would be fine yet the video would look like it had stuttered or slowed and then sped up to catch up, giving that fast forward effect.
I'm having a hard time understanding this, really.
I don't understand how simply seeing more of a set makes it look cheaper. How does seeing twice as many still images of a set in a second make it look cheaper than it would with only half as many frames? The frames themselves don't have a clearer image.
Cameron's insistence to raise the brightness and change the colour timing to blue on all his film-releases is the blame for that, not the added resolution.This is an argument that makes sense against the higher framerate. I experienced something similar recently with the Aliens Blu ray, the clean image and higher resolution made the film look like absolute garbage, such incredibly bad props and sets, like a cheap TV show. Of course it would have looked like this in the cinema in 1986 too, but for many years the film's bad quality visuals were hidden to me behind lower resolution and interlacing etc.
I saw it last night in a regal 3D HFR "RPX" theater in times square. They used the dolby atmos logo but I haven't found anything that says it's an atmos theater.
Whatever the sound technology was, it was definitely something different. During the scene with the snoring dwarves, the snores sounded like they were coming from a point a few feet away rather than a speaker 50' away. If tickets weren't $20 each, I would want to see more movies in that theater.
As for HFR, I think every 3D movie should use it. 24 fps 3D always felt like the first iteration of a technology that wasn't quite where it needed to be. 48 fps allows the technology to get out of your way once you get used to the look of it.
One weird thing I noticed though was that the very beginning with old bilbo looked sped up. It seemed too extreme to attribute to being unfamiliar with the framerate because it really looked like he was walking too fast and moving around too fast. Also, for most of the movie, the first half second of almost every shot it felt like things were moving too fast. Almost like a when a video player gets behind and has to catch up. The second thing was more subtle, but I noticed it a ton.
I don't agree with claims that it made the movie look cheap. The only times it looked cheap was during bad CG, which probably looks just as cheap in 24fps. I was looking for flaws in sets and makeup and I didn't really notice any at all.
One weird thing I noticed though was that the very beginning with old bilbo looked sped up. It seemed too extreme to attribute to being unfamiliar with the framerate because it really looked like he was walking too fast and moving around too fast. Also, for most of the movie, the first half second of almost every shot it felt like things were moving too fast. Almost like a when a video player gets behind and has to catch up. The second thing was more subtle, but I noticed it a ton..
imax is not showing hfr.
Certain imax screens areimax is not showing hfr.
Yeah, totally baffling. Especially since there were a lot of scenes where the camera was stationary and 24fps wouldn't make any difference, even scenes with slow movements or characters just talking didn't look that different from a 24fps movie, it kinda made me look forward to the action scenes because the more fluid motion really shined through in those parts.
I saw the 2d version and almost every visual complaint I've seen was present; to me it seems like they just made some very odd production choices.
Ah, that could really explain it, thanks. The result is really, really bad.Cameron's insistence to raise the brightness and change the colour timing to blue on all his film-releases is the blame for that, not the added resolution.
It's funny because in the making of documentary he talks about firing the first lighting director for making too much of the set visible.
In terms of colour-timing meddling in home video releases, he's worse than George Lucas.
If my theatre says it's showing: "3D High Frame Rate UltraAVX", is that the 48 fps 3D one?
I hate how cheap it looks, but hope it's just growing pains of new technology.
Cinema has largely been 24 fps for like 70 years, and it's hard to break that association. The HFR seemed very foreign to me for such a high budget film, but it looked absolutely stunning, and several things were more exciting( battle scenes).
I still feel like it may take a few more films before it feels "normal" but I can't objectively say that it looks cheap.
The rest of cinema, and probably most purists, will stay with 24fps and 2d. GAF seems won over, but then GAF's very in love with technology.
Yes.
On Sunday, I went to the closest theater near me that had a 48fps showing. Over 100 miles each way; two hours each time.
It was completely worth it. Adapted to the higher framerate almost immediately. Didn't find it jarring; actually seemed to make the 3D more natural to me.
Unlike others, I didn't notice any problems with the seams of CG and live action relative to other contemporary releases. Didn't find the costumes or sets to look more fake either.
Overall, I loved it.
Virtually all recording is going to go digital; you can't deny that. Why should directors be so shortsighted and not take advantage of the advances in technology? Yeah, GAF's in love with tech, but can't it be more than that? Why does cinema and the term "purist" have to be wedded to 2D 24fps?
Edmond Dantès;37252310 said:Pretty significant news regarding The Hobbit and the future of film in general, so a separate thread seems appropriate.
Impressions so far:
http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-the-hobbit-underwhelms-at-48-frames-per-secon/
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55212
https://twitter.com/#!/wellshwood
http://movies.about.com/b/2012/04/24/hobbit-footage-screened.htm
====================================================================================================================================
48fps examples - Credit goes to bluerei for the amazing footage.
Video Files
GIF of 24fps
GIF of 48fps
Fake imax screens are playing HFR.imax is not showing hfr.
I definitely prefer 24fps to HFR. HFR looks like if your turn on the Digital Noise Reduction filter on your HDTV. It looks sharp and movement is fluid, but it looks unnatural and plastic at the same time.
In all likelihood 48fps will be theatre only as no announcement to the contrary has been made and there is no way to get 48fps out of disks right now. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of a 48fps disk release coming in the next 2-4 years though.Will I be able to experience HFR when this hits bluray, or is this theater only?
In all likelihood 48fps will be theatre only as no announcement to the contrary has been made and there is no way to get 48fps out of disks right now. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of a 48fps disk release coming in the next 2-4 years though.
That's why I said in 2-4 years. They could do it in a revised BD spec as the tech becomes more important especially since they'll need one for 4K BDs. TVs would also have to catch up though so you will possibly have a situation much like 3DBDs were at the start. As of now though we can only speculate however and they may very well just keep HFR as an incentive to visit the theatres for a while.Highly unlikely on blu-ray if you ask me. Even if it happened, not only your blu-ray player would need upgrading, but your current TV likely doesn't support 48fps.
Edit: Hmm, thinking about it again, with current HDMI 1.4a bandwith, you could theoritically do 1080p 48fps in 2D, right?
I would think movie studios might want to keep the feature until the next home video format (4K+) to drive demand.
48fps is better max'd out http://maxgif.com/mf
My impression. 48fps made the 3D work for me. It's incredible!
Loved it.
Edmond Dantès;37252310 said:
It very much felt like a theatre production, but I'm not entirely sure if it works best for all types of films.So I just got back from it, and I did find it impressive.
I still personally prefer 24fps though, but I do think it could potentially serve well for certain movies. I will say however that I don't think 48fps is good enough just yet for HFR, but it is an interesting step for the film industry.
The price of the ticket was ridiculous though, and what they're charging for it is an absolute ripoff.