The One Ring Forums: Off Topic: The Pollantir:
Which format did you first see AUJ in and how do you feel about 48 FPS?


Poll: Which format did you first see AUJ in and how do you feel about 48 FPS?
I love the look of 48 FPS and I first saw The Hobbit in this format. 20 / 22%
I love the look of 48 FPS and I first saw The Hobbit in 3D 24 fps. 18 / 20%
I love the look of 48 FPS and I first saw The Hobbit in 2D. 16 / 18%
I have mixed feelings on the look of 48 FRPS and I first saw The Hobbit in this format. 13 / 15%
I have mixed feeliings on the look of 48 FPS and I first saw The Hobbit in 3D 24 fps. 7 / 8%
I have mixed feelings on the look of 48 FPS and I first saw The Hobbit in 2D. 9 / 10%
I hate the look of 48 FPS and I first saw The Hobbit in this format. 1 / 1%
I hate the look of 48 FPS and I first saw The Hobbit in 3D 24 fps. 2 / 2%
I hate the look of 48 FPS and I first saw The Hobbit in 2D. 3 / 3%
89 total votes
 

Kassandros
Rohan


Dec 28 2012, 7:15pm


Views: 1305
Which format did you first see AUJ in and how do you feel about 48 FPS?

I am curious about how people's feelings about the look of 48 FPS correlates to the format they first saw The Hobbit in.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 28 2012, 7:36pm


Views: 697
Will get back to you

once I have seen HFR!

Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


Dec 28 2012, 8:23pm


Views: 686
I have no feelings about the look of 48 FPS yet

and I saw AUJ in 24 FPS in 3D. I'll get back to you after I've actually experienced 48 FPS.



My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive


dubulous
Rohan

Dec 28 2012, 9:02pm


Views: 700
First saw in 2D

And I voted I have mixed feeling abouts 48 FPS, although a more accurate choice for me would have been "no feelings at all about 48 FPS". I've seen the movie 3 times now in 48 FPS in two different cinemas and I'm still failing to see any difference.


Kassandros
Rohan


Dec 28 2012, 9:41pm


Views: 683
Amazing.

For me, the difference between 24 fps and 48 fps, based on one viewing of The Hobbit, is greater than the difference between 2D and 3D or b&w and color. It seems obvious that different people are seeing things very differently, though.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Fredeghar Wayfarer
Lorien


Dec 29 2012, 1:18am


Views: 735
Mixed feelings

I saw the movie in 24 FPS (in 3D) first because I didn't want to be too distracted by the new tech. Turns out that was a good idea. I saw it in 48 FPS the second time and didn't really like it. Without a motion blur, fast movements looked very odd and I found them hard to follow, almost as if the movie was on fast forward. I could barely focus on anything during the Dale prologue. My eyes eventually adjusted and I didn't really notice a difference for most of the film after that.

I'd have to see a side by side comparison to really judge if the picture's improved. But I guess I have mixed feelings about 48 FPS.


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Dec 29 2012, 5:38am


Views: 678
Zero interest in 48 FPS or 3D.

I saw TH in 2D, and liked it fine, except the shots that were obviously framed to exploit 3D were mildly intrusive and annoying.

I saw 3D movies in the 50's, and hated it, and have seen 3D TVs in stores, and really don't like the look of 3D at all regardless of frame speed.

You didn't have an option for that, so I reported "mixed".






Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


DanielLB
Immortal


Dec 29 2012, 10:01am


Views: 645
I started off "hating" HFR

But after seeing it in several format, I went for mixed feelings.

I know the poll has only been open for less than a day, but I'm surprised by the lack of "love it" votes. The majority of people that post on the Hobbit board seem to like it.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 29 2012, 10:12am


Views: 712
A lot of people

especially newbies, don't tend to check in here, or on most of the other boards. They land on Hobbit and there they stay.

Silverlode






Magpie
Immortal


Dec 29 2012, 4:42pm


Views: 651
what she said

I sometimes feel that Hobbit regulars think moving out of that forum is akin to going to visit their old aunt in the nursing home.

I don't think we're all that bad! And those that have ventured out seem to quite enjoy the other boards. At least enough to visit us every other Sunday.

Maybe if they knew we served treats on Friday...

:-p


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Magpie
Immortal


Dec 29 2012, 4:47pm


Views: 632
I wouldn't say I 'loved' HFR...

but 'mixed' is not accurate either so I voted 'loved'.

As I said in my review (Off Topic, Monday Movie thread), I thought the HFR helped me make visual sense of the movie more easily. I think 3D does the same and since I saw it first in 2D, it's hard to know how much 3D contributed to this end rather than HFR. But I think there are advantages (for me) in HFR and I think, over time, it will become the default for films. And I can accept that.

If I had a choice (budget wise), I would watch all films in 3D and HFR when offered. Since I don't have that choice, I will continue to use it as an occasional treat.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Annael
Half-elven


Dec 29 2012, 5:45pm


Views: 640
I saw it in 24 first, went back & saw in 48

and liked it better in HFR. Still couldn't really tell what was going on in the fight scenes (way too fast & busy) but at least they weren't blurry, and Peter's trademark "swoop down into the depths" shots worked better. So did the shots of the Eagles.

That said, I'm not sure that 3D added anything to the movie. I'll probably be content with owning a 2D version. The only movie I've seen so far that 3D really made a difference in is "Avatar" - it's the only one where the background was in focus too, so that you could look from foreground to background like you would in real life.

The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

- James Hillman, Healing Fiction

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967

(This post was edited by Annael on Dec 29 2012, 5:48pm)


Kassandros
Rohan


Dec 29 2012, 7:02pm


Views: 619
I probably used the wrong terms in the poll...

I mostly seem to be learning that everyone has mixed feelings on the format!

I think, perhaps, that I should have used "like" and "dislike" instead of "love" and "hate".

I truly have mixed feelings in that I loved the clarity and depth of field, but found it hard to take everything in due to visual overload and things did look "wrong" or "fake". It was like watching a play for me, which isn't a bad thing. I'd pay some serious cash to see a play with these actors. I expect and hope that I'll feel differently on subsequent viewings, but for right now, the pro is that I get to see great acting in a very intimate format while the con is that the effects don't look as convincing.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Kassandros
Rohan


Dec 29 2012, 7:08pm


Views: 650
Interesting

I found the 3D HFR Hobbit to be the best depth I've ever seen in a film. Avatar had taken that spot before, but in Avatar, I felt I had to look in the center of the screen where the director wanted me to, as other things were kind of out-of-focus. With The Hobbit in 3D HFR, I felt I could look around the screen wherever I wished, at whatever depth I wished, and it was still clear. It seemed like easily the most smooth and nuanced depth I've seen in a 3D film. Amazing how much this varies from individual to individual.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Cameron can do with Avatar 2 at 60 fps. I just hope and pray he can write a story and script good enough that I'll be able to enjoy the visuals. Although he seems adept at churning out a decent but not spectacular story, sequels are always harder.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Magpie
Immortal


Dec 29 2012, 8:33pm


Views: 625
my experience with Avatar was interesting

I will admit Cameron isn't the best storyteller/writer. He does well enough to get my attention but not so skillfully that I want to praise his storytelling.

But Avatar tapped into a lot of things I'm keenly interested in - both in terms of ideology and visuals. And I love well done 3D (cue the old Viewmaster toy as a kid story) so it was like a perfect storm for me. I really, really liked Avatar.

Now, seeing Avatar in 2D (which I did two out of the three times I saw it at the theater), I still enjoyed it very much... but the high flash of 'magic' wasn't there. The one that evokes a childlike wonder and awe at something that captivates me.

I also watched it again on DVD and still liked it quite alot. Not as much as in the theaters but the story and the music still do it for me (although liking Horner is easier the less one listens to his other scores. I watched some other movie he scored recently and was disappointed by how much the score to that sounded like the score to Avatar. It was easier to like Avatar when it sounded 'fresh')

Then I caught parts of it on a small screen tv in a motel and was struck by how much the whole movie looked like a cartoon. Like a well done Saturday morning cartoon. I don't mean the story was any worse for me. But all the magic of the movie had been sucked clean out of it. When I watched Avatar on the big screen, I *believed* the Na'vi were real. I mean, intellectually I know they aren't. But conceptually, I completely bought into them as actual, real beings. On the small screen, that wasn't happening.

But that doesn't diminish the movie in my eyes. It just tells me how much I value magic in my life. We all find magic in different things. One way I find it is in 3D and/or holographic images (I also collect lenticular items). I love glow in the dark, as well. I loved them as a kid and I didn't let or make myself grow out of that as I aged.

It also kind of explains, I think, some criticisms I read from fans about some movies. Those of us who saw the LOTR movies on the big screen, many of us multiple times, saw those images in their intended display. We then might have watched them on DVD with, perhaps, good tv set ups.

But now we have multitudes of people watching them for the first time and maybe the only time on commercial tv networks. Maybe they're cropped. Maybe their cut for time. They surely have interruptions for commercials.

It would take a powerful story/movie to maintain any 'magic' with that working against it. I love the movie Chocolat. (Depp and Binoche) It was on commercial tv on day as I worked on the computer and so I watched it. I was appalled at how badly it was cut. There was no magic and nothing that would have made me sigh with pleasure or recommend it to a friend.

So when one of the LOTR movies plays on TNT and we get an upsurge in troll posts at imdb, I kind of almost understand why. Someone watched the movie for the first time in this handicapped format and, after hearing what a fantastic movie it was from everyone in the world, wondered 'hun? why the love for *that*?'


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 29 2012, 8:38pm


Views: 644
James Horner

I watch The Amazing Spider-Man yesterday and was repeatedly reminded of the music from Titanic. I thought it was an odd coincidence until I saw that James Horner had scored them both. It was actually really disappointing to know that he just repeated a lot of the stuff he'd used before.

It's sad to hear that he's done that with more than just these two films.

Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!


Magpie
Immortal


Dec 29 2012, 9:53pm


Views: 615
I think Zimmer has the same problem

And although Shore has a wide range in the style of music he composes for movies, I can hear hints of LOTR scores in other of his scores.

I don't know if they don't see it as rehashing but instead, maybe a 'signature' sound. Or if they aren't aware they're doing it. Or if the director tells them outright: make it sound like Pirates of the Caribbean. I think, sometimes, directors are happy to hear music that sounds like other music attached to hot movies.

We can often date movies just by the sound of their score and this love of bombastic, epic music will date many of these movies as well.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 29 2012, 10:12pm


Views: 614
Epic and bombastic

will definitely define our era of music.

You bring up an interesting point about signature sounds, but to me, I'd rather not be drawn out of a movie because of how similar it is to another.

I think part of the problem is that Horner and Zimmerman seem to be the two most common composers at the moment. John Williams is another. While I like them all, I do think that some new blood would be nice.

Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!


Magpie
Immortal


Dec 29 2012, 10:59pm


Views: 620
they certainly are well used for a certain type of film. //

 


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Eye's on Guard
Lorien


Dec 30 2012, 12:19am


Views: 605
Somewhat unique perspective

My family doesn't go to the movie theater so I never saw any films on the big screen growing up, and now I prefer waiting to see them on DVD or Blu-ray. Despite never having been to a theater I had to attend The Hobbit films and decided to try out PJ's new HFR 3D format.

I absolutely loved the look of it--it wasn't distracting at all and actually drew me further into Middle-earth than I thought it would. I'll probably see it this week again in 48fps and can't help but think that from my perspective, there's no longer a reason to consider seeing LFR theater movies.

In the future, I'll see the next two Hobbit movies and probably any other HFR movie in the theater while continuing to save the others for Blu-ray viewing. PJ's strategy definitely worked on me! Smile


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 30 2012, 12:24am


Views: 643
Entirely agree.

I saw HFR first and 2D later, but I agree - I enjoyed the HFR but found the blur in the background distracting with the 3D. That's why I'd like to see it in HFR 2D; I'm curious what it would be like.

Silverlode






Joe-Mathews
Rivendell


Dec 30 2012, 1:24am


Views: 612
Thumbs up, but can't give final grade.

I saw it first in 24fps 3d, then in 48fps 3d, and again in 24fps 3d.

I think 48fps (or something quicker than 24) is the way of the future. The video of the 48fps felt much smoother. But I would feel hard pressed to tell the difference if someone lied to me and showed me one but told me it was the other.

I will have to give 48fps an incomplete grade though. In all of PJ's Tolkien films, he over-saturated and played with the color temperatures for emotional effect as well as to give it certain feel. While that's fine and worked well in LotR, occasionally he did over do it and it was distracting. The color saturation in AUJ in 48fps seems over-done. It reminded me of Beowulf and 300. It seemed fine to me both times in 24fps. The problem is that I don't know which look PJ intended, or even if he intended there to be a difference.

However, my second viewing - the 48fps one - I enjoyed the most. Maybe a little over-stimulation has its benefits!

I'll have to wait to see how other directors use 48fps. If every 48fps film looks over-saturated to me, then the 48fps is a problem.

'It is ever so with the things that Men begin: there is a frost in Spring, or a blight in Summer, and they fail of their promise.' ... '[Yet their seed] will lie in the dust and rot to spring up again in times and places unlooked-for.'


Starling
Half-elven


Dec 30 2012, 7:16am


Views: 636
So is your viewing of The Hobbit

the first time you have ever seen a film in a threatre? Or did I misread your post?


awepittance
The Shire

Dec 30 2012, 12:20pm


Views: 612
maybe the way PJ made it, viewing angle is more important than usual


Quote
I found the 3D HFR Hobbit to be the best depth I've ever seen in a film. Avatar had taken that spot before, but in Avatar,


interesting, i didn't feel it had as 'deep' of a feel as Avatar and since the 3d was talked about quite a lot in the pre-production I expected it to be at least as good. Were you sitting in a roughly center viewing angle? I was pretty closeup during an imax showing at 48fps and while the 3d was good and better than most movies it wasn't super impressive. Now i'm wondering if it's just because i had bad seats: 2nd row, center


Annael
Half-elven


Dec 30 2012, 5:12pm


Views: 542
hmm

With "Avatar" I remember staring past the actors into the forest in many scenes because it just seemed to go on and on, there was so much to see. But I also saw it at the biggest IMAX in town - the screen was four stories high - which may have made a difference. I tried to remember to look past the actors the second time I saw "The Hobbit" and things seemed blurry.

The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

- James Hillman, Healing Fiction

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967


Annael
Half-elven


Dec 30 2012, 5:15pm


Views: 473
oh, I agree!


Quote
We can often date movies just by the sound of their score and this love of bombastic, epic music will date many of these movies as well.


I find some movie scores - those of the 60s in particular - have aged far less well than the movies themselves.

Credit style is another thing that dates a movie.


The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

- James Hillman, Healing Fiction

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967


Annael
Half-elven


Dec 30 2012, 5:20pm


Views: 462
again we agree


Quote
Someone watched the movie for the first time in this handicapped format and, after hearing what a fantastic movie it was from everyone in the world, wondered 'hun? why the love for *that*?'


We oldtimers were blown away by the quantum leaps in special effects of first "2001" and then the first "Star Wars" (which was the original title of what's now called Ep. 4, A New Hope, kiddies) when we saw them on the big screen, but it's impossible to explain how different - and astonishing - those movies were at the time to people who grew up watching them on VHS or DVD.

My mom says the same thing about "The Wizard of Oz" and seeing a movie in color.

The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

- James Hillman, Healing Fiction

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967


Kassandros
Rohan


Dec 30 2012, 6:48pm


Views: 473
I was in the center for The Hobbit.

I watched it on a relatively big screen and sat a couple seats to the side of the center of th screen, pretty close and down, but not so far down i had to crane my neck.

There were one or two places in The Hobbit where things felt flat - the first scene of Rivendell, for example, but mostly it was fantastic. What impressed me the most was the subtlety of it - characters in a 30 ft x 30 ft space all appeared to be in different places depth wise with nothing awkward about it. I didnt feel I was watching things pasted on, but something really in front of me.

And letting my eyes roam to the sides is where I felt The Hobbit did better than Avatar. In The Hobbit, I could look around the screen and things would still be in focus. In Avatar, often, things would be blurry other than looking toward the center. This is just my own experience, though, and I've only see The Hobbit once and Avatar 3 times in theaters.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Kassandros
Rohan


Dec 31 2012, 12:20am


Views: 447
I'm kind of the opposite these days...

The Hobbit forum has gotten so crowded that it's impossible to follow unless you are visiting it very often. I will come back a day or two later and all the threads will be different. I'm interested in news and people's opinions on the movie, but it's just too active to properly follow. Instead, I've been tracking the other forums more because it's easier to do so.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Kassandros
Rohan


Dec 31 2012, 12:22am


Views: 441
Based on results so far, my hypothesis is not supported.

It looks like about half the people who saw the movie in 48 fps first love it and half have mixed feelings. The same is true for those who did not see it in 48 fps first. So the format first seen appears to have no affect on people's feelings about 48 fps, at least as can be understood by the results so far. Distinguishing between 2D first and 3D/24 first is impossible right now due to sample size.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Eye's on Guard
Lorien


Dec 31 2012, 3:03am


Views: 446
That's correct

It took The Hobbit to get me in and it will take HFR 3D to keep me coming. Growing up on small screens, I'm used to them and having HD and Blu-ray nowadays certainly helps.


Magpie
Immortal


Dec 31 2012, 3:31am


Views: 442
for what it's worth...

I think those who initially came to hang at the Hobbit board and then ventured out have been, for the most part, the loveliest of the bunch. :-)

And the ones I hope will linger a good while.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Magpie
Immortal


Dec 31 2012, 3:37am


Views: 470
I'm struck by diametrically opposed opinions

Some thought the 3D made it look clearer, some thought was fuzzier. The same for HFR.

I wonder - like someone else in this thread or perhaps a similar one on the Hobbit board - if where one is sitting impacts this.

I also wonder if quality of projection equipment matters.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/...ng_of_the_light.html

And, if one wears glasses it may make a difference.

Or perhaps some visual issues such as those that cause dyslexia could factor in. I know that I have trouble processing some types of visual images and 3D seems to help me process faster.

So, there may be way more factors at play here than we realize.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


CathrineB
Rohan


Jan 1 2013, 10:15pm


Views: 447
Terrible

I saw the movie on the premiere in 3D 48 and it was terrible. It didn't ruin the movie for me, but it was distractingly terrible and it obviously took up much of the attentions from reviewers instead of the actual movie.

Then I went to see it in regular 2D and that was much more like it.

A good movie don't need 3D and that fancy stuff to pull you into the story. The Hobbit doesn't need this.


Starling
Half-elven


Jan 2 2013, 12:29am


Views: 439
I tend to avoid 3D

Unless it's something I really, really want to see eg: The Hobbit or Life of Pi.
I love my big screen HD telly, but for me nothing can ever equal the excitement of the lights going down in a movie theatre, and the big screen experience. And I quite like that grainy, old-school look. Cool


Noria
Gondor

Jan 2 2013, 1:39pm


Views: 409
yes to 48bfps

I loved the clarity of the 48 fps and thought that the 3D effect was well done.

My second viewing was in 24 fps 2D and I liked the movie just as much, though there were a few blurry panning shots.

I will definitely see DOS in 248 fps if I can.


Hamfast
Rohan


Jan 2 2013, 5:27pm


Views: 447
I love 48 fps...

and secretly wanted it to be horrible, because I just figured it was another egregious attempt at a money grab by the big studios ( which it is obviously...) but now that i've seen it, i'm hooked. I also went to 2 of my 3 48fps viewings at the 10:00 am showing, and it was only $12 ! That's 50 cents less than the standard version, so if you plan ahead, it doesn't cost much more either.

I thought the 24fps looked muddy and drab compared to IMAX 48fps 3D.

Another question I have regarding the entire 48fps debate, is how it affects folks who wear glasses. Thankfully, I have superior eagle eye vision, but having to wear 3D glasses over everyday glasses must cause issues with the experience and comfort levels during a 3 hour film....no ?


Kassandros
Rohan


Jan 7 2013, 10:23pm


Views: 432
Nope.

I wear glasses at all time and have no problems at all with wearing the 3D glasses over them. I believe some poeple who wear glasses have trouble with this or find it uncomfortable, but I just heard form my Dad, for whom The Hobbit was his first ever 3D movie, that he had no trouble with it either. (He did have big problems with the changes to the book, however...)

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Rolfina
Rivendell


Jan 10 2013, 11:47am


Views: 394
3x 24fps, 1x 48fps

I watched it three times in 3D 24FPS and loved it more each time. The theater was old, uncomfortable seats, smudge on the screen, lousy sound (it'll be demolished this year so they don't really bother anymore), and I was absolutely immersed in the film. 4th time I went to a different cinema with excellent seating, sound, huge screen, and 48fps, and I went in open-minded. The moment OldBilbo came on screen I thought to myself "Oh my God I hate it." The whole film I spent analizing this technology, and how it made me feel, and there was no room left for me to emphasize with what was happening on screen. I don't know if this was because I had already seen it three times and didn't need to pay attention to every sentence anymore, but I repeatedly caught myself thinking about the image, and not the story, and that bothered me. To be honest I cannot say whether I like it or not (so mixed was a good choice for me). I admit it is impressive. But for long stretches of the movie I had the impression I was watching a "making of" of the movie, rather than the movie itself. Especially the cliff close ups of the stone giant scene, and the Riddles scene. I wasn't "there in Middle Earth", but I was "there in Wellington", and I don't think that should be the result at all.
Yesterday I watched Life of Pi, and I really would have liked to have seen that in 48fps in comparison. As for the Hobbit, I will try to avoid 48fps at all cost for the next two installments.


arithmancer
Grey Havens

Jan 10 2013, 12:58pm


Views: 360
Liked HFR

I saw the movie for the first time in 2D (I was going with someone who cannot see 3D anyway). The second time I saw it in regular 3D - I took my sons, who enjoy 3D but not long car rides, and HFR is not available at our local cinemas. The third time, I saw it in HFR 3D in a large multiplex closer to the city. I did not find the HFR at all distracting; my main impression of it was that the 3D seemed better. Objects in the foreground stood out even more, things "seemed" deeper, and most importantly, after 3 hours of watching 3D, I did not have any eyestrain or discomfort, something I occasionally experience in 3D movies.

I did feel I caught more detail in the Goblin Town escape sequence too, but I suspect this could be an artifact of it being my third viewing, rather than a special benefit of the HFR. Since I already knew the general outline of what was going to happen, I was more able to drink in the details of the spectacle, rather than worrying about how our heroes would get themselves out of this mess. Smile


HappyHobbitess
Rohan


Jan 11 2013, 9:54pm


Views: 411
I've now seen all three formats...

...and although I didn't hate HFR, I certainly didn't love it. I appreciated actually getting to see more of the details of the action sequences, particularly the escape from Goblintown. But I kept adjusting the format, and then being pulled out of the story by something that looked fake, or when the lighting seemed strange. It felt like I was constantly critiquing the format instead of getting sucked into the story.

3D was fine. But I think I'm a 2D kind of girl.

"Yes, but what about SECOND breakfast?"


Kassandros
Rohan


Jan 14 2013, 7:19pm


Views: 368
My opinion has changed.

When I first took this poll, I had mixed feelings about 48 fps after seeing the movie once in that format. Now I would say that I love the movie in 48fps and I have now seen the movie in 3D/48, then 2D/24, then 3D/48 again. The movie didn't look fake anymore in 48 fps. After 5 minutes, I had adjusted to 48 pretty well and no longer saw any speed-up or other such illusions. After about half an hour, it no longer even looked weird to me.

Honestly, I felt the 48 fps allowed me to see the acting performances better. That's what I liked the most. I really love Armitage's Thorin in 48 fps, while I think I miss some of the subtleties of his performance in 24 fps. I also like the action scenes since the blur is gone, but the dramatic scenes and facial expressions seem the most improved.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


swordwhale
Tol Eressea


Jan 23 2013, 7:20am


Views: 404
HFR!

I caught the midnight showing at the local theater and came out going; "that didn'[t look any different..."

Because it was plain old 3D.

Saw it in 2D 3D and finally HFR. I LOVED the HFR (yes it looks slightly off at first) because I can now see whattheheck's going on in those action scenes.

At one point i watched theHFR version followed immediately by a 3D Imax. The Imax appeared to have greater depth to the 3D but the action, even in the slow-moving bucolic Bag End scenes, was so blurry by comparison I couldn't stand it. Also, the theater felt the need to have the Imax at rock concert sound levels (where thebleep are my eaqrplugs?!?!).

Probably never going to another Imax again...

HFR, on the other hand, I will drive an hour for.

Go outside and play...


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Apr 2 2013, 12:37am


Views: 579
I'm very excited about 48fps,

and would have loved to see one of my viewings of AUJ in that format, but it just didn't work out this time. I had wanted to see it for the first time in 2D 24fps anyway, so i guess i was a little cautious about it, but i'd been interested in HFR since the late 80s when i first heard Roger Ebert extoll it's virtues. So i will definitely see DoS in 48fps, but again probably not the first time.