|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kassandros
Rohan
Nov 14 2012, 5:10pm
Post #1 of 22
(1731 views)
Shortcut
|
When you see the Hobbit for the first time, which format will you choose?
|
Can't Post
|
|
2D? 3D? 3D HFR? IMAX? IMAX 3D? I've bought my tickets for 3D HFR. Although I have no idea how much I will enjoy 48 fps, I would like to first see the movie as Peter Jackson intended it.
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Nov 14 2012, 5:12pm
Post #2 of 22
(960 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm seeing it in normal 3D first
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There isn't a cinema near me that will be showing it in 48fps. But the cinema does have 4K projectors, so I will still get to see some of its awesomeness!
|
|
|
wendy woo
Rivendell
Nov 14 2012, 5:16pm
Post #3 of 22
(974 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd have to go about two hundred miles or so to see it in an IMAX theater. At Christmas time, this kind of travel is not in the cards.
|
|
|
diedye
Grey Havens
Nov 14 2012, 6:18pm
Post #4 of 22
(982 views)
Shortcut
|
... I'm the one out of ten people who can't watch 3D.
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Valinor
Nov 14 2012, 7:10pm
Post #5 of 22
(969 views)
Shortcut
|
I want to watch it in a format that's familiar to me first so that I am not focused on the effects or frame rate. I'll be able to focus on the story and adaptation first. Then, I want 3D 48FPS in all it's glory! I'm not sure I'll like it (I don't normally like 3D), but I'm surely going to give it a try.
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal
Nov 14 2012, 8:32pm
Post #6 of 22
(940 views)
Shortcut
|
I'll probably see it in 3D once, but 2D is by far my preference. Not because I don't love 3D (I take stereo photos as a hobby) but because the clunky glasses really distract me, especially when I have to hold them up with my hands as they slip off my nose.
|
|
|
Misto
Lorien
Nov 15 2012, 12:10pm
Post #7 of 22
(1002 views)
Shortcut
|
As mentioned elsewhere, the mere thought of three hours 3D makes me want to run for the woods. Also, the Hobbit is now confirmed to be shown in my local cinema, where I'm allowed to take any seat not occupied by a paying customer whenever I wish. So I can watch it over and over again *yay* The only drawback is that I will have to watch the dubbed version.
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Nov 15 2012, 3:14pm
Post #8 of 22
(917 views)
Shortcut
|
I will choose what my local theater offers
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They recently went digital so that they could offer 3D, and I believe "The Hobbit" will be the first movie they show in that format. Would love to see it in IMAX 3D, but that means the two-hour trek to Seattle.
|
|
|
Magpie
Immortal
Nov 15 2012, 3:18pm
Post #9 of 22
(911 views)
Shortcut
|
me too... although it will be what my theater offers at the time I want to go
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It will have to be a time that works for the family so I'm not going to insist on some format and exclude family members. There will be time to see other formats if I want. I think we will all want to catch 3D and as for the other bells and whistles... I don't know how much I care. It would be interesting to compare not interesting enough to spend gobs o' money doing that.
|
|
|
Kassandros
Rohan
Nov 15 2012, 3:22pm
Post #10 of 22
(927 views)
Shortcut
|
Hopefully more theaters will be adding 48 fps if it proves popular
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Either later in AUJ's run or for TDOS. I hope everyone who would like to see it in this format gets the chance. I am fortunate in that I have a theater within walking distance showing it in 48 fps. I'm stoked.
|
|
|
Kassandros
Rohan
Nov 15 2012, 3:28pm
Post #11 of 22
(971 views)
Shortcut
|
What does taking stereo photos entail? A special camera I imagine? How do you view and display them? On occasion, I've gotten spectacular views in my binoculars and wished I could have taken a stereo photograph. I wear glasses, so I have to do the glasses-on-top-of-glasses thing at the theater, but this doesn't really bother me at all. Well, I much prefer RealD to IMAX 3D since IMAX 3D had a lot of problems with ghosting the one time I saw a film in that format. I'm guessing the polization might have been less advanced - I know the glasses were different. I've never had a similar problem with RealD.
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal
Nov 15 2012, 4:29pm
Post #13 of 22
(940 views)
Shortcut
|
We use whatever camera we have on hand. You take one photo, and then move over a few inches and take another photo of the same scene. You'll want to use a vertical orientation ("portrait" rather than "landscape"). We used to mount the photos on cardboard and view them in an old stereoscope that was my great-grandmother's. But later we found some cheap plastic viewers online. I've lost the original website, but it was something like this one: http://www.3dstereo.com/viewmaster/svn-lorg.html. We've also taken to putting two digital photos side-by-side using Paint-shop Pro and viewing them online. I'm able to make my eyes go wall-eyed and view stereo slides without any equipment at all, but the plastic viewers work well and only cost $3 or so. I don't have any examples of my work in the computer; it's been a long time. I'll have to scan some of my old photos and put them up. Maybe over Thanksgiving break I'll get that done.
|
|
|
Chopsta123
Gondor
Nov 16 2012, 7:54am
Post #14 of 22
(970 views)
Shortcut
|
my first two viewings are 3D 24fps
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
then one viewing in 4k 3D 48fps
(This post was edited by Chopsta123 on Nov 16 2012, 7:55am)
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Nov 16 2012, 9:32pm
Post #15 of 22
(866 views)
Shortcut
|
If I can find the High frame rate 3D at a theater near me, I'm in for that.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'll be seeing it in 2D for long enough after--my first glimpse I want to be a big event'
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal
Nov 17 2012, 6:12pm
Post #16 of 22
(860 views)
Shortcut
|
I've scanned an uploaded some of my 3D photos.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've been meaning to do it for some time. These are all old, pre-digital age. If you're curious, here's a link.
|
|
|
Kassandros
Rohan
Nov 19 2012, 5:50pm
Post #17 of 22
(795 views)
Shortcut
|
Those are pretty cool. I can easily shift my eyes to view them without glasses. I might have to try a similar process sometime. The only main limitation I see is that this can't be used for subjects that move outside of your control. I've wanted to take stereo photos of animals in their native habitats before and the only way to do that would be to find one that stayed in the same position or moved back to the same position. Should be a fun little expiriment in any case, though!
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal
Nov 19 2012, 6:07pm
Post #18 of 22
(827 views)
Shortcut
|
Yeah, our photos of waterfalls are an example.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The trees and rocks look great, but the water is funny. We also have a few where a family member moved and those look funny too. There are special 3D cameras where you have two cameras and one trigger. Or you could hold two cameras and try to press the trigger on both of them at the same time, I suppose, except those doggone digital cameras have a time lag.
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal
Nov 19 2012, 6:26pm
Post #19 of 22
(853 views)
Shortcut
|
Addendum, and a remark about 3D movies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When I posted these elsewhere, someone mentioned that a modern trend is to make a moving gif file that alternates between the two views. The motion gives an impression of 3D. This page has several examples. And I replied that that's why video can give a pretty good impression of 3D even when it's 2D. If you move past a landscape while taking video, the background moves more slowly than the foreground, giving a pretty good 3D effect. Which in turn is why I feel like 3D in movies isn't that important. If they ever come up with a really good method, I think it would be fun, but right now I prefer 2D movies.
|
|
|
Kassandros
Rohan
Nov 20 2012, 3:51pm
Post #20 of 22
(802 views)
Shortcut
|
But there have been several I've seen that haven't been good. I also don't have much hope for 3D conversions - if Cameron can't do it well (Titanic), I'm not sure anyone can. Not that I think Cameron is a great filmmaker, but he certainly seems to understand how to make 3D movies (Avatar). It's interesting that we've broken down almost 50/50 in terms of 3D vs. 2D. I wonder if this means that The Hobbit will have a 50% split between the two? I'm guessing it'll be higher if the 3D is good, which I expect it will be. We'll see, though. As for gifs - I've noticed this effect when paging through my photos sometimes. I prefer a stereogram to an animated gif, though - maybe that's part of why I love 3D movies? I just wish there were more good movies in 3D. I fear I'm in the minority, though.
|
|
|
Sam20
Lorien
Nov 20 2012, 5:24pm
Post #21 of 22
(1014 views)
Shortcut
|
As for me I intend to see it in RealD 3D. That's the technology they use here in town and in the city which I'll probably go (if things go as planned) to see it in English original version. I had a cool 3D experience seeing Avatar in RealD and if The Hobbit can be in that level I'll be satisfied. If the film is good, I consider a second viewing this time in 2D in my local town.
(This post was edited by sam90 on Nov 20 2012, 5:25pm)
|
|
|
CathrineB
Rohan
Jan 1 2013, 10:29pm
Post #22 of 22
(1080 views)
Shortcut
|
As much as I hate even regular 3D it doesn't matter as long as I get to see the movies as quick as possible LOL. So for the UEJ I watched 3D 48 and hated it, but I got to see the movie. So I saw the movie in 2D a week later.
|
|
|
|
|