|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acheron
Gondor
Dec 30 2012, 6:10pm
Post #1 of 17
(1353 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Q for those who have seen both 24 and 48 versions
|
Can't Post
|
|
I finally saw the movie last night, in 24 fps 2D. (I can't watch 3D as far as I know, so most likely not going to be seeing any other version.) A few CGI-heavy scenes looked a bit "off" to me; basically the effect I would imagine if I saw a 48 FPS scene -- everything moving a bit too fluidly, I guess. Did you notice this in the 24 version? Was it present at 48 also? I'm wondering if it's an artifact of being designed/filmed at 48 FPS and being converted to 24 after the fact, because it's not something I've noticed in a movie before, even in something else CGI-heavy like the Star Wars prequels or whatever.
Since I don't think we are going to get a home video version at 48 FPS, I hope it's something they can fix for the home release, but we'll see.
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons. -- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
Dec 30 2012, 6:20pm
Post #2 of 17
(1020 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In all honesty, after seeing the IMAX HFR 3D version last night
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and comparing it to the 2D 24 fr I came away with noting the clarity differences in the actors - like a play vs a film - and some depth of scene from the 3D (which added very little overall) but it would take side by side viewings to really see some of the differences. I watched motion scenes a little more carefully and did see a reduction in blurring. For me, 48 fps and 3D were not critical to my enjoyment. I think the next to films will be key to seeing this technology exploited to its fullest effect. AUJ just felt rushed somewhat in completion.I flipped my glasses up and down in some scenes for comparison and noticed with the glasses a richer color, textural and as expected depth effect.
I think the critics of HFR have been rather harsh. For me, it was not a distraction...just different.,
|
|
|
Lily Fairbairn
Half-elven
Dec 30 2012, 6:26pm
Post #4 of 17
(867 views)
Shortcut
|
Not a distraction, just different.
|
|
|
Carcharoth
Rivendell
Dec 30 2012, 7:40pm
Post #5 of 17
(810 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't recall any problems with 24fps 2D...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That was the format of my first viewing.
My second viewing was HFR 3D.
I'ven't been a proponent of the 3D craze. I'm of the mind that it's unnecessary for EVERYTHING to be rendered in 3D, as it seems everything is these days. I think it's over-used (as a flashy gimmick), and all too often I hear tell that the 3D conversion is poorly implemented, anyway. (i.e., not all 3D is created equally, and the cheap route is taken in many instances.)
The only contemporary film I had seen in 3D prior to this was How to Train Your Dragon; IMAX 3D, specifically. I think it served that film extremely well.
Seeing The Hobbit in 3D of any nature wasn't part of my original plan for the film due to my feelings about 3D, in general, but curiosity won-out.
I have to say I was impressed with the HFR presentation.
This was doubly unexpected because of all the criticism being leveled at the HFR version of the film. But personally, I did not perceive any of the "wrongness" that other people are ascribing to the format. It looked great to me, and I'm glad I chose to ignore opinions to the contrary, and I plan on seeing the next two films in that format.
I'd have to see the film again in 2D to see if I pick-up on any of the artifacts you describe.
|
|
|
guitarzankansasfan
Lorien
Dec 30 2012, 7:43pm
Post #6 of 17
(820 views)
Shortcut
|
I watched 24 fps 2D first and then the week after that I watched it in 48 fps 3D. When I watched it in 24 fps I noticed that there were some shots, like the aerial shot flying over Dale toward the Lonely Mountain, with big sweeping movement that were designed for 48 FPS that did not translate well. There was some kind of natural motion blur or whatever happens with film that did not happen in the RED epic camera, and the jittery movement in 24 fps made it seem like I was seeing double in that scene.
It was very disappointing to have that happen in the opening shots of the film, and it made it look like they had put so much effort into making the 48 fps master look good, that they had neglected the 24 fps version and failed to address conversion issues in some places.
However, aside from those few scenes, I found that most of the film was very watchable and enjoyable.
When it came to watching the 48 fps version, I would get a different feel from different scenes. Sometimes I felt like I was watching a big budget TV miniseries. Sometimes it felt like theater in the round. Sometimes I just didn't notice.
What really distracted me was the 3D. The absolutely lifelike realism had a problematic side effect: I found myself wanting to see things in the background like I would in a theater, but I could not because the camera was focused on what was in the foreground, leaving the things I wanted to see in the background out of focus in a way that felt unrealistic in the otherwise realistic world on the screen. There were so many beautiful high resolution details on the screen that I had trouble paying attention to the big picture.
This made the 3D a terrible distraction, and I really only enjoyed it in the "theme park ride" scenes like falling down into Goblin town, or the really action-heavy battle scenes where it made it easier to see who was hitting what from where.
Otherwise I found myself closing one eye and trying to watch it that way for a minute or two, and wishing they had made a 48 fps version in 2D so that I could see the more lifelike motion without the distraction of the 3D.
Oddly enough, I had never noticed this tendency in 24 fps 3d films I had seen such as Tron: Legacy and the Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
There was a man.
There was a lady.
There was a Dragon Lord.
(This post was edited by guitarzankansasfan on Dec 30 2012, 7:53pm)
|
|
|
Lightice
Lorien
Dec 30 2012, 8:54pm
Post #7 of 17
(760 views)
Shortcut
|
I finally saw the movie last night, in 24 fps 2D. (I can't watch 3D as far as I know, so most likely not going to be seeing any other version.) A few CGI-heavy scenes looked a bit "off" to me; basically the effect I would imagine if I saw a 48 FPS scene -- everything moving a bit too fluidly, I guess. Did you notice this in the 24 version? Was it present at 48 also? I'm wondering if it's an artifact of being designed/filmed at 48 FPS and being converted to 24 after the fact, because it's not something I've noticed in a movie before, even in something else CGI-heavy like the Star Wars prequels or whatever. .
What does "too fluid" mean, for example? How can movement be too fluid? Blur has always been an annoyance for me in films, not a desirable quality. CG creations don't always move in natural manner, but that has nothing to do with the number of shot frames and everything with the animation technology.
Personally, I did not notice a major difference between the 24fps and 48fps 3D experiences, at all. The only benefit of the latter was the reduced motion blur which I appreciated, but it wasn't so big a problem with 24fps that it would have bothered by viewing experience that much, anyway. I had to consciously pay attention to really notice the difference, most of the time. I most certainly didn't get a "soap opera" vibe from it like some people apparently did. It looked like a blockbuster film both times -- the same blockbuster film with a minor difference in terms of motion blur. A small tweak in the visual style, not a major difference either for good or bad.
Seriously, the whole debate has gone completely overboard. The real difference between the framerates is miniscule to the naked eye, neither the visual revolution that PJ promised or the soap opera disaster that sensationalist critics are complaining about.
|
|
|
sharpened_graphite
Rivendell
Dec 30 2012, 9:32pm
Post #8 of 17
(742 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We're in the same boat here...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've seen the movie both in 24 and 48 FPS. And while the higher framerate was ever so slightly clearer and smoother, it didn't feel any more real than 24 FPS, nor did it negatively affect the film viewing experience in any way either. I wouldn't mind if all movies henceforward were shot in 48 FPS, since it's ever so slightly better, but I wouldn't be upset if we stay with a 24 FPS standard either. Mindblowingly beautiful and moving imagery stays the same no matter the framerate (if it works in a still image, it'll work in 16, 24, 48 or any other number of frames per second).
For me 48 FPS turned out to be a nice perk that I'm generally in favour of, but nothing to write home about. I fully support it, but don't see any great tragedy if it doesn't catch on.
(This post was edited by sharpened_graphite on Dec 30 2012, 9:35pm)
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Dec 30 2012, 9:46pm
Post #9 of 17
(728 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We could go round in circles .... ;-) /
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Seriously, the whole debate has gone completely overboard. The real difference between the framerates is miniscule to the naked eye, neither the visual revolution that PJ promised or the soap opera disaster that sensationalist critics are complaining about.
Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!
|
|
|
Joe-Mathews
Rivendell
Dec 30 2012, 9:49pm
Post #10 of 17
(723 views)
Shortcut
|
I've seen both frame rates and every version was 3D. I can't add any more except to wonder how a 48fps version would look in 2D.
It is hard to criticize 48fps when the few faults may be with the 3D. It may be a silly idea, but it would resolve the controversy.
'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.'
|
|
|
sharpened_graphite
Rivendell
Dec 30 2012, 10:24pm
Post #11 of 17
(717 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I can say for certain that I didn't like the 3D...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But then, I didn't like the 3D in any movie I've seen since Avatar (which was the only one that somehow made 3D work). So I seriously think that 2D 48 FPS might be the best viewing experience (if only they provided it).
|
|
|
Eleniel
Tol Eressea
Dec 30 2012, 11:11pm
Post #12 of 17
(699 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I would say that sums up my experience, too..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Having seen AUJ in 3D at both 24 and 48 fps, even though I have previously enjoyed other films in 3D (most recently Deathly Hallows II) I have to say that it is the 3D which was the overriding problem for me, too...
What really distracted me was the 3D. The absolutely lifelike realism had a problematic side effect: I found myself wanting to see things in the background like I would in a theater, but I could not because the camera was focused on what was in the foreground, leaving the things I wanted to see in the background out of focus in a way that felt unrealistic in the otherwise realistic world on the screen. There were so many beautiful high resolution details on the screen that I had trouble paying attention to the big picture.
This made the 3D a terrible distraction, and I really only enjoyed it in the "theme park ride" scenes like falling down into Goblin town, or the really action-heavy battle scenes where it made it easier to see who was hitting what from where.
Otherwise I found myself closing one eye and trying to watch it that way for a minute or two, and wishing they had made a 48 fps version in 2D so that I could see the more lifelike motion without the distraction of the 3D.
For me the HFR was a separate issue...I disliked the feeling of almost being "on stage with the actors", and the clarity combined with the startling depth of field only served to heighten my perception of "unreality" whilst watching. the only time I enjoyed the HFR I would say was in the Goblin Town sequences where it was amazing to be able to pick out the detail all the way into the further point from the camera. Conversely, I didn't like that feel with the landscape shots so much, particularly with layers of foliage, which to the naked eye would be more blurry, and not crystal clear through several layers.
When it came to watching the 48 fps version, I would get a different feel from different scenes. Sometimes I felt like I was watching a big budget TV miniseries. Sometimes it felt like theater in the round. Sometimes I just didn't notice.
I am yet to see AUJ in 2D, which I aim to rectify shortly, with the hope that it will match the cinematic feel we experienced during LotR more closely...
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
acheron
Gondor
Dec 31 2012, 2:28am
Post #13 of 17
(638 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'll let you know when I see it again :)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I seem to remember some scenes with the dwarves fleeing the goblins in the Misty Mountains.
Thanks for the input everyone. Could be I'm imagining things. 
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons. -- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
Randraug
The Shire
Dec 31 2012, 2:46am
Post #14 of 17
(643 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I didn't like the high frame rate
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To me, the high frame rate version felt like watching a low-budget sci-fi tv show. It was too realistic, if that makes any sense, and it was really distracting, to me at least. I saw it at the normal frame rate (in 3D and 2D) and it looked much better that way.
"There's nothing wrong with being a loser, it just depends on how good you are at it."
~BJA~
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Dec 31 2012, 4:30am
Post #15 of 17
(651 views)
Shortcut
|
I've seen this movie now four times, three in 3D HFR and one in 2D. I am completely in favor of the 3D HFR. I find no problems like those people here have mentioned. I find I get completely immersed in the movie itself, and don't even notice that I'm wearing glasses! I love the clarity and realism of it all. A friend of mine doesn't like it at all. She prefers the 2D, saying she doesn't want to feel like she's in the movie. Okay. But I do. I think this film is getting way too much bad press about the HFR thing; I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about. Evidently, from what I've heard, the U.S. critics are particularly biased against it. Hah, wait until James Cameron comes out with his next Avatar filmed at 60 fps!! And yeah, of course I loved the movie even in 2D, but given a choice, I'll always go for the 3D HFR. I know a lot of theaters cannot accomodate the HFR format, so are showing it in regular 3D. I don't see the point in going to see that. I would opt for the 2D before that. Okeydokey. Just me, putting in my 1 cent (what with the economy these days....)
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Dec 31 2012, 5:51am
Post #16 of 17
(604 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you have a suggestion about how far forward or back to sit for best effect? Also, center? Does it matter?
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Dec 31 2012, 3:52pm
Post #17 of 17
(622 views)
Shortcut
|
|
where you sit depends on several things
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If you are seeing it in 3D HFR:
1. If it's a large room with one of those newer huge screens, you certainly don't want to sit close. You want to be able to see the entire screen without having to turn your head. I usually prefer sitting in the upper half of the seating area...but not way up near the top, which is too far away for me.
2. If it's a smaller room with one of those newer huge screens (which I have been into lately), then you'll want to sit quite far back just for the previously mentioned reason. To me there's nothing worse than not being able to see everything that's going on onscreen all at once.
3. I always like to sit as close to center as possible, particularly if the movie is 3D.
If you are seeing it in 2D:
1. Generally you can sit closer to the screen, but I'd recommend sitting far enough away to see the entire screen.
2. Sitting as close to center as possible makes for a better visual experience, I think.
Anyway, that's my take on seating choices. I think where you sit matters more if it's 3D, not so much in 2D, but it's largely a matter of where you feel most comfortable in relation to the screen.
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
|
|
|
|
|
