|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kimtc
Nargothrond
Jan 23 2013, 10:26pm
Post #1 of 37
(952 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thoughts on 3D 24 fps IMAX vs. 48 fps
|
Can't Post
|
|
I just got back from seeing AUJ in 3D IMAX, which is not at 48 fps here. I went primarily because this is the last day it was showing here in that format (soon to switch to the Jeremy Renner Hansel & Gretel thing, good God), and I felt like I just had to go. My first viewing was in 24 fps, but all subsequent viewings have been in 48 fps 3D; this was the first time I had returned to 24 fps.
Bottom line: I found it nearly unwatchable. This was not because of the IMAX or the 3D, both formats I am comfortable with and enjoy. It was all about the 24 fps. I have been completely converted to the 48 fps, and can't imagine seeing this movie or DoS or TABA in anything but. I wear glasses, and I swear I kept taking my glasses and 3D specs off to wipe off imaginary smudges. It all looked very fuzzy and blurry, and I was completely unable to focus on details that I had no trouble seeing in 48 fps. The strangest part was that some of the CGI characters, in particular the goblin who falls with Bilbo into Gollum's cavern, looked like Ray Harryhausen stop motion characters (oddly, I found this to be true of the dwarves when they were running through the goblin lair, as well). The HFR made them much more realistic; in fact, to my mind, everything in HFR looked more realistic, in a good way. The only scene that I found better in IMAX was the stone giants, but that may have been a function of the pounding bass that made the whole theater shake. By the way, this is not a crappy IMAX theater--it is one of the best in the southeast, so it wasn't general quality.
I am glad I went--I would have regretted not seeing it in IMAX. But if it isn't in 48 fps IMAX, I won't bother next time. My personal feeling is that PJ will be vindicated on this in the long run.
[On the plus side, I did get to see the 9 minute preview for Star Trek, which looks amazing and had even more C-Batch in it than the trailer]
|
|
|
bborchar
Nargothrond
Jan 23 2013, 10:45pm
Post #2 of 37
(663 views)
Shortcut
|
I saw it twice in 48fps. The first time, I had absolutely no issues with it at all. The second time, I had a couple of parts where it felt "sped up", but I think it was because I was sitting in the back. I'll have to experiment. I did love it, though, I could see everything that was going on. I will say, though, I was glad I saw it in 24fps the first time. It allowed me to focus on the story instead of the action. Seeing it in 48fps, I found myself just looking at stuff. It also made 3D watchable to me, which it never has before. I really hope that people start using this more, and I will add that it probably can be refined, but that it's a great start.
|
|
|
Rostron2
Mithlond
Jan 23 2013, 10:47pm
Post #3 of 37
(657 views)
Shortcut
|
The HFR did help the overall look and feel -- for me.
Does anyone know if any other movies are coming out in 48? I wonder how people will react to those...
|
|
|
Tintallė
Mithlond
Jan 23 2013, 11:28pm
Post #4 of 37
(636 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm seeing it in HFR IMAX 3D tonight and I'm really excited!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Up to now I've seen it in HFR 3D every time and every time has been better than the last. Every time I sit closer to the front, too, which is VERY unusual for me.
If HFR IMAX 3D is as good as I hope then I'll go back tomorrow night for one more show before the opportunity is lost.
|
|
|
Kimtc
Nargothrond
Jan 23 2013, 11:40pm
Post #5 of 37
(640 views)
Shortcut
|
I wish this IMAX I saw had been in 48 fps 3D. That would have been the trifecta of fabulousness.
|
|
|
Owain
Dor-Lomin
Jan 24 2013, 2:09am
Post #6 of 37
(593 views)
Shortcut
|
|
James Cameron is reportedly doing Avatar 2&3
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In 60fps. He loved The Hobbit and praised PJ for the risk. Not to be outdone though he will push it one step further.
He is opting for 60fps because that frame rate is closest to human vision.
Middle Earth is New Zealand!
"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."
|
|
|
Nira
Menegroth
Jan 24 2013, 2:34am
Post #7 of 37
(583 views)
Shortcut
|
I saw IMAX 3D and HFR 3D and wished there was a trifecta version. 
"Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?"
|
|
|
Sślimė
Ossiriand
Jan 24 2013, 2:41am
Post #8 of 37
(582 views)
Shortcut
|
My 48fps experience was way better than the 3D 24fps IMAX experience. In fact, it almost felt like it was a different movie, with 24fps, a lot of scenes felt drawn out, but I didn't feel that way at all with 48fps!
I hope the next two come out in 48fps as well!
|
|
|
Eowyn3
Ossiriand
Jan 24 2013, 3:13am
Post #10 of 37
(578 views)
Shortcut
|
I have watched it 6 times in all formats available and have enjoyed all of them. However, I do agree that watching in 48 fps makes you pay attention to stuff more than the dialogues. I enjoyed both though!
|
|
|
Lio
Menegroth
Jan 24 2013, 3:18am
Post #11 of 37
(586 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes! Definitely worth watching in HFR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have seen both the 24 and 48 FPS versions in 3D IMAX, in that order. Before that I'd read a lot of complaints about about HFR, so I didn't really know what to expect coming in. And the first few minutes with the Bilbo scene were a bit, whoa! But I got used to it after five minutes or so and I must say I prefer this version! It's much more clear, there's more detail. It feels more real. When I think of all the great scenes that will be in the upcoming movies, I must say I wouldn't want to see them any other way! 
Want to chat? AIM me at Yami Liokaiser!
|
|
|
Old Toby
Hithlum
Jan 24 2013, 4:57am
Post #12 of 37
(579 views)
Shortcut
|
I was considering going to see it at our local IMAX, which is 24 fps, but after everyone's feedback here, I think I'll just save my money and pass. It's still playing here in a medium size screen at 3D HFR, thank goodness!! It's also playing in theaters in the regular 2D version. I've only seen it once in 2D....eleven times now in 3D HFR. I'm totally sold on it. Oh, and yeah, I'm going again this weekend.
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
|
|
|
swordwhale
Dor-Lomin
Jan 24 2013, 6:51am
Post #13 of 37
(560 views)
Shortcut
|
I totally agree!
I have seen it in all formats, including 2D.
One day I watched the HFR 3D, followed immediately by a (much too rock concert loud) Imax 3D 24fps. The motion blur was not only noticeable but just freakin' annoying at that point. I still can't see the gorgeous scenery in Erebor in 24fps... every time the camera moves (which is all the time) it's a rotten blur! even the bucolic Shire scenes (with minimum movement) were annoyingly blurry!
Bring on the HFR... I'll drive an hour to the nearest theater to see it.
Go outside and play...
(This post was edited by swordwhale on Jan 24 2013, 6:54am)
|
|
|
imin
Doriath
Jan 24 2013, 10:15am
Post #14 of 37
(557 views)
Shortcut
|
I saw it in IMAX 3D 48 fps (HFR) and it was a world of difference compared to Real3D 24 fps - not because of the frame rate, though this helped in parts, took away in others.
More down to the colour grading seemed to be correct for the movie in this style - i think IMAX do something themselves to master the film dont they? Would make sense from my two viewings - the image had less saturated colours but the actual screen was brighter (something HFR helps with from what i have read).
I am interested to see what Avatar looks like in 60 fps - i think most of what i didnt like (sometimes sped up - will go with more viewings at HFR) also when CGI catches up then i think it will make the CG look incredible, currently it looked a tiny bit better in 24fps.
|
|
|
Kassandros
Nargothrond
Jan 24 2013, 1:29pm
Post #15 of 37
(505 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How many times have you seen it in HFR?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I ask because the first time I saw it in HFR, things looked "fake" throughout the whole movie. The second time, when I was better adjusted, everything looked wonderful and not at all fake. The CGI looks just as good in HFR (better, actually) than it does in 24fps in my opinion.
If ya've only seen it once in HFR, I recommend seeing it again. On the other hand, different people have different experiences with HFR, so it's possible it just doesn't work for you. But I do recommend everyone give HFR two chances. I know that's a lot of time and money, but if ya like the movie and want to try to get an amazing experience, it might be worth it. It was for me.
all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...
|
|
|
imin
Doriath
Jan 24 2013, 3:03pm
Post #16 of 37
(494 views)
Shortcut
|
I will wait for the next HFR movie, i dont think i would pay to see the hobbit again, seen it twice and thats enough for me, i very rarely see any movie twice so people going anything more than 3 times is weird to me, haha.
overall i liked the HFR some things it made better (easier to see in fast moving or panning shots), just i thought it made the CG look more obvious - but this was just a tiny bit, nothing major, i just think it needs maybe a couple of years or just some refinement and it will look incredible - i am expecting to be blown away by the next Avatar - visually speaking.
I think you are right though, in terms of when things felt sped up i think that will diminish or disappear if i could watch lots of movies in 48fps or higher.
I am pleased they released it in HFR and i think it may have changed the level of brightness for the 3D image - something i am happy about as it was the only part of 3D that i dont enjoy is the darkened image.
|
|
|
Tintallė
Mithlond
Jan 24 2013, 5:46pm
Post #17 of 37
(487 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It was absolutely fantastic!!!!!!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I went in a bit afraid of motion sickness and of being deafened by the sound being ramped up, but it was perfect. Perfect! Large as life and twice as real. The colors, the action, the feeling of being immersed in that world - I don't think anything can compare to it, at least for me. And I was greatly relieved to find that the theater did not impose upon me the usual thundering sound with its near-guaranteed permanent hearing loss. I only wish I had nerved up a bit sooner and seen it in this format more. On the other hand, I would have spent a small fortune by now so perhaps it's just as well.
Sadly - VERY sadly - I have discovered that my plans to return tonight for a last hurrah have been derailed by the theater, which has cut back the showings to 11:15 and 3:00, neither of which I can attend. Tomorrow HFR IMAX 3D is no more in San Diego County. Or in Orange County.
Tonight it's back to HFR 3D. Apparently my closest theater is going to keep that going through this coming week, so I am likely to spend that small fortune after all.
|
|
|
Rostron2
Mithlond
Jan 24 2013, 6:33pm
Post #18 of 37
(476 views)
Shortcut
|
That's good to know. So, I guess Legolas has 120 fps vision?
|
|
|
Owain
Dor-Lomin
Jan 24 2013, 6:37pm
Post #19 of 37
(473 views)
Shortcut
|
Middle Earth is New Zealand!
"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."
|
|
|
Gollum1
Registered User
Jan 24 2013, 8:34pm
Post #20 of 37
(464 views)
Shortcut
|
My husband and I decided to wait until Christmas break was over before we saw The Hobbit in 2D. As soon as the movie started, I was taken aback by the bright colors of this movie compared to LOTR. Then I remembered Peter Jackson explaining in one of his "making of" videos, that he needed to film it that way for the colors to stand out in the new format. I soon forgot about my concerns and enjoyed the film immensely.
I had read the reviews of the fans, and the Newspaper's Movie Reviewers, and all gave the HFR format mixed reviews. I wanted to see for myself what the fuss was all about. However, due to other commitments, we waited until this past weekend to see it and the new format was not available in our area.
Maybe when "Desolation of Smaug" is released in December, I will see the movie in HFR first and make up my mind for myself.
(This post was edited by Gollum1 on Jan 24 2013, 8:35pm)
|
|
|
Tintallė
Mithlond
Jan 24 2013, 8:47pm
Post #21 of 37
(465 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Everything about the movie was designed for HFR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There's an interview with the makeup artists in which they describe having to re-configure their makeup pigments to add in more red tones because their usual makeup composition looked washed out and pale in HFR. They had one special monitor in the makeup room so they could get the colors just right.
I did not see the movie in anything but HFR, but that's because I figured if that's the way Jackson made it, that's the way I should see it. I daresay I may see it differently when the HFR is out of the theaters but the 24fps is still around - I doubt I'll be able to resist another viewing!
It will be interesting to know how you feel the two compare if you choose to see DOS in HFR!
|
|
|
Kimtc
Nargothrond
Jan 24 2013, 8:48pm
Post #22 of 37
(456 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I read somewhere that this isn't an issue
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He is opting for 60fps because that frame rate is closest to human vision.
Some optics expert said that humans don't see in "frame rate." Our vision is continuous, so it's an issue of infinite frame rate--they would just have to keep making it higher and higher, and it still wouldn't be continuous. Technically, they could do it in 1 million fps, to get "closer."
|
|
|
Owain
Dor-Lomin
Jan 24 2013, 8:55pm
Post #23 of 37
(451 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Right I'm not implying that human vision...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is measured in FPS.
The results that have been produced from 60fps that is then projected at 60fps emulates human vision.
Tests have show that beyond 60fps projected at 60fps there is no resolvable difference.
Middle Earth is New Zealand!
"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."
|
|
|
Kassandros
Nargothrond
Jan 24 2013, 9:09pm
Post #24 of 37
(454 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Actually, I believe thats for the RED cameras
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It doesn't have to do with how the film is projected but how it's recorded. So they had to modify the colors a bit so they'd be picked up by the camera. But it doesn't matter whether you project the film at 24 fps or 48 fps, just the nature of how it's captured.
all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...
|
|
|
mefansmum
Ossiriand
Jan 25 2013, 12:29am
Post #25 of 37
(437 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I went to 2D first to take in the story first but
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I came away slightly underwhelmed with the movie.
I went to HFR next and absolutely got involved and loved it.
Since then I have been to HFR, 2D, HFR and I again found 2D flat in comparison so it was not just that the previous 2D was my first viewing.
I won't be going to 2D by my choice again.
|
|
|
|
|
1
