Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Off Topic: Taking Soundings:
HFR 48fps vs. 24fps - weigh in!
Poll: HFR 48fps vs. 24fps - weigh in!
I've seen it in BOTH 48 and 24fps and I prefer 48fps 14 / 30%
I've seen it in BOTH 48 and 24fps and I prefer 24fps. 6 / 13%
I've seen it only in HFR (48fps) 3D and I liked/loved it! 10 / 21%
I've seen it only in HFR 3D and I didn't like/hated it. 4 / 9%
I saw 48fps and I don't care either way. 2 / 4%
I've seen it in 24fps/3D and I liked the 3D 4 / 9%
I've seen it in 24fps/3D and I didn't like the 3D 0 / 0%
I don't have the option to see it in 48fps but I would like to 1 / 2%
I saw it in 24 fps 2D and I don't want to watch another way 2 / 4%
Other - Let me tell you about it.... 4 / 9%
47 total votes
 

Silverlode
Terror of the Seas / Moderator


Dec 14 2012, 2:17am

Post #1 of 11 (676 views)
Shortcut
HFR 48fps vs. 24fps - weigh in! Can't Post

The new technology has been and continues to be one of the most divisive elements of these films. So tell us what format you saw it in and how you felt about it.

This is for rating the format only - there's another poll for rating the film itself. Smile


(This post was edited by Silverlode on Dec 14 2012, 2:25am)


DanielLB
Captain


Dec 14 2012, 7:16am

Post #2 of 11 (161 views)
Shortcut
I've seen the film in HFR 3D 4K [In reply to] Can't Post

And I really, really, really didn't like it. I can certainly see it's advantages - the landscape shots (the eagles!) were absolutely stunning. The problem for me lies in the action-y type scenes. It just seems to cheapen everything.

I'm going to watch again in 2D possibly today/tomorrow.


macfalk
Quartermaster


Dec 14 2012, 7:29am

Post #3 of 11 (168 views)
Shortcut
Will watch it in 2D 24fps on Sunday. [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought 48 fps was pretty cool, but I also want to see it in the old-school format.


Kassandros
Rigger


Dec 14 2012, 5:23pm

Post #4 of 11 (151 views)
Shortcut
Other [In reply to] Can't Post

I would venture to say that the change from 3D 24 fps to 3D 48 fps is far bigger than the change from 2D to 3D and maybe even black-and-white to color.

Even at the end of the movie, I still hadn't fully gotten used to it. Not saying I didn't like it - the depth and clarity were astounding. But I wasn't used to it and it took a lot of mental power to absorb the visuals that I wished I could have been using to absorb the story. I did miss some dialog while my attention was on the visuals, especially early on.

I did sometimes worry that special effects hadn't caught up to 48 fps in terms of things looking fake, but I also caught myself noticing that the dirt looked fake, so it's possible the effect is just me being unused to seeing 48 fps. I'm going to have to see it again to get a better idea.

Overall, though, I regret seeing it first in 48 fps. If I could go back in time, I'd have watched it first in 3D 24 fps to abosrb the story properly and then watched in in 3D 48 fps to take in the visuals without worrying about absorbing the story for the first time. I really felt ovewhelmed by the visual overload combined with the gigantic changes made from the book to the movie. It was really hard to process it all.

On the other hand, Riddles in the Dark was so incredible that it made the whole movie worth it. Seeing Serkis and Freeman do their thing with such amazing clarity was incredible. I'd have preferred it to be darker, but that's my only quibble. Both actors nailed their respective parts and 48 frps just made it feel so much more alive. And it was the one iconic boook scene that wasn't drastically altered in the movie...


LordotRings93
Rigger


Dec 14 2012, 7:01pm

Post #5 of 11 (129 views)
Shortcut
For me [In reply to] Can't Post

Going to see it in a few hours in 2D 24 fps, mainly because I hate 3D (never seen a 3D film, but I just want to watch the film without all that extra gloss). Although I'd love to see it in 48 fps, but I don't have a theater near me showing it, so I voted the "Don't have the option, would like to see it in 48 fps though".


DanielLB
Captain


Dec 14 2012, 7:11pm

Post #6 of 11 (116 views)
Shortcut
Old school remains the best [In reply to] Can't Post

2d 24fps was far superior than that HFR nonsense. Never again. Bleurgh.


Kassandros
Rigger


Dec 14 2012, 7:51pm

Post #7 of 11 (112 views)
Shortcut
Are you sure this wasn't just cause you weren't used to it? [In reply to] Can't Post

At first I thought "the seams were showing", as it were, in 3D HFR. But then I noticed that even the outdoor shots and shots of dirt looked "fake". So I'm beginning to suspect it might just be due to my having been trained to watch 24/25 fps all my life that makes me feel this way and that after another viewing, I'll love 3D HFR completely.

On the other hand, I didn't utterly hate it. I found it amazingly beautiful but very offputting. It felt disturbed by it, but also intrigued. It did look a bit "fake", but I think that might just be me being used to something else and being surprised by a new format.


DanielLB
Captain


Dec 14 2012, 7:58pm

Post #8 of 11 (122 views)
Shortcut
More than likely [In reply to] Can't Post

If we were all bought up on 48fps films, then I obviously wouldn't have a problem with it. But I have said elsewhere that I don't think the CGI is yet ready for the HFR. I just couldn't get used to it.

The problem (for me) lies in the CGI loaded scenes, and not the dialogue and landscape scenes.

Perhaps I will like it in a couple of years time?


Kassandros
Rigger


Dec 14 2012, 8:09pm

Post #9 of 11 (272 views)
Shortcut
I just don't know myself. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm trying to decide whether to see it next in 3D 24fps or 3D 48 fps. On the one hand, I might like to see it without being distracted by having to process the new framerate. On the other hand, I might want to try to get used to 48 fps and see if it's better a second time.

I also fear that I won't like it in 24 fps after seeing it in 48 fps. I know that when I viewed some clips online after I got back last night, they felt very, very flat. I don't want to see this movie in 2D.

I think 48 fps really enhances the depth of 3D. In terms of creating a believable sense of watching a real scene, The Hobbit surpassed all other 3D movies by a lot. The only question was the believability of the things I was seeing so well.

I bet 3D 48 fps would be really, really great for watching those operas in theaters like they always advertise. It is hard to get used to though. I really envied the people I heard coming out of the movie saying they wanted to see every movie in 48 fps now and that it only took them 5 minutes to get used to it.

To be honest, I felt like when the movie started, there was a palpable sense of unease in the audience when they first saw what the movie looked like. This was relieved somewhat by squeeing at Elijah Wood and then even more so by the Good Morning scene.


Loresilme
Quartermaster


Dec 31 2012, 12:52am

Post #10 of 11 (200 views)
Shortcut
Loved the HFR [In reply to] Can't Post

I've seen it in 3D HFR, in regular 2D and in 3D IMAX and I totally preferred it in HFR. I thought the HFR version was far superior. In fact, after seeing the clarity, the colors, and the detail in the HFR version, when I watched the others I felt like I was missing half of what was going!

I want to see it again and I will be going HFR for any future viewings.


sauget.diblosio
Sailing Master

Apr 2 2013, 2:02am

Post #11 of 11 (99 views)
Shortcut
I only saw it in 24fps. [In reply to] Can't Post

I would have seen it in 48fps as i'm really interested it seeing what it's all about, but circumstances didn't allow for it with AUJ. I will definitely check it out with DoS, though, and am very excited to see it.

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.