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: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
48fps questionnaire
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Kendalf
Rohan


Jan 1 2013, 2:58am

Post #26 of 44 (413 views)
Shortcut
A big thumbs-up here! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?
1- Only at the start: Bilbo rummaging in his chest

Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
1- Realistic: The clarity is sensational

Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
2- No: Not once

Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?
N/A

Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
1- Yes: Most certainly. I hope the next two films are as widely available in HFR in spite of many critics' reception...


"I have found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."


Vaire
The Shire


Jan 1 2013, 4:43am

Post #27 of 44 (399 views)
Shortcut
Answers [In reply to] Can't Post

Q1 - 1
Just takes 5-10 minutes to get used to it. I saw it a second time in HD a couple of weeks later and did not need any "adjustment time" on the second viewing.

Q2 - 1

Q3 - 2

Q4 - 3
Just because the glasses are uncomfortable, nothing to do with what's on screen.

Q5 - 1
What I would really like is to see it in 48fps 2D, unfortunately my local cinema is not showing this combination of formats. I wear glasses normally, and having to wear those chunky plastic 3D frames over the top is a pain.


arithmancer
Grey Havens

Jan 1 2013, 5:26am

Post #28 of 44 (393 views)
Shortcut
my answers [In reply to] Can't Post

Question One - It didn't look "sped up" at all.

Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
1- Realistic
I would use a word like crisp or sharp actually, but I think this is what you mean by realistic.

Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
2- No
On the contrary, I found it easier to watch than other 3D movies I have seen, or than the 24 FPS 3D version of AUJ, which I had seen previously.

Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this? n/a

Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
1- Yes


Esmond
The Shire

Jan 1 2013, 7:59pm

Post #29 of 44 (374 views)
Shortcut
Liked it [In reply to] Can't Post

Q1) 1

Q2) 1

Q3) 2

Q5) 1


totoro
Lorien

Jan 2 2013, 1:16am

Post #30 of 44 (367 views)
Shortcut
Q1 is a little off [In reply to] Can't Post

Q1: 1 (though it wasn't exactly "sped up")
Q2: 3 (soap opera)
Q3: 2 (no)
Q4: n/a
Q5: 1 (yes)

In Reply To
Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?
1- Only at the start
2- Untill arounf the end of the dinner sequence
3- Untill about halfway through
4- The whole way through.

Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
1- Realistic
2- Video game
3- Soap opera
4- Sports game
5- Any other

Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
1- Yes
2- No

Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?
1- Frequently
2- Only occasionally
3- Once or twice.

Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
1- Yes
2- No

Thanks guys



Steerpike
Bree


Jan 2 2013, 4:35am

Post #31 of 44 (371 views)
Shortcut
The movie -> thumbs up..... 48fps -> thumbs down... [In reply to] Can't Post

Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?

Didn't look sped up at all.

Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?

3- Soap opera

Sets looked like sets; outdoor scenes looked like they were shot in my backyard. The whole thing looked cheap and tacky. Instead of drawing me into Middle-earth the high visual fidelity just brought Middle-earth characters into the real world, where they do not belong and just look silly. I saw it a second time in 24fps and absolutely loved it - Middle-earth looked like Middle-earth again.

Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?

2- No

Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?

N/A

Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?

2- No

I'm sure higher frames rates will be a valuable tool for film makers. If they just use them on the fast action shots to smooth out the movement or just for movies set in the real world and the present day then I guess that might work. But for an other-worldly fantasy setting I'm afraid it didn't work for me and just served as a constant reminder of the artifice of the situation.



Owain
Tol Eressea


Jan 2 2013, 5:04am

Post #32 of 44 (361 views)
Shortcut
Response to 48fps questions [In reply to] Can't Post

1. Never
2. Realistic
3. No
4. Did NOT have to take them off
5. Yes I will go see the movies in both 24 and 48fps because they provided me different experiences that I really enjoyed.

Smile

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Noria
Rohan

Jan 2 2013, 1:29pm

Post #33 of 44 (351 views)
Shortcut
48 fps was great [In reply to] Can't Post

Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?
Never

Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
1- Realistic

Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
2- No

Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?
N/A

Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
1- Yes


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 2 2013, 3:47pm

Post #34 of 44 (344 views)
Shortcut
Loved it! My answers: [In reply to] Can't Post

Question One: 1

Question Two: 1

Question Three: 2

Question Four: N/A

Question Five: 1

I really don't understand the negative responses, it was better in every way! Much more comfortable to watch than standard 3D. Even when the logo's came up I whispered to my friend "It looks better already!" and they agreed.


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 2 2013, 3:53pm

Post #35 of 44 (351 views)
Shortcut
Did you see it 48fps first? [In reply to] Can't Post

Everyone who doesn't like it seemed to have seen 48fps first... whereas those who saw 24fps first seem to love it! Crazy I honestly cannot fault how it looked at all. Every discernible difference was a benefit. I don't see how the CGI looked any different than in 24fps, either?

Not saying you're wrong, but I think maybe you should give another go? I saw it in a VUE cinema. Maybe the IMAX screenings are different?


DanielLB
Immortal


Jan 2 2013, 4:04pm

Post #36 of 44 (353 views)
Shortcut
Kassandros is testing that theory here [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Everyone who doesn't like it seemed to have seen 48fps first... whereas those who saw 24fps first seem to love it! Crazy I honestly cannot fault how it looked at all. Every discernible difference was a benefit. I don't see how the CGI looked any different than in 24fps, either?

Not saying you're wrong, but I think maybe you should give another go? I saw it in a VUE cinema. Maybe the IMAX screenings are different?


Link

I loved the clarity of the HFR - especially in the landscape shots. I also appreciated that lack of blur in the HFR version after seeing it in 2D the day after. As a whole though, I do think it cheapens some of the CGI (I have no problems with it looking sped up - that's not an issue.) It makes the CGI look like CGI - it's not seamless (such as Smaug's fire).

I do think that HFR will improve in time though. I saw AUJ in HFR on the opening day, and a couple of days ago (at the same cinema, on the same screen). What I noticed the second time round was that the pictures weren't aligned properly - I don't know how to describe it, but you could see the outline of the picture on the left of the screen. Perhaps my dislike of HFR is down to both personal taste, and the cinema not using/showing it properly?

I did like the HFR a lot more second time round, but the problems still existed. I won't see TDOS and TABA in HFR to start with, but will definitely give it a go. I've not given up on the technology, it just isn't for me.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 2 2013, 4:15pm

Post #37 of 44 (352 views)
Shortcut
My other question... [In reply to] Can't Post

Just voted on that poll, thanks.

My other question, did you see it in an IMAX or something different? Because the VUE (Plymouth) one, honestly, was completely flawless. My girlfriend said at the end "that was the best thing I've ever seen" We'd seen the 24fps version previously. (A day before official release, coz we're cool like that Tongue) This version was so much more superior that I'm really confused how people can;t like it? My mind boggles.

Only "complaint" I don't think this is really a problem, but there was a sped-up sensation in shots with no reference to speed of movement. (E.G. a close-up of Bilbo's hand grabbing something with nothing else in shot) Because there's no visual reference of how fast his hand is moving, and because we're used to 24fps, your mind assumes it's going really fast. But that's not a problem with the tech, that's a problem with my brain and after a few mins it stopped happening, so I suppose I adjusted pretty quick. Smile


DanielLB
Immortal


Jan 2 2013, 4:19pm

Post #38 of 44 (351 views)
Shortcut
No, it wasn't an IMAX [In reply to] Can't Post

It was just a normal Cineworld (with a 4k projector "apparently" , but people on here have suggested that no cinema has a 4k projector). I must say though, that the best screening I saw was at IMAX - unfortunately, there is no IMAX HFR near me (I only saw it at an IMAX when I was visiting a friend). Perhaps that is the best to go to?

It ultimately comes down to personal taste. We'll all adjust to it eventually. Sly

P.S - You saw an advanced screening?! Lucky you.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



(This post was edited by DanielLB on Jan 2 2013, 4:23pm)


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jan 2 2013, 4:36pm

Post #39 of 44 (378 views)
Shortcut
Um.. VUE Plymouth has a 4K projector. [In reply to] Can't Post

I asked and the man said "I have no idea" and got this other guy to talk to me. He told me most UK VUE cinemas have Sony 4K projectors now and all of these are capable of showing 48fps, but only a few are doing it because it's expensive to ship it to all the cinemas. They're planning on doing DOS as a download rather than a hard drive next year, so more cinemas will be showing it.


lyndomiel
Rivendell

Jan 2 2013, 10:00pm

Post #40 of 44 (684 views)
Shortcut
Saw it yesterday in RPX - Regal's version of IMAX 3-D w/ Atmos sound [In reply to] Can't Post

I loved it - and so did my husband who had not seen it in 2-D first! In fact - I liked the film even better in this format. Unlike what many have said, I thought the early scenes looked far better in 48fps. The best 3-D viewing I have ever experienced. Never had to take off the glasses - no headaches - not too dark. I understand that they used two projectors which created a brighter image. Perhaps it depends upon the type of projection - IMAX vs. RPX, etc.

Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?

5. NEVER.

Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
1- Realistic - truly 3 dimensional even when they were not trying to project out to the audience. Gorgeous from the first moment.


Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?

2- No - as I said, it was fabulous

Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?
1- Frequently
2- Only occasionally
3- Once or twice.

Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
1- Yes - a many times as I can afford at $20 a pop (NYC prices)




pandoraziki
Rivendell

Jan 3 2013, 5:12pm

Post #41 of 44 (333 views)
Shortcut
OK [In reply to] Can't Post

1. 1 - for about 3 seconds
2. 1 - realistic
3. 2 - nope
4. n/a
5. 1 - absolutely


Chainsaw Charlie
Bree


Jan 3 2013, 9:04pm

Post #42 of 44 (330 views)
Shortcut
I mostly loved it. [In reply to] Can't Post

Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?

Never.

Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?

Stage theatre.

Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?

No

Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?

N/A

Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?

Yes.


Chainsaw Charlie
Bree


Jan 3 2013, 9:23pm

Post #43 of 44 (348 views)
Shortcut
Not perfect, but I am impressed. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
What I noticed the second time round was that the pictures weren't aligned properly - I don't know how to describe it, but you could see the outline of the picture on the left of the screen. Perhaps my dislike of HFR is down to both personal taste, and the cinema not using/showing it properly?


My personal taste is for old film grain. (I'm an archaic photographer who still shoots transparencies as well as film, and makes prints by hand in a darkroom.) Having said that, I'm also a lifelong fan of Viewmaster. I can only comment on my own personal viewing experience - I saw the HFR and was situated almost precisely in the middle of the cinema - ideal viewing perspective. My judgment: the image was perfect. There was no ghosting. It was incredibly sharp and detailed. I was not aware of an image being projected onto a screen. It often felt to me that I was sitting at the edge of a stage watching actors. They looked incredibly realistic. The CGI was often a different story - they didn't always look realistic, but the focus and registration was still very tight, and in the case of Azog, I didn't think him a CGI creature at all, he looked to me more like really good clay-animation model with very smooth natural movement.

It's possible that the cinema projector you saw the movie had bad registration (like a badly set Viewmaster slide) or terrible focus - or it's possible that the picture might have been affected by where you sit in the cinema, but that's purely my conjecture. I can't say. All I know is the print - errrr, file - image I saw looked incredible.


(This post was edited by Chainsaw Charlie on Jan 3 2013, 9:27pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


Jan 3 2013, 9:37pm

Post #44 of 44 (402 views)
Shortcut
Ghosting is a good way of describing the effect! [In reply to] Can't Post

I was sat in a middle row, in the middle - probably one of the best seats possible. So I don't think it was down to that. I assume it was down to the projection (there's no other reasonable explanation).

Hopefully by the next film, cinemas will be more experienced with HFR and the new technology.

It probably wasn't that obvious to the average movie-goer.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

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.