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:
High Frame Rate Fallout
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Jax_Teller
Rivendell


Jan 24 2013, 9:08pm

Post #26 of 47 (283 views)
Shortcut
A lot of people loved it as well [In reply to] Can't Post

I loved it and I'm a purist...... I've read countless positive to ecstatic comments about it as well, it's no worse than opinions on 3D.

So that's a good thing, I know that in France, HFR has been showing for a while in equipped theaters, and I've read that some theaters wished they could have had it a bit longer.

I think that when DOS is out, a lot more theaters will be HFR ready, there's enough interest in it.

Blunt the knives, bend them forks, smash the bottles and burn the corks.

That's what Bilbo Baggins hates !


Kassandros
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 9:13pm

Post #27 of 47 (284 views)
Shortcut
Soap operas are not shown in 48 fps. [In reply to] Can't Post

TV is basically the same framerate as movies, about 25 fps I believe. Maybe some things are 30 fps? Not higher than that, though.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


jtarkey
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 9:15pm

Post #28 of 47 (270 views)
Shortcut
I said that exact same thing in the post you're replying to... [In reply to] Can't Post

Soaps, and video, are commonly 30fps. However, it gives it a very similar aesthetic to 48fps. I'm certainly not the first person to say that The Hobbit looked like a soap opera...

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Kassandros
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 9:16pm

Post #29 of 47 (274 views)
Shortcut
I did the first time. [In reply to] Can't Post

It was very noticable in my first 48 fps viewing. In addition, a lot of things felt "fake".

After the first minute or two, it wasn't a problem at all in my second viewing. Nothing looked "fake". Actually, it looked great!

I really recommend people who had mixed feelings about HFR after one viewing give it another chance. It made a huge difference to me. Some people adjust to HFR within 5 minutes - at my midnight premiere, I overheard people saying they wanted to see every movie in HFR - but for others, apparently, it takes longer, maybe even more than one viewing.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Kassandros
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 9:24pm

Post #30 of 47 (256 views)
Shortcut
I would not call 30 fps "HFR". [In reply to] Can't Post

You said that soap operas were HFR. I wouldn't think 30 fps counts as that. And I'm not sure at all that soap operas are generally shown at 30 fps. I've never seen any confirmation of this. As far as I know, most tv is 25 fps, isn't it?

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Arandiel
Grey Havens

Jan 24 2013, 9:24pm

Post #31 of 47 (252 views)
Shortcut
So did we! [In reply to] Can't Post

Beamer (my daughter) and myself, that is. We saw it first in "regular" 3D, then 2D, then 3D hfr Imax. With the first two, she told me that she noticed some out-of-focus issues with fast-moving camera shots and characters, and I agreed. So we treated it like an experiment, and went to the hfr showing (along with my son, who was a bit Hobbited out by then) to find out what difference it made, if any. Our conclusion was that the fast movements were much clearer and we'll be going to the hfr screenings first for the next two movies.

The main thing we noticed was that the 3D doesn't really work when you tilt your head!


Walk to Rivendell: There and Back Again Challenge - traveling through Middle Earth with thirteen rowdy Dwarves, one grumpy Wizard, and a beleaguered Hobbit

Join us, Thursdays on Main!


jtarkey
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 9:33pm

Post #32 of 47 (258 views)
Shortcut
My point is this.. [In reply to] Can't Post

The Hobbit looked kind of like a soap opera. Whether or not soaps are considered HFR is not the point. Coincidentally, soap operas also shoot at a higher frame rate than movies. I think there is certainly a correlation somewhere in there.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Kassandros
Rohan


Jan 24 2013, 9:57pm

Post #33 of 47 (262 views)
Shortcut
I don't think AUJ in HFR looked anything like a soap opera. [In reply to] Can't Post

I also have seen no evidence that soap operas are shown in a frame rate any different from movies or other tv shows.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Lily Fairbairn
Half-elven


Jan 24 2013, 10:19pm

Post #34 of 47 (226 views)
Shortcut
Same here [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd never seen a 3D movie before, afraid it would give me a headache. We went to see The Hobbit in 2D first, then, hating to miss it in 3D, made a point of seeing it in HFR 3D. I loved it! I didn't get the least trace of a headache. I didn't even notice anything "fake" or speeded up---but then, neither my eyes nor my brain are as nimble as they used to be, which might actually have been an advantage.




peace1993
Bree


Jan 24 2013, 10:26pm

Post #35 of 47 (238 views)
Shortcut
Amazing [In reply to] Can't Post

What I am about to say comes from the deep confines of my heart:
I don't have a single theater near the place I live that shows the Hobbit in 48 fps. I found the following website: www.hfrmovies.com which has a trailer of the Hobbit in 48 fps. What can I say? It was a mind-blowing experience. I sat down and watched the trailer at least ten times. For the next movie, I am definitely going to a theater (no matter how far) that has this technology.

Sam: Trust a Brandybuck and a Took.
Merry: What? That was just a detour, a shortcut.
Sam: Shortcut to what?
Pippin: Mushrooms!


Lindele
Gondor


Jan 24 2013, 10:34pm

Post #36 of 47 (220 views)
Shortcut
The HFR [In reply to] Can't Post

version in the theater was actually quite a bit more extreme than this trailer...much more jarring.
But it was fascinating how real everything looked.


Magpie
Immortal


Jan 24 2013, 10:57pm

Post #37 of 47 (222 views)
Shortcut
my husband commented on it.. [In reply to] Can't Post

...but I didn't notice it at all.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Snaga
Lorien


Jan 24 2013, 11:07pm

Post #38 of 47 (213 views)
Shortcut
I saw it in HFR... [In reply to] Can't Post

... at an IMAX. It was the first IMAX movie I've seen in years. I went mainly for the sake of curiosity, as I had already seen it in regular 2D and 3D.

Let me start by saying that I was prepared not to like it. In part based on some of the reports I had heard and also some of the snippets of HFR footage I had seen here and there on the web. It turned out to be very much like Peter Jackson has said on more that one occassion, it started out seeming alien and simply 'off' and it took me about ten minutes to adjust to it. From that point onwards I must say I was completely blown away by how great it looked. The colors, shading, forms and detail were simply amazing. The action scenes and the darker studio scenes to me seemed to stand out as having benefited from HFR the most. The well lit close ups of the characters faces seemed a little strange at first; being very highly detailed and coming across maybe a little pale, but after awhile I think your mind's eye adjusts and and from that point on it was like looking through a window at real people.

I must say I am very keen to see a HFR 2D version of the film and really wish it would be released in that format.

I haven't posted on TORN for awhile and I'm sure there have been exhausting posts on here in the last month about the whole HFR issue, but I just wanted to get my two cents in.

"Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!"

-Faramir


kareniel
Lorien

Jan 24 2013, 11:22pm

Post #39 of 47 (216 views)
Shortcut
I did too. It was gorgeous! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


mefansmum
Rivendell

Jan 25 2013, 12:20am

Post #40 of 47 (215 views)
Shortcut
It is depressing for me [In reply to] Can't Post

that HFR is seen as a negative.

I have seen it in order 2D, HFR, HFR, 2D and HFR and i would never again go to a 2D as my choice and I will be very disappointed if the following movies are not available in 3D HFR. Unsure


MysterClark
The Shire


Jan 25 2013, 4:37am

Post #41 of 47 (184 views)
Shortcut
I was more on the side of supporting HFR... [In reply to] Can't Post

So I saw it in HFR, and I really need to see this movie again, but with a lack of money and lack of babysitters it gets a little difficult.

I was still blown away by the looks of this movie. It was by far the best looking 3D movie I've seen. I DID notice a few parts that seemed sped up like it was from one of those old movies with no sound. But I didn't let it depress me too much and it went away quickly. My wife didn't seem to notice it as much.

Otherwise, as a lot of people are saying, it looked awesome. I'm not even trying to talk about the movie itself, because of course I'm going to like that. I'm just talking about how the film looked, and it looked fantastic!

I'm hoping to see it again sometime soon and hopefully NOT see those sped up parts.


Eruonen
Tol Eressea


Jan 25 2013, 4:45am

Post #42 of 47 (168 views)
Shortcut
This article discusses the differences [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.pcmag.com/...,2817,2403746,00.asp
'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

I think it was posted earlier but the info is relevant..

"American television is broadcast at 29.97 fps, while European television is broadcast at 25 fps."

"You may have also heard of the "soap opera" effect, which occurs with some recent high-definition television sets that feature 120Hz or 240Hz modes, instead of just the usual 60Hz. (The frame rate is usually expressed as "Hz" with progressive scan monitors; hence, 60Hz instead of 60 fps). The frame rate of the source material is independent of the refresh rate of the TV. Instead, what's happening here is that the TV, using its own software, is interpolating what would have been in the original source material, had there been extra frames, and adds them on its own for a smoother effect. The problem is that it also looks somewhat unnatural, or dreamy, and more like an older live TV camera than proper film footage."

It is not that soaps are shot at a higher frame rate but that modern tvs create lines of data artificially.
Regarding AUJ -

"This time, the extra frames are actually there, and not just interpolated and added after the fact, which is much better from a theoretical standpoint. "


(This post was edited by Eruonen on Jan 25 2013, 4:47am)


Finrod
Rohan


Jan 25 2013, 6:31pm

Post #43 of 47 (107 views)
Shortcut
No, this is nothing like a soap opera: 30 is not 48 [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
One of the main reasons people don't like HFR, is because it's not new. Almost everyone has seen it in soap operas, and cheap video programs.


That isnít true. Why do people keep repeating it? Video at 30 fps is completely different from The Hobbitís 48 fps.

…all eyes looked upon the ring; for he held it now aloft, and the green jewels gleamed there that the Noldor had devised in Valinor. For this ring was like to twin serpents, whose eyes were emeralds, and their heads met beneath a crown of golden flowers, that the one upheld and the other devoured; that was the badge of Finarfin and his house.
The Silmarillion, pp 150-151
while Felagund laughs beneath the trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311




Kassandros
Rohan


Jan 25 2013, 6:37pm

Post #44 of 47 (111 views)
Shortcut
I'm sorry you haven't been able to see it again. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not the only one who went from mixed feelings about HFR on the first viewing to loving HFR on the second.

The "fakeness" and the "fast-foward" effects disappeared on my second HFR viewing. I really enjoyed it. Definitely helped both the talky scenes and the action scenes. Richard Armitage's acting, I swear, is much better captured in 3D/HFR than 2D. He does a lot of acting silently with expressions and it seems to really come across better. The one time I watched it in 2D, I wasn't quite as impressed with his acting as when I watched in in 3D HFR, anyway.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Balderdash Baggins
The Shire

Jan 25 2013, 7:56pm

Post #45 of 47 (117 views)
Shortcut
I had the same reaction as you. [In reply to] Can't Post

I've never been a fan of 3D movies, and with all of the negative press about HFR I was skeptical at best. But I have to say that I was completely captivated from the moment the movie began. I loved the fact that details which were a blur in the 2D version could be seen crisp and clear in HFR 3D! I never thought that things looked "too fake" or whatever else the critics are saying about the look of the film in the high frame rate.


jtarkey
Rohan


Jan 25 2013, 8:40pm

Post #46 of 47 (101 views)
Shortcut
I'm officially annoyed... [In reply to] Can't Post

If you'd read the rest of my post, you would see that I almost immediately say this:

"Granted, 48fps is higher a frame rate than those things, it still gives that same feel."

I'm not crazy people. 90% of anyone I've talked to about The Hobbit hated HFR. And guess what? They said it made it look like a soap opera, or a cheap history channel re-enactment.

It's totally fine if some people (seems like everyone on these boards) liked HFR. But not everyone does. No one is wrong for thinking it looked like a soap opera. If it didn't, no one would be saying that. It's really sad seeing people who disliked things about the film being targeted and told they are wrong. It's all in opinions.

So, I want to make my point clear: FOR ME, 48fps made AUJ look very cheap and "soap operaish". I am not the only person to think this, and I am not wrong for thinking it.




"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Loresilme
Valinor


Jan 30 2013, 2:54pm

Post #47 of 47 (83 views)
Shortcut
I'm beginning to wonder [In reply to] Can't Post

I had the same very positive experience that you did. It took a few minutes and then I just got swept into it. Having never liked 3D, that really surprised me! I only wish my local theater was still showing the HFR version MadFrown.

Which makes me wonder though, I've heard a lot of people saying that it looked to them like a TV soap opera. But for someone like me, who has never watched TV soap operas, that didn't mean anything to me. So I wonder if people's previous experience with it - and the type of movies or shows they associate with it - is a factor in their disliking it. And whether not having any previous experience with it, is a factor in liking it.

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.