I saw it in all of them (minus the Imax HFR). The only one I pretty much hated wa the Imax... perhaps because it was FREAKINGROCKCONCERTLOUD!!! (Where the heck did I put my earplugs).
And I had just watched the HFR version.
Watching Imax 3D after HFR I could definitely see that any time the camera moved (which is nearly all the time) stuff blurred. It was completely annoying the first twenty minutes or so till I sort of got used to not being able to see half the film.
HFR rocks. I will cheerfully drive an hour (like i did this time) to see it.
I saw it and liked it in three formats (2D, 3D 24FPS, 3D HFR). However, I felt HFR deserved my vote. I generally like the "idea" of 3D, and find the better 3D movies have 3D moments which are beautiful/spectacular enough to make the drawbacks of 3D worthwhile (the annoying classes, the eyestrain, the headache). Despite its length, AUJ in HFR 3D had the pluses without these minuses. It also made so many more details of the action and backgrounds pop out and be noticeable to me.
Though the technology available is an issue...
[In reply to]
I live in a large metro area in the US but I needed to drive 40 minutes + to the nearest theater that showed HFR. (But I did to see what the fuss was about, and glad I did too!). The very nice 16 screen multiplex 2 towns over does not have this capability yet. This is why I would expect Standard 3D to remain popular (as a format in which the movie is shown, if not as the most preferred among people who see both) as a lot more theatres can do that.
More theaters will likely had HFR before DoS, I imagine.
[In reply to]
If this poll is any indication, then HFR sales might be doing better than regular 3D. That'd give incentive for theaters to upgrade so they don't lose sales to theaters that do have HFR.
It all depends on the actual sales figures though, and I don't think we have those. The initial/critical reaction certainly seems completely at odds with the reaction by fans who've seen the movie multple times.
My viewing experiences: 3D 48, 2D 24, 2D 24, 2D 24, 3D 48
[In reply to]
I tried. I still feel more relaxed and get more out of the story in 24fps, though my second try with HFR yesterday was better than the first time because I knew what was coming in the story. I sat in the absolute center of the Embassy, Wellington with the large special edition Hobbit 3D glasses on. It was definitely easier watching the fast motion sequences in 48(zooming through Erebor, rabbit sled), but is that because it was shot to be shown with more frames? I don't remember other 24fps films having so much blur in quick scenes.
It was lovely that I felt I was in Bag End. Perhaps after I've seen a dozen films shot this way it will feel "normal", but it is still just distracting at the moment - pretty, but distracting. It'll be interesting to see how the next Avatar affects me, and the next Hobbit films, for that matter.
It was great seating for the Atmos surround sound, better than being against a wall as in my first time there; the snoring dwarves in the cave were very believable and forest sounds and the falling water in Rivendell were eerily realistic and added to the experience. I'm looking forward to nature documentaries in HFR with Atmos sound.
(This post was edited by Lissuin on Jan 25 2013, 8:48pm)
Even without Dolby Atmos, I was completely tricked by the dwarves snoring the third time I saw the movie. The sound was so good, I thought someone had actually fallen asleep in the theater and was snoring up and to the right of me! It's possibe that the 3D HFR enhanced this effect because it made me feel like I was inside the film, but it could just have been the sound.