So has anyone caught the hobbit at 48fps yet?

[sonofaresiii]

Dying to know how it looked, no chance I'll risk my $13 on the HFR until I've heard some opinions.

 

[clang]

From everything I've heard, you won't know whether you like or hate it until you try it yourself. Some people love the extra level of visual detail, others loathe it (finding it distracting or even fake looking), some hate it at first but by the end of the movie decide they like it after all.

Even ordinary 3D gives me a headache, so I probably won't be trying the HFR version - although then again, maybe HFR wouldn't give me headaches

 

[Gary Huff]

I'm seeing it tonight actually.

 

[Kegan]

I saw it. Hurt my eyes in the beginning. I think it has its place for 3D action sequences. Much clearer - that's for sure. For slower, dialogue based scenes, I hated it...didn't think it fit and distracted me quite a bit. Before I form a clear opinion, I'd like to see it in 2D/24fps.

 

[Shooter]

Dying to know how it looked, no chance I'll risk my $13 on the HFR until I've heard some opinions.

How many opinions will it take before you "risk $13"?

Bet you go to see it whatever the opinions are because you will want to have one too. :happy:

 

[Nate Haustein]

Saw it in 3D HFR last night and thought the 48fps looked awful. I even found myself closing one eye to watch the movie in 2D from time to time.

I enjoyed the movie, but the frame rate and 3D stuff took away from it in my opinion. The 3D gives a sort of strangely deep DOF as well, say goodbye to bokeh and hello to gaussian blur. I also thought the film was just too clean - the color grading isn't like the original Trilogy - it's super saturated, contrasty, almost...sterile. The dynamic range of the grade (perceived at least) was nothing to write home about, since I saw blown highlights left and right in windows and Gandalf's hat in the woods. I found this to be especially true in the first half of the film, during the prologue and Hobbiton scenes.

Grrr... Enough about the "look" of it all. Some of the scenes really drew me in, like the Gollum encounter and the time the party spent in the goblin caves and with the elves. It was a fun experience overall and I'd like to watch it again with the, er, distracting elements the movie theater charged me extra for.

 

[Barry_Green]

I even found myself closing one eye to watch the movie in 2D from time to time.

Hah! I thought I was the only one who did that...

 

[Gary Huff]

If you really don't like 3D in the first place, I fail to see how it's helpful to gather opinions if that's where a lot of problems stem from. I enjoy 24p 3D films, so that's where I'm coming from (I thought Prometheus, for all its faults as a film, was amazing in 3D).

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I thought they shot this film at 48fps with a 180* shutter.... My gf bought tickets to the midnight 2D 24fps showing, since 3D sold out in minutes.... but the footage looked like 24fps, 180* shutter. How did they do this? Did they shoot the 48fps with a 360* shutter? That would allow them to remove everyother frame for 24fps with 1/48 (180*) normal shutter.

Must have been, right? I mean, if they shot 3D 48fps at 180shutter it would have been 1/96 and down-framing to 24fps would have had 24fps at 1/96 shutter. Right?

 

[Gary Huff]

They shot with a 270 degree shutter.

 

[Leon Bailey]

I am really intrigued to see it in 48fps but I have no interest in the movie and 3D hurts my eyes. :-/

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

They shot with a 270 degree shutter.

Ah ok. I didn't notice the 1/72 shutter at 24p. Hmmmmm interesting. I guess they did the test and found it acceptable for both. Cool.

 

[Amr Rahmy]

it seems from early reviews(and from fans of lord of the ring i might add), the first act of the film was too long and stretched out, the film felt too ruched and some of the makeup and cgi and props were dodgy, and the color grading was not up to the standards of the much older trilogy, and the faster shutter and less motion blur made the film look like to was sped up in the non action first part of the movie. and other parts were stretched out as well.

but why would they make the movie stretched and this long as well? the run-time is already 45 mins too long.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

^ Got to get three films from a book that is half the size of one of the three LOTR books.

 

[Amr Rahmy]

^ Got to get three films from a book that is half the size of one of the three LOTR books.

no one said he had to. he also did not have to make the run-time 02:46:00.

it's not just the fact that the movie is too long for the content(which seems to be the case) and that there is an abundance of filler content(which there is), but it's apparently condensed in the first act of the movie, which off balances the pacing of he movie(and added what some refer to as the jar jar binks of middle earth).


- the color and dynamic range took a hit for the sake of vfx
- the shutter angle took a hit for the sake of 3d
- the story's structure and pace took a hit for the action sequences
- the run-time of the movie took a hit to provide an illusion, that the story is an epic adventure?(it's already a high fantasy sword and sorcery epic adventure)

a lot of choices made, were bad choices made for the wrong reasons, IMHO.

 

[Gary Huff]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by saying that "color and dynamic range" took a "hit", or that the "shutter angle" took a hit. Nor do I get what you mean by the fact that the "run-time of the movie took a hit to provide an illusion."

I noticed nothing wrong with dynamic range. You would need to be more specific on what you mean by that. It's not like we got blown out skies or windows you couldn't see out of. Color also looked just fine to me, nothing off about that. "Shutter angle"? The motion is 48fps with a 270 degree shutter. I doubt you can really tell much difference since the frame rate is now doubled, but if you have specific examples of that, please share.

Also, I don't think the running time was artificially expanded solely for the sake of providing an "illusion", I just think Jackson doesn't know when he's wasting time (see: King Kong). Some of the expanded action sequences aren't very well thought out, and the opening with the dwarves in Bilbo's home could have been greatly shortened. I see nothing wrong at all at providing three 90 minute films as opposed to over 2 and a half hours. I don't count my entertainment dollar by the minute, I count it by the overall experience.

The opening of the film was slightly jarring in that the actions of Bilbo (as he takes out his book especially) had a "sped-up" look to it, like when you're fast-forwarding a Blu-ray at 2x speed. After that the motion stabilized, so I'm not sure if that was a projector issue or what. The "look" was about 2/3 successful, with the 1/3 of the time making me feel I was watching a BBC studio presentation that had been converted to work on NTSC televisions. It definitely helps with 3D, especially in the motion, as the lack of motion blur keeps things sharp. I wasn't quite sold on it looking like a "window" into another world like it was touted, but I wasn't turned off by it, and found I had no issues with getting into the movie itself (also, I really like well-done 3D films too, so no headaches or anything). Also, less-than-stellar CGI suffers from it because the lack of motion blue really makes the details stand out.

I don't think it'll become the norm for the time being, mainly because of the divide it's causing. I'd be interested to see how it fares financially. Secondly, it's quite a bit more data to sling around with a doubled-frame rate, and without HFR helping make a movie a slam-dunk success, I don't think anyone will want to deal with it (can the Arri even do 48fps or would is the Epic currently the only one?). On top of that, there's, frankly, no way to deliver HFR right now. The Blu-ray of the Hobbit will undoubtedly be 1080p24 as the only HFR format for BD is 720p60 and I'm not sure how successfully 48 would translate to that (not to mention the loss of resolution on a premium title). I think if there was more support for online 60p showings, aside from putting up a file for people to download, you might see more attempts, but right now 30p is about as "high" frame rate as you can get with a short that you would put up on YouTube/Vimeo/ect.

 

[Amr Rahmy]

I noticed nothing wrong with dynamic range. You would need to be more specific on what you mean by that. It's not like we got blown out skies or windows you couldn't see out of. Color also looked just fine to me, nothing off about that. "Shutter angle"? The motion is 48fps with a 270 degree shutter. I doubt you can really tell much difference since the frame rate is now doubled, but if you have specific examples of that, please share.

i thought these were obvious.

most of the background is cgi(most of everything is cgi, like the star wars prequels), but you still get highlight clipping on the characters, including some imdb images and the trailers, even with all the cgi, they were being sloppy with the lighting. and the color depth and color grading was not up to the standard of the original trilogy. it was definitively flatter and we got less range and that's just from the trailers and some production stills.

you kinda back-stepped into answering some of the other points. i would not have minded the movie being 2 hours or 90mins, but that's not what they did. no one signed up for 1/3 of the movie being a broadcast tv show, the shutter was changed because of the high frame rate because of the 3d, otherwise the shutter would have remained the same.

not sure that 720p 60 fps as a specification means that's the only frame rate at 720p, the hardware could be compatible with any frame rate lower than it's maximum, or at least most blu ray players, that's why they make the firmware upgrade-able.

i'm not going to watch king kong again, ever. i get the reference, but i can see that in fellowship and all extended editions, you can tell that editor knew when to cut on the theatrical cut.

you seem to be over defending the film, the shady cgi and visible seams and lack of feathering or high quality composites, did not make the "details" stand out. the overuse of cgi and every image i saw, the character were off-center, with no/very little composition, maybe they used too much cgi this time around. the work of concept artists was amazing, not sure the composting and 3d guys had enough time to fine tune everything. but if the public could clearly see the cgi and seams and the lack of color depth, they did not do a good job.

i have to run for a couple of hours, but i can go into every frame i saw and discuss it later.

 

[Gary Huff]

but you still get highlight clipping on the characters, including some imdb images and the trailers, even with all the cgi, they were being sloppy with the lighting.

Trailer encodes and IMDB jpegs don't count for this.

and the color depth and color grading was not up to the standard of the original trilogy.

You need to be more specific.

it was definitively flatter and we got less range and that's just from the trailers and some production stills.

What do you specifically mean by "less range"? I haven't seen the original LOTR in a while, but it didn't look any different to me.

the shutter was changed because of the high frame rate because of the 3d, otherwise the shutter would have remained the same.

What specifically is the problem with the shutter?

not sure that 720p 60 fps as a specification means that's the only frame rate at 720p, the hardware could be compatible with any frame rate lower than it's maximum, or at least most blu ray players, that's why they make the firmware upgrade-able.

No, it has set frame-rates and a firmware update won't fix that. 1080p48 or 720p48 is out of spec. Period.

you seem to be over defending the film, the shady cgi and visible seams and lack of feathering or high quality composites

I did not notice any "lack of feathering". What specific shots are you referring to?

the character were off-center, with no/very little composition,

You need to specify what you're talking about. I didn't find the blocking to be off, in fact I kind of chuckled when the dwarves see Rivendale because of the theater-style blocking they were arranged in.

maybe they used too much cgi this time around. the work of concept artists was amazing, not sure the composting and 3d guys had enough time to fine tune everything. but if the public could clearly see the cgi and seams and the lack of color depth, they did not do a good job.

Again, what do you mean by "depth"? You keep tossing these words around like they mean something, but your lack of specifics make me question if you're not just trying to "show off" with your criticism. The CGI in this film felt about the same as the use in LOTR, however the lack of motion blur means that the poorer renderings stand out (primarily in the CG animals).

 

[Amr Rahmy]

about the technical part of the spec, i did not say it's currently in the spec, i said is the hardware can do it, they can upgrade the firmware and put it in the specs, we are in version 4 or so by now, 3d was not introduced with blu ray was it, they make changes to the specs when needed that's why the firmware is upgrade-able, i can tell you ps3 can play video files up to 60 including 48 fps no problem.

i'll post about all the details, hat's, eyes, creatures, buildings, background, lighting, blocking, ...etc., later.

 

[thehadgi]

Saw it. Hated it terribly (48fps).

But I appreciate the willingness to experiment with something new and push boundaries. Just didn't like it.

But maybe we'll see a change, and get used to it? Who knows