Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
I had thought every showing was in 48fps, now I am curious to see what it looks like.
The 48fps is definitely worth seeing, if nothing else to just get an idea of what PJ and many others think the future of 3D looks like.
I didn't care for it myself for cinematic production, but the "debate" about the aesthetic of HFR is fascinating in how many filmmakers like the higher frame rate and how others despise it, but how there seems to be a consensus about it working some places and not others.
As for 3D, I actually just watched Avatar in 2D on Blu-ray and actually found it more enjoyable that I remember it being in the theater in 3D (quite a while ago though, so maybe this is just wishful thinking). It actually felt more cinematic to me in 1080p 2D and I felt like I was able to see the whole frame and absorb the image pleasantly and naturally. I wonder if 3D strains more information into the frame by creating the depth and dictating how you see it, leading to a unpleasant experience that almost imperceptably subtle? Albeit cool to see in 3D.
Or is it just that each eye doesn't completely eliminate the other eye's perspective with those glasses and so there is a weird lingering "something" that just seems off with 3D?
3D and HFR are cool technologies, but I think 2D 2K production is just as strong now as it ever was to deliver cinematic productions.
It is interesting that The Hobbit was finished in 2K. Perhaps one of the best funded big budget pictures, and it was distributed in 2K, even in 2D. Something to think about when people talk about 4K til they're red in the face. (zing!)