TH: Hobbit frame rate

[Warren]

"New 'Hobbit' film makes some moviegoers sick"
(USA Today) http://goo.gl/80OCH
OK so the new frame rate some times induces vomiting. But not in everyone.
Hummm. I don't think thats exactly the kind of review they were looking for.

[Owen]

That helps me somewhat, as I was still unsure if I wanted to see the standard 24fps version or the HFR 3D one.

Considering I don't use the option on my tv (I forget what it's called) I think I'll stick to the normal one. 24fps is what films should look like, even if they're blasting on about this 48fps stuff, anything I've seen like that feels like it's done on a home camcorder, including the LOTR trilogy on my tv with the "enhancement".

What version are you guys going to see?

[P. Aaron]

I'm boycotting the whole thing until they release a proper two- or one-movie condensed version...without all the extra fluff Jackson's using to pad out a trilogy.

I'm old and cranky.

[Sky]

I can only imagine that they'll be adding a detailed flashback of Gandalf storming the lair of the Necromancer of Dol Guldur and the discovery of the map and key to Erebor. Add to that him persuading the White Council to drive Sauron out of Mirkwood along with the aftermath, and maybe you've got another movie... but only because wizard battles are awesome.

Of course, at that point, you've kind of left the realm of The Hobbit... and this has nothing to do with frame rate.

[Rob, Roberator]

Give me 2D any day. As I stated elsewhere I'm holding out for holodeck technology.

[Daran]

My friends and I are planning a rather lengthy drive to get the whole thing--3D, IMAX, and 48fps. I'm really looking forward to it.

Usually, I'm not a fan of 3D. I generally only like it with animation. Adventures of Tin Tin, and How to Train Your Dragon were the best examples of the tech I've seen. I think it's a tool, that can either enhance or detract from a story if used properly.

Also waiting for holodeck technology, or just that Orion Syndicate girl from the Star Trek reboot.

[Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth]

I hate 3D. As it is, it totally distracts from the film, and doesn't add anything, other than discomfort from the glasses (I ask for children's size, which is too small, but better than the way too big adult size which just falls off) and a gradually increasing headache. Curious about how the frame-rate thing will appear though.

Incidentally, is the film available in high frame rate without the 3D? And what is the difference between 3D, IMAX 3D and ISENCE 3D? Never knew there were so many choices other than what film to watch!

[library_jim]

Ruth wrote: "I hate 3D. As it is, it totally distracts from the film, and doesn't add anything, other than discomfort from the glasses (I ask for children's size, which is too small, but better than the way too..."

I agree. I'll stick with the regular old 2D, no frills. I'm sure it'll be fine. And I won't be buying extended versions of these films since they're already stretching it out as far as they possibly can. Looking forward to it, though.

[Dara]

Not a fan of 3D. It doesn't add anything for me and I end up with a migraine. Well, it seems every time I go to a movie anymore I get a migraine, regardless of it being loud battles or just dialogue cause I ended up with one after Lincoln, of all movies.

[Mark]

I'm a fan of 3D, if done well ... especially IMAX 3D, which is beautiful. I saw Avatar a second time in 2D and it was quite flat (no pun intended), almost jarring ... like dropping from surround sound to only stereo.

Whether the 3D fad will last is anyone's guess, but I'll usually pay the few extra $$$$ (plus the higher cost gets rid of most of those annoying kids who text away for the whole movie ;-) )

[Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth]

Anyone else feel as if the choice of formats is a little off putting? I just want to enjoy the film, but just searching for a showing at a local cinema online is giving me all these options I don't want or understand, and it leaves me with a strong feeling of 'to hell with it! I'll just wait for the dvd!'

[Mitch]

I just read a series of interviews in scifiNow, a British journal, and there was a thread that pointed out that they are using a framerate of 47 fps (27 is broadcast tv quality. I think there is a 2D release but, in spite of past disappointments, I'm going to opt for the new 3D. The entire films fx's are based on Jackson's new tech and, based on his past performance i'll give any misgivings i have, the benifit of the doubt.

[Mitch]

I saw The Hobbit in 3D last night, in spite of some misgivings. I usually come away fully disatified with the integrity of the product, feeling like I have been cheated. Also, mind bending headaches don't help.
Not so with the Hobbit. The 48 fps produces an added demension that had always been missing. I really feel like, with The Hobbit, I watched my first actual 3D movie sans the headaches.

[library_jim]

I was all excited by the idea of this movie (like Cloud Atlas) but (like Cloud Atlas) I'm less so now that it's here and the reviews are coming out. I think I'll spend my $ on Lincoln this weekend instead and wait for the DVD. Sigh. (Certainly not interested in 3D OR higher frame rates...)

Good to read the book again, though.

[Joe Informatico]

I'm seeing it in 48fps 3D. I'm damn curious about the end product and I also want to see the first 9 minutes of "Star Trek Into Darkness" that's supposed to be included before the high frame-rate screenings of the Hobbit.

I'm generally not a fan of 3D. Like Daran, I find it sometimes works with animated features. In addition to the two he mentioned, I like it with stop-motion films like Coraline, if only to show how impressive the sets they've built are. To date, the only live-action film I've seen where I felt 3D added something to the experience and wasn't just a tacked-on gimmick was Avatar--and that film is probably three-quarters computer animation, so there you go. I guess parts of Tron Legacy were pretty good too, for the same reasons.

Otherwise, I do also appreciate 3D for one of its unintended side-benefits: the cameras are so heavy and expensive, filmmakers can't use them for the nauseating "shaky cam" effect that's plagued every action movie since the early 2000s.

Peter Jackson is claiming 48fps will eliminate a lot of the "blur" of 3D, and Christie Digital is making super-bright projectors that are supposed to eliminate the darkness of 3D films. So maybe 3D will actually be more watchable in the future. But I'm still not convinced it adds anything essential.

[Mach]

Can you use the same 3d glasses on all 3d movies? or do the glasses vary?

[Jo]

I saw it in 3D 48fps last night and it was beautiful. It felt like real 3D instead of the cheap impressions that have been marketed so far. The nausea factor is true though. As some faster moments looks so real I felt like I was falling. Still going to see it in 2D to compare.

[Dara]

Jim wrote: "I was all excited by the idea of this movie (like Cloud Atlas) but (like Cloud Atlas) I'm less so now that it's here and the reviews are coming out. I think I'll spend my $ on Lincoln this weekend..."

I highly recommend Lincoln. Amazing performances and actually quite funny. Loved it.

[Tim]

I think there's only one 48fps cinema in the UK, and it's at the back of beyond, so no chance of that. If there's no queue to see it, I'll go over the weekend, but I can't be arsed to stand in a queue for it, so if there is one, I won't bother.

[Walter]

Saw it yesterday. I still hate 3D, but 48fps can look really good. To people that haven't seen it yet, I'd say give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt and see it the way he shot it. If they offered the rest of them with just the 48fps (no 3D) I'd probably see them like that.

[Eric]

I saw it in plain old 24fps 2D. No offense to The Hobbit, but 3D always gives me a headache so I just don't do it.

[aldenoneil]

Walter wrote: "I'd say give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt."

I went in with this mindset (though a little cautious, as I dislike the TVs that fake a higher, greasy-smooth frame-rate), and was blown away. I cannot understand the naysayers - I could see every movie at the higher frame-rate from here on out and be a perfectly happy movie-goer. For my part, I hope it's a paradigm shift.

[Tamahome]

Mach wrote: "Can you use the same 3d glasses on all 3d movies? or do the glasses vary?"

No, the ghetto Imax and RealD are different.

[Joe Informatico]

So I saw it in 48fps 3D on Saturday. No review here, but my thoughts on the framerate are below, which should be mainly spoiler-free:

When it came to the fully-CGI aspects of the film, especially CGI-characters and creatures, it was excellent. They felt really alive and authentic. I think a fully-CGI film will look absolutely great in 48fps.

Conversely, when it came to scenes with live actors, it often looked too real. Like a bunch of LARPers with bad makeup putting on a play. This might have been fine with a story more grounded in reality, but my girlfriend and I felt it detracted from the mythic/fantasy illusion they were going for. It got a bit better later on. We want to see it again in 24fps and see if that restores the illusion.

Then again, the 3D did look a lot more convincing in 48fps than 24.

On the other hand, when the camera moved very quickly, especially during action scenes, it almost gave me nausea. With static shots or slow pans it was fine. But if the side benefit of this is the death of shaky-cam, consider me an instant convert.

I'm not dismissive of the format as a whole, and I think it will definitely improve over time, but I feel filmmakers will have to do a lot of reinventing of their craft. Not just camera placement, but lighting, editing techniques, new types of makeup, and so on. And I'm not sure having a fantasy film being the first test of the format was the wisest decision, but as my friend said, someone had to be first.

[Amy]

Higher framerates are something to get used to. As to whether or not it's preferable to 24, well that depends on whether you want you fantasy film to feel more real. (I do.) 3d is itself a new and evolving technology. I may not like how 3d is right now (it usually gives me headaches) but I think it has a lot of potential as it improves. 48fps is going to make 3d a lot easier to look at and make the fantastic elements a lot more visually believable - which is what visual effects are trying to achieve anyway.

I'd say give The Hobbit a chance in HFR with a look to the future. No one's ever done this with film before. It may not be as great looking as it will in time, but it's worth trying a new way to experience film IMO.

[Daniel]

I think the reason it was causing such violent physical reactions from people were the odd sensation it causes. I kept thinking that it was almost speeded up or on 1.5 speed. I kept having to force my brain to listen to the dialogue which was normal even though the motion I was watching felt fast. I really enjoyed the movie but there was a weird discomfort I was getting every once and while. It was mostly with live action people. The extended effects shot, especially once they are in the caves didn't bother me, but the sequence in the beginning at bilbo's house where they are throwing dishes around really accentuation the feeling of things moving to fast.

[Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth]

I ended up opting for plain old simple 2D, mostly because the choices confused me, and it was the cheapest option; I'm not paying nearly double to endure headaches and potential nausea. I think whatever version I'd seen, I'd wonder if the other choice would have been better, and since I cannot afford both, I at least won't regret wasting additional money...though I did get frustrated with a number of scenes that seemed to be shot with 3D in mind, that didn't add anything to the film in 2D. Not sure what HFR would have added.

[Matthew]

I saw it in HFR 3D. The frame rate threw me off at first, but after about 20 minutes in the movie, I didn't even notice it. The HFR i think helped the 3D quite a bit as I did not have the eye strain that I normally got when I watched 3D movies.

[Mark]

I saw the HFR 3D version yesterday. After reading reviews and discussions with nothing but dismay about the frame rate, it seems like such a non-issue. Overall, I enjoyed the few hours I spent at the movie theater. It wasn't a great film. The padding necessary to break up the story into three parts felt a little forced at times. I guess I'd really like to see the story all in one film, but I'll take what I can get. I'll probably see it again soon, in 2D, for comparison.