Go big or go home, I want to see what all the fuss is about regarding the 48 frames per second. About to head out with Tony Jr.
Anyone seen the movie, and if so what format?
Go big or go home, I want to see what all the fuss is about regarding the 48 frames per second. About to head out with Tony Jr.
Anyone seen the movie, and if so what format?
A lot of people dislike high framerates because they "feel" fake. For many many years films have been shot at 24fps, and I think TV has almost always been 30fps. This is what people got used to. For some reason, camcorders have always used higher framerates, I think about 60fps.
When movies and tv shows use higher framerates, it should be an improvement, but I think we've come to associate it home recording and such. It "feels" cheaper. I'm not certain, but I think soap operas have always done this. I used to watch a lot of the Twilight Zone. In the later years of that show, something about the visuals changed that I couldn't put my finger on, and I absolutely hated it. Looking back, I'm pretty sure it was a framerate issue.
Not just a frame rate issue, tho, you are also seeing the difference between video tape and film. Frame rate is one difference, and the fact that TV must correct the film to conform to TV standards (3-2 pulldown and othershit), but the way film handles brightness, contrast, all that shit is in there too. Video tape can be sharper as well. Some people can spot this shit from a mile away and tell you exactly why something looks strange, but most of us just know something feels not quite right for that particular format.Originally Posted by SrslySirius
I recently asked someone who has worked on movies and in movie production why we can tell pretty much immediately when something was recorded by the Brits, or the BBC in particular. I figured framerates were a lot of it, but she said it was the fact that different countries' movie industries grew up with different standards in everything, from the film, to the lighting, to the processing... Almost everything is done slightly differently or on completely different equipment, so a French movie looks like a French movie, etc. In cases like those, the frame rate is only part of the issue, sometimes a very minor one.
I used to read a lot about this shit when I worked in consumer electronics, mostly because I never really watched anything with a critical eye like that, so I had a harder time spotting differences without knowing exactly what I was looking for. Some people, tho, like doctors who deal in very high resolution monitors and images, they were super sensitive to frame rates and shit like that. Interested to hear how this movie looked to the Bags family, and esp interested to hear if the kid noticed anything strange, because he's been watching higher resolution shit his whole life and is used to very crisp, clear video.
Last edited by Crowe Diddly; 01-19-2013 at 10:23 AM.
I finally saw it last week. Had a gift card so I decided to use it to cover the $15.50 for the HFR showing. Looked like shit. Not sure how any filmmaker can think it looks good.
Movements at time seemed way too fast. Just looked awkward.
"You run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole; you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
All I can say is WOW. Really not sure where LLL is coming from, that was one of the most dynamic, immersive movie experiences I've ever seen. I pretty much agree with much of what I ready about the high frame rate (HFR) but without the negativity.
Again I am only speaking of the Imax 3D HFR version of the movie, I can't speak of other formats.
The first hour of the movie was....let's just call the pacing measured. Lots of interior shots and at times it looked like we were watching a play. Jr mentioned afterward that he liked the fact that the movie didn't just jump right into the action scenes because it really did take us time to adjust to the HFR.
I don't mean any of that as criticism as the entire experience was fantastic. Jr did mention at times in the beginning that it seemed like Bilbo was moving quickly and I agree, but that went away as we adjusted.
For any fans of film in general, I highly recommend checking it out in the format mentioned. It's a quantum leap forward, similar to the move from standard to 1080p or Blu Ray high def.
Also saw the fantastic trailer for Man of Steel and also a 10+ minute IMAX exclusive preview of Star Trek Into the Darkness.
I may go see the movie again in this format, it's that good. My wife and daughter saw it in regular format 3D and I feel like they haven't really seen the movie in the format intended.
Much like live HD, HFR really will make the filmmaker step up their game as you can't hide anything in this format. Everything is exposed.
lets listen to Gary give his expertise on Hobbits
Unbelievably we went to see it again today in the same format with the rest of the family. Truly one of the best film experiences ever.
so the imax 3-d version is going to blow me away?
IMAX 3d HFR (48 FPS) will blow you away.so the imax 3-d version is going to blow me away?
i don't know what this means?. a theater near me is showing the hobbit in 3-d imax..but this movie theater isn't a stand alone imax theater that wraps aroundIMAX 3d HFR (48 FPS) will blow you away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frame_Ratei don't know what this means?. a theater near me is showing the hobbit in 3-d imax..but this movie theater isn't a stand alone imax theater that wraps around
IMAX doesn't mean wrap around.
I still recommend the movie in IMAX 3d, but you should see in in 48 frames per second if you can.
http://www.hfrmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/
my theater is on that list.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frame_Rate
IMAX doesn't mean wrap around.
I still recommend the movie in IMAX 3d, but you should see in in 48 frames per second if you can.
http://www.hfrmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/
hopefully i will see it tonight. if there's a lot of walking, heads will roll.
Make sure you double check that you are seeing it in high frame rate 3d, that is more important than the IMAX but all three is the best.my theater is on that list.
hopefully i will see it tonight. if there's a lot of walking, heads will roll.
i agree w/ little anthony. i haven't seen a 3d movie in a coons age. this was a great experience. even if it did cost $17.oo.
i saw previews to the original jurrassic park in 3D and it looked like a winner as well. i never had any desire to see the original 2d, so lucky me.
is it possible we ditch the glasses and put up some type of filtering screen?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote