The Hobbit in 3D 48 FPS / HFR IMAX Format : Sucks !!!
 

Hey all,

If you're fan of LOTR and haven't seen the new Hobbit movie yet, then you're not a real fan. But in case you are and you plan to go soon, don't. At least, don't go without reading this first.

I'm not really a LOTR fan but liked the first 3 movies. These last 3 however are all based on one book, and its ridiculous. They should have called this movie : The Hobbit : Computer Graphic armys fight each other for 2 hours. It's long and dull and boring and stupid and pointless and and and and and and and...

Now on to the new movie format. It's called HFR / 48, or High Frame Rate, or 48 FPS.

The good:
The 3D in HFR movies looks great. Normally, your left and right eye see alternate frames of a movie. Since classic movies are shown in 24 frames per second, a 3D movie mades each eye see 12 frames per second. This resulted in headaches for some, darker images for others, and general blurry uninteresting visuals.

In 48 FPS though, each eye sees 24 frames per second, so the 3D looks much better. You see real depth, and swords and things really do seem to stick way out.

But thats where the fun ends. HFR 48 is the weirdest looking thing. Movement is much smoother than in a normal movie, and the detail is insane. You can see every pore and every fleck of skin on the tip of everyone's nose. You can see ever single spec of dust in every puff of smoke.

Cool article about it here : 48 FPS and Beyond: How High Frame Rate Films Affect Perception - Tested

For reasons I can't really explain, everything looks incredibly fake. Other times, it looked like I was watching old-style video, like a soap opera, instead of a genuine movie. It was so distracting that I found myself having trouble to pay attention to the movie.

Anyway, if you plan to see it, just see it in a standard format, or, in IMAX 3D without HFR if you can. It sucks that much.

they didnt put much in the last one :helpme :1orglaugh :disgust it was terrible!!! looks like the ravens beat the steelers

I saw it in IMAX 3D a few weeks ago out here in Pointe Claire. I don't know anything about HFR, but I thought the action and 3D were pretty damn good.

They didn't really need 3 movies for The Hobbit. 2 would have been enough. Still, I enjoyed all three of them.

i wasnt a LOTR fan. i just wanted to butt in hihi peace :)

Havn't seen the last hobbit movie but 3d 48fps aside I thought the first 2 movies were good. Some of it I liked better than the lord of the ring.

So can't say im a big fan of LOTR either but obviously for different reasons than yourself.

With LOTR I loved the music, scenery, dialogs and acting but all 3 were so drawn-out on pretty much every part. Some fighting scenes sucked as well, too much camera movement and I really hate that.

I hope you are wrong, I really liked the first 2 hobbits.

Peter Jackson thinks that because something looks more real, then it must be better. 24fps film has a quality that makes things look better than real life, and it's mostly about the grain, frame rate and softness of the image. Ever watch a great movie, then look at some of the DVD extras? When you see on set video footage of some scene you thought was great when you watched the movie, doesn't it always look like shit on video?

I like the HFR just as a novelty, but I agree it's not just not right for cinema overall. Filmmakers should focus on making better movies and not on gimmicks to get people into the theater.

If you're not a fan of watching hairy midgets hike around, at night, in the mountains for 3hrs... then this movie is many times better than the others.

It's like watching a 240Hz TV at 1080p, with all the smoothing shit turned on.

dood im not playing it was all over the place. to be last in the hobbit series it was a fuking joke! :2 cents::2 cents:

Really? I don't have a 240hz TV but saw a demo TV running Avatar in full 240hz "glory", and didn't like it. As with the Hobbit, I found the effect totally distracting, and made every frame look dirt-cheap.

HFR solves some technical problems for sure. For example, the jerkiness of an object moving or flying across the screen that is there in 24fps is gone in 48fps. But the trade-off is worse.

You may not have heard of a guy named Douglas Trumbull. He was one of the original FX pioneers on 2001, directed Silent Running, and worked with John Dykstra on the original Star Wars and Star Trek (1979) movies (and created Back to the Future: The ride!). Anyway, Trumbull also invented Showscan, a 60FPS file process way back in the 70's.

I bring him up because today he's working on HFR too but has patented variable frame rates - with the idea that a movie's frame rate would change depending on the demands of the scene : 24 FPS for slower scenes, and 48 or 60 or whatever for higher action scenes.

It got me thinking: What about variable HFR within a frame? A person on screen standing still could be at 24fps, while the car explosion elsewhere on the screen at 60 or 100 fps?

Man I love movie technology...

I disable that 240hz and 120hz crap on my tv's. Looks stupid and it also screws up video games.

Anyone else think it looked sped up

I wonder if you see the first 3 movies as The Computer Graphic armys fight for more than 2hours in the Return of the King.

Kinda like GFY political threads?

I would agree...

I saw it this past weekend in that format and thought it was TERRIBLE. It made the movie look fake, and you could see makeup on the characters.

Wish I had just paid to see the regular or 3d version. Was more money to see it shitty.

'Zactly. ;)

I think i know what you mean. I see it when i watch house of cards on netflix. The quality is so 'high' it looks like a go pro home movie... either way it was pretty lame, they could have made it all into one longer movie and be done with it, but they dragged it out for 3 years instead.

then that makes you the only person on the planet that likes these movies more than the lord of the rings movies...

@ worldwide cinemas, The Hobbit earned over $700,000,000.

:1orglaugh

HFR+3D is amazing. Best 3D since "Avatar" that was shot with 3d cameras. Dunno what people are complaining about, hobbit owned. If you don't like it being outdrawn, ok, but it's because it's a prequel to lotr so he included a lot of the things that are not even in the book (the whole saruman story). Hobbit is also a children's tale, not a serious book. He wouldn't really make a profit if he made it a children's movie would he now. I think he did a great job.

Everyone should spend their 3 hours watching Interstellar instead.

:helpme:helpme:helpme :disgust:disgust now that was worse shit than this one :2 cents::2 cents:

I can't remember you ever saying you liked a smart movie, so that post makes sense.