48 fps! — Page 3

Tyrphanax said:

<a href="http://www.thescreeningroom.ca/2012/12/the-hobbit-at-48-fps-induces-migraines-barfing.html">I am unsurprised by this news.</a>

Though I think people may just be pansies. I see stuff in 60fps all the time!

XionEternum from the comments on that article:

Comments in a nutshell:
-Well if it's making people sick, I'm not even going to try it. I'm scared of change!
-We have to adjust like we did for other things like surround sound.
-Idiots! We elitist and self-entitled PC gamers can't stand with anything below 60fps. You're all weak-eyed wusses.
-Well, since I'm a humble PC gamer I can handle up to even 120fps without concern, and I rather like the clarity. I think I'll come back to the theater and try out their new 48fps.
Yeah, I've got nothing to add to this. I'm sure most would appreciate #2 and #4 in those comments more though. The rest we can do without.

Well to be fair, they are wusses.

But then, not everyone can be of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race.

A three-hour big-event film in 3D and new 48FPS format sounds like a grueling way to spend the first three hours after midnight. I might stand in line for the conventional format, then let the gimmicky version make my eventual second viewing more novel. 

Is 48 fps only 3D?

I'll see it somewhere in the City of New York this weekend, but probably old fashioned 2D 24fps.

My friend saw it twice already, HFR 3D first, then 24fps 2D. He says

@gregharbin said:

The film is much superior in HFR 3D than 24fps 2D. Still a good film, but like watching with the color off.

This is the first film I’d use that analogy for. Not even Avatar.

Battle scenes are a mush of blur. It was downright painful at 24fps after seeing what I was missing.

I don't like the look of 48fps. :-/ It looks cheap & flat to me, like a sit-com or a soap opera.

There was a company called MaxiVision in the 90's that was pushing 48fps using 35mm film. I actually emailed Roger Ebert about it (he was a proponent, as was Martin Scorcese) and I got a response from him. That was before I really understood what it was; it sounded good on paper at the time. Now that I've seen it, I don't care for it.

zombie84 said:

It's different than the 30FPS video/sitcom/news style. It is actually much, much smoother. The problem with that 30FPS soap opera rate is that it's smoother than film, yet still far enough away from real life motion that it still looks...odd. We say "cheap" but that's solely because we have only seen it used in low-budget TV/video productions. There's nothing inherantly "cheap" about it, but it's certainly not impressive. The 48FPS rate is far beyond that, as much as 30fps is different than 24fps. I wish they had gone with Doug Trumbull's 128 FPS, which is apparently indistinguishable from real life.

Well 128 is, at least, a nice and healthy power of two!

I heard the movie really drags and that it's obvious the decision to make it a trilogy came in post. Thoughts?

I'm waiting to go home and see it in 48fps myself.

I just saw the movie in HFR 3D and I was able to see the 3D effects despite my stereo-blindness.

I thought it (the movie) was wonderful. I've always preferred The Hobbit to the LotR trilogy, so it should come as no surprise that I enjoyed it more than all three of the LotR movies combined.

Truly magical. I felt like a kid again!

I can't wait for the next two.

zombie84 said:

I don't understand people who thought the movie was long. It was the perfect length. And it was the shortest Jackson-Tolkien film yet! Without the credits it's just a little over two and a half hours. I would say it is the fastest paced and most action packed of the four films so far. None of that Lothlorien crap that brought Fellowship to a screeching halt. There is one Rivendel scene but it's short and awesome--and involves two of the funnest cameos in the entire film (actually three, but one especially is a treat to see). Won't spoil it, but yeah.

Long and boring? Hate to see what those reviews thought of the other three films.

I agree. It was the perfect length.

All I have been hearing from fans of this type of film is that it is amazing.

AntcuFaalb said:

I was able to see the 3D effects despite my stereo-blindness.

Wait, what?

I assume this means that you felt the immersion of stereo without stereo, I guess thanks to 48fps. Right?

timdiggerm said:

AntcuFaalb said:

I was able to see the 3D effects despite my stereo-blindness.

Wait, what?

I assume this means that you felt the immersion of stereo without stereo, I guess thanks to 48fps. Right?

Not really, no.

I meant that I could actually see the little 3D effects in "3D"; e.g., birds flying out at my face.

I agree that this shouldn't have been made into a trilogy. I did enjoy it, but like the LOTR films, there was plenty of added or altered things I didn't.