o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

[UGP]

When I went I didn't know what the hfr ment, I had always thought they should do that before increasing pixles, but I was just sitting there thinking about how... Different it looked, afterwards I looked up reviews and I kind of agree, that we're so used to seeing films at 24fps that it kind of takes you out of the "take me out of reality for a little while" enjoyment of it. Think it may just be like when CDs first came out, and they don't quite have a handle on how to use it. is: the lighting of the who thing threw me off.

What do you think

[Thumper Tom]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

I thought it looked so real that it was fake, kind of ruined the cinematography of the picture right at the beginning. As the movie progressed I was able to get use to it. I felt kind of like I was in a theater, watching a live performance. I would say different but I kind of liked it in the end.

[richard t]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

A lot of todays cameras record at a higher frame rate. I've never cared for it myself and a lot of people will slow it down to 24 fps to get that motion picture like feel. I'll have to wait to see the Hobbit for myself to see how I would like it.

[chad1376]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

I know my TV and blue ray will interpolate frames to get a higher frame rate. There's something about it I don't like, but I can't pinpoint why. I always disable it.

I'm guessing hfr at the theater looks similar?

[UGP]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

I felt kind of like I was in a theater, watching a live performance.

this was my first thought also, pretty much the best way to describe it.

at more then one point I was paying more attention to little things lake a little ankle high bush blowing in the wind instead of paying attention to the film, just will take some getting used to I guess, also as I said, I think they need to find out out to film in it like the lighting was a lot brighter them I though a hobbit movie should have been.
Heard the next Avitar movie was going to be film in it also.

[Paul Carmody]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

My dad always likes to crank this feature up on his TVs. (Although as it has been mentioned, the TVs are only interpolating frames, so it's not quite the same thing) I can't stand it. it drives me crazy. It makes everything look like a cheap soap opera--which is why they call it the "soap opera effect." Perhaps we've all just been trained to see 24 or 30 fps as "real" movies, but if this is to become the new normal, then both the filmmakers and viewers will need a while to adjust.

[evilskillit]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

My dad always likes to crank this feature up on his TVs. (Although as it has been mentioned, the TVs are only interpolating frames, so it's not quite the same thing) I can't stand it. it drives me crazy. It makes everything look like a cheap soap opera--which is why they call it the "soap opera effect." Perhaps we've all just been trained to see 24 or 30 fps as "real" movies, but if this is to become the new normal, then both the filmmakers and viewers will need a while to adjust.

I suspect it's just the result of a lifetime of mental conditioning. I'd like to see what kids who grow up in households populated entirely with smoothmotion TVs think of 24fps cinema.

[Paul Carmody]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

I'd like to see what kids who grow up in households populated entirely with smoothmotion TVs think of 24fps cinema.

Whoah, good point.

[UGP]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

The one thing that blew me away was the opening, the dragon was impressive

[arrayed]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

I think that when we see a movie at 23 - 25 frames per second, each frame 'dwells' long enough for our mind to process it a little bit better than when you up it to 30, or 60 for that matter. Around 30 or so fps, I don't think we are able to process it as 'a series of pictures' as much as we process it as 'objects in motion'. There really is something about the way we 'take in' what we view that 24p really screws with in what I think is a positive way, because it is fast enough to put you in the moment, and seem fully real, yet slow enough to give a little time for our brains to process, whereas the higher frame rates really do feel like a soap opera!! (to me anyway). I think 30 frames per second is fine for commercials etc, but I have always liked 24p more. I always wondered why I felt so much more immersed in movies played at home versus made-for-tv stuff, and when I started comparing based on frame rate alone, it became more clear.

Apparently Peter Jackson shot the hobbit series in 48p and dropped it to 24p for the 24p version, and I guess, from a brief search online, there are a lot of people frustrated with the 48p version, thinking it just looks fake, like a documentary or behind-the-scenes special-feature. I have not seen either version yet, so no comment yet. I will be sorry if we lose 24p any time soon, though.

here is a blog post by Peter Jackson discussing the merits of 48p : LINK

[Wushuliu]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

My dad always likes to crank this feature up on his TVs. (Although as it has been mentioned, the TVs are only interpolating frames, so it's not quite the same thing) I can't stand it. it drives me crazy. It makes everything look like a cheap soap opera--which is why they call it the "soap opera effect."

Agreed. It looks Hi-8 on steroids.

[Whitneyville1]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

The BS flag goes up here! The last installment of "The Hobbit" was shot direct to video at 300 fields per seconds so it would be compatible with both 60 CPS A/C and 50 CPS A/C TV and movie projection systems worldwide. It was then transferred to a digital movie projection format and NOT to film. Only $1 houses have film projectors at all now,or specialty houses that show "classics" on film at premium prices. They may use a film interpositive for "blue screen FX" and rotoscoping, but the movie industry has become electronic in the last 5 years. The true IMAX format has been replaced by OLED cells where the film gate was. The cost of $7000+ per minute for the print plus the shipping costs as well as the piracy issues has killed the format. No Norelco or Han Se 35mm projector can be set-up to run at 48 FPS and those are the two choices available. 32 FPS is as fast as the film platters can turn. If it's on video (digital), 48 FPS is possible, but 59.87(3) FPS would "justify" to convert to home video easier.

[arrayed]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

No bs here: here is a link to the official imax page, explaining that for the most recent hobbit film, 'hfr' means 48p. LINK

also, the statements about 24/48p filming of the last hobbit films were statements by the director himself. additionally, if it really was being shown at 30p, it is still 'soap opera' territory and the many complaints about these movies compared to their 24p versions would still be understandable.

I want to go see both versions now, and see what all the fuss is about.

[Melby Audio]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

Very interesting topic. I remember when HD came out, noticing that some movies that I always thought were good, seem really "fake" in HD. I wonder if some of the issue is any increase in video quality reveals flaws that we subconsciously notice more. Kinda like how good speakers can reveal a bad recording.

[mattk]

Re: o.t. anyone see the new Hobbit in hfr?

Very interesting topic. I remember when HD came out, noticing that some movies that I always thought were good, seem really "fake" in HD. I wonder if some of the issue is any increase in video quality reveals flaws that we subconsciously notice more. Kinda like how good speakers can reveal a bad recording.

HD also required newscasters and actors to get better makeup, skin flaws really showed up.