The Hobbit 48fps/ HIGH FRAME RATE discussion thread.

[herzograven]

If there was no choice but to see this in HFR then I would agree that it sucks...As long as a choice is available I'm ok with it...Some like it, some dont...For me personally 24fps non 3d, non imax is fine and has been fine enough for me for the last half century...as long as the story is good who gives a crap...I think it's for the younger crowds to get used too...Even when I get Blu-Ray I think it changes a lot from the versions I've seen especially the older films...Sometimes I refuse to buy Blu-Ray because I want the older feel when watching....After the Hobbit I decided to from now on see only 24fps non 3d versions when going to the theater....As long as we have a choice it's all good...That's all I care about in regards to this thread and HFR versions...I wont bash it because film is about experimentation whether it's technique or technology

i totally agree with you about film being about experimentation, otherwise we wouldn't have film at all. however i saw the "regular frame rate" and all the action scenes looked terrible and were moving at x1.5 speed. that to me sort of takes away the choice of regular frame rate vs HFR and leaves me with a not so good experience. also watching HFR for a few minutes messes with my eyes (same way 3d does). but again, that's just my opinion and feelings on this subject, if it's going to catch on and is here to stay, no amount of *****ing is going to change that.

 

[Adolfo]

i totally agree with you about film being about experimentation, otherwise we wouldn't have film at all. however i saw the "regular frame rate" and all the action scenes looked terrible and were moving at x1.5 speed. that to me sort of takes away the choice of regular frame rate vs HFR and leaves me with a not so good experience. also watching HFR for a few minutes messes with my eyes (same way 3d does). but again, that's just my opinion and feelings on this subject, if it's going to catch on and is here to stay, no amount of *****ing is going to change that.

Choice is choice and having that is all that matters to me in this regards...it's all good

 

[Fritz]

...People who like it? I just don't get it.

People who don't like it? I just don't get it.

But seriously folks...

...I could do without the whole 3D thing in general TBH and I don't always go to 3D movies, but when I do, I prefer HFR.

 

[CelticPredator]

It's not a movie. So what's the point. It's a stupid pre-ride attraction video.

 

[Fritz]

It's not a movie. So what's the point. It's a stupid pre-ride attraction video.

Not for me, I don't get a giant pop and a giant popcorn during pre-ride attraction videos and can't eat or drink them during the ride.

 

[The Ween]

you guys have no idea how happy i am to read so many sensible comments here arguing against HFR, which is just a terrible idea and made a decent film (HOBBIT) look plain awful.

i have no issues with digital, but HFR just looks awful. i don't care what the brain can process in terms of FPS, all i know is that anything above 30 FPS starts to look terrible and unreal.

i don't care if sell outs directors like cameron/spielberg, or crappy directors like bay want to use HFR, but i was deeply disappointed that jackson ruined THE HOBBIT with that HFR garbage.

Go see it in another form. The Hobbit wasn't ruined, just the HFR was bad.

 

[CelticPredator]

The movie does over come it...but it does make the film a more annoying experience.

 

[Bullseye]

It looked like a Blu-ray which is just fine with me. Sorry

The Hobbit is 48fps? Surely you jest. I was half expecting David Attenborough to start narrating. Much much preferred it in 24fps. The only advantage it has over 24fps is panning sequences. Other that that its lost its cinematic look. I'd much prefer studios shot in true 70mm IMAX than all this gimmicky effects.

 

[The Josh]

The Hobbit is 48fps? Surely you jest. I was half expecting David Attenborough to start narrating. Much much preferred it in 24fps. The only advantage it has over 24fps is panning sequences. Other that that its lost its cinematic look. I'd much prefer studios shot in true 70mm IMAX than all this gimmicky effects.

Nope serious as a heart attack. For me it had a nice HD clarity and still felt like a movie.

 

[Bullseye]

I have almost 600 BDs and none of them had the video effect. There is a setting on your tv which gives a movie a video effect but I would never watch a movie on that setting. Are you sure your tv is set up with that setting switched off. Clarity and sharpness are unaffected by 24fps as 35mm is far superior to 1080p Blu Ray. In the case of the Hobbit I think Jackson used the Sony Red Camera which can shoot at a number of frame rates.

 

[Bullseye]

This is a pretty good blog from someone who has seen the movie in all three formats.
https://blog.vincentlaforet.com/201...a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/

 

[The Josh]

I have almost 600 BDs and none of them had the video effect. There is a setting on your tv which gives a movie a video effect but I would never watch a movie on that setting. Are you sure your tv is set up with that setting switched off. Clarity and sharpness are unaffected by 24fps as 35mm is far superior to 1080p Blu Ray. In the case of the Hobbit I think Jackson used the Sony Red Camera which can shoot at a number of frame rates.

My TV is just fine and I know about the setting. The movie did not look bad to me I'm sorry some of you that hate the frame rate can't accept that some of us liked it or didn't find something wrong with it. The constant it's terrible isn't going to change my mind just as I'm not going to make the effort to tell you it wasn't that bad.

Having said all that I still prefer 24fps but I don't hate the other.

 

[furystorm]

I love the Josh, and his fervent adoration for all things Middle Earth.

However, I ****ing hated the HFR and will avoid it like MRSA virus from here on out. Still havn't found the time to see this in regular 2D yet, but I already know I'm going to prefer it. I'm in total agreement with all the sentiments stating it takes you out of the film, looks like a video newscast, and all that. I hated it. And my head hurt the rest of the day after viewing it.

 

[The Josh]

My love for Middle-earth is strong but I liked the 48 fps just because it reminded me of Blu-ray movie. It's really as simple as that.

 

[furystorm]

Sorry Josh, film beats bluray any day. But that's just my opinion.

And I know, this wasn't shot on film.

 

[The Josh]

Opinions are like belly buttons everybody has one.

 

[abake]

My love for Middle-earth is strong but I liked the 48 fps just because it reminded me of Blu-ray movie. It's really as simple as that.

It looked nothing like blu-ray to me...
But whatever.
I really want to see this in regular 24fps, I'm sure I'll enjoy the movie more.

 

[intothevoid]

48fps reminded me of a VCR fast fwd, not bluray

 

[Fritz]

48fps reminded me of a VCR fast fwd, not bluray

That's the one complaint I don't get. I understand all the other complaints about why most people don't like HFR and I won't argue because I get it, but I just don't understand the issue with it being sped up? It looks like normal speed to me. I mean compared to what I saw in IMAX 3D it was the same.

 

[The Josh]

It looked nothing like blu-ray to me...
But whatever.
I really want to see this in regular 24fps, I'm sure I'll enjoy the movie more.

Good thing I wasn't talking about you.