I saw this in 3D today. I must say, it was a very well-looking film. Some of the close-ups were really great in 3D, and after 45 minutes I practically forgot the 3D and just enjoyed the movie. But, the action sequences became a complete mess. I'm not sure wether the higher framerate helped or worsened this, but my eyes just don't know where to focus whenever 3D movies do any rapid camera movement. See it in 2D, I'm thinking of doing so, just to experience the action in a less confusing way.
That being said, it was fantastic. Everything I could've hoped for.
I've always had an issue with 3D when it comes to motion. Whenever they pan the camera everything looks crazy blurry to me in a way that 2D films never have. It happened with Avatar too and they were talking up the 3D in that movie like it was going to change the world. Maybe the higher frame rate might fix that panning issue but I have yet to see a movie in 3D that I felt benefited from it. I'll be looking to see The Hobbit in 2D but at 48 fps. Hopefully it doesn't cause the "soap opera effect" the entire movie as the frame rate interpolation on televisions has always really bothered me when people have it enabled.
Edit: It looks like Warner Brothers isn't releasing a 2D, 48 fps version. That's unfortunate.
2-D, but because I'm seeing it with my family, and my mom/sister are both really prone to migraines and/or getting sick if they try to watch a 3-D and/or IMAX film. They want to see it even more than I do, so I don't want them to have to miss huge chunks of the film because they don't feel well.
The thing I'm most bummed out about about missing the IMAX is actually the IMAX-exclusive preview of Star Trek: Into Darkness. I'm sure The Hobbit will be great regardless of how I see it, though.
@face15 2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.
@BirdkeeperDan I believe the extreme colours where due to the new HD cameras they were using. Seeing it in 2D or 3D in the cinema they should appear much more muted.
As for what I'm going to see, 2D and 24 fps. 2 reasons for this. The first is I have a wonky eye and can't see 3D films (they just result in migraines) and secondly, I've heard from many different sources that watching it in 48fps can cause quite a bit of eye strain and, in some cases nausea. For a film that is quite long, and that I've been looking forward too for a long time, I want to be as comfortable as possible while watching it.
In short, I want to enjoy the film and not have to spend the rest of the day in a dark room with my head buried in a cold pillow. :P
Edit: For those curious about if their cinema is showing it in 48fps or not (at least for UK folks) there's a list of cinemas here that have upgraded for it.
Seeing it in 3D in 48fps. That's the way Peter Jackson filmed it, so I figured I might as well watch it the way he intended it to be seen. If I don't like it, I could also go 2D and/or 24fps for the other two movies.
@face15 2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.
Sorry that is not true. The only 48 fps version is the HFR 3D version.
Anyways, I will be seeing the HFR 3D version.
That's what i was lead to understand as well. As i understand it, if you want to see the film in 48fps then you have to see it in 3D, which i think is a bummer.
@face15 2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.
Sorry that is not true. The only 48 fps version is the HFR 3D version.
Anyways, I will be seeing the HFR 3D version.
That's what i was lead to understand as well. As i understand it, if you want to see the film in 48fps then you have to see it in 3D, which i think is a bummer.
I was under the impressions that some cinemas were showing it in 2D in 48 fps, but I haven't looked into it too extensively. Regardless my understanding is that the way to see it is either in 48 fps in 3D or 24 fps in 2D. Feel free to correct me on any of that though.
@face15 2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.
Sorry that is not true. The only 48 fps version is the HFR 3D version.
Anyways, I will be seeing the HFR 3D version.
That's what i was lead to understand as well. As i understand it, if you want to see the film in 48fps then you have to see it in 3D, which i think is a bummer.
I was under the impressions that some cinemas were showing it in 2D in 48 fps, but I haven't looked into it too extensively. Regardless my understanding is that the way to see it is either in 48 fps in 3D or 24 fps in 2D. Feel free to correct me on any of that though.
If that really is the case then the cinema I called to confirm the whole 2D/48fps thing straight up lied to me. Lovely.
It's done by the Avatar studio which the 3D was mind blowing, plus got to give this 48fps a chance so 3D for me. 3D was great in Avatar saw it multiple times, no other movie I have seen has been anywhere near that quality also want to see what Peter Jackson can do with the format because Martin Scorsece did some great stuff with the technology in Hugo, real makes me feel only the great directors really take advantage of it.
@face15 2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.
Sorry that is not true. The only 48 fps version is the HFR 3D version.
Anyways, I will be seeing the HFR 3D version.
That's what i was lead to understand as well. As i understand it, if you want to see the film in 48fps then you have to see it in 3D, which i think is a bummer.
I was under the impressions that some cinemas were showing it in 2D in 48 fps, but I haven't looked into it too extensively. Regardless my understanding is that the way to see it is either in 48 fps in 3D or 24 fps in 2D. Feel free to correct me on any of that though.
If that really is the case then the cinema I called to confirm the whole 2D/48fps thing straight up lied to me. Lovely.
Last time I tried to watch a 3D movie I got a headache after about 2 minutes, so 2D. Not going to take that chance.
Apparently the 48fps helps eliminate that, Peter Jackson was saying they were spending hours and hours editing and watching 3D footage and never got headaches, but ofcourse he would say that since he is pioneering the technology in movies, I feel this is the next step in 3D since Avatar.
I'm going to follow the suggestion of several reviews to watch the movie in 2D @24 FPS first. After you've seen the movie and enjoyed it, go watch it in 48 FPS 3D or 2D. I'm curious about the 48 FPS hype, but there is an overwhelming number saying the CGI stuff looks like bad CGI at that speed.
3D's ok if it done well. i'd rather have the choice
No, it needs to go away, everything doesn't need it, it doesn't enhance the film, it doesn't make it better. If they want to release Speed Racer in 3D, then I am 100% backing that decision.
It's overrated, but Avatar in 3D was incredible to me. I bought a new TV last month and almost bought a 3D TV after watching the demo. The reason I didn't is because I only know 2 movies I have 3D interest in is Avatar and The Hobbit. I figured I can save a hundred dollars not getting it and in 5 years when I need a new TV, 3D will be glasses free and have more things to watch.
I'm all for 3D when it's perfected and glasses free.
It's overrated, but Avatar in 3D was incredible to me. I bought a new TV last month and almost bought a 3D TV after watching the demo. The reason I didn't is because I only know 2 movies I have 3D interest in is Avatar and The Hobbit. I figured I can save a hundred dollars not getting it and in 5 years when I need a new TV, 3D will be glasses free and have more things to watch. I'm all for 3D when it's perfected and glasses free.
It's worth getting a 3D TV even if you don't use 3D, they have better processors in them that produce higher refresh rates and less latency for games.
@Nightriff said:
@Bell_End said:
@Nightriff said:
3D needs to go away and die
3D's ok if it done well. i'd rather have the choice
No, it needs to go away, everything doesn't need it, it doesn't enhance the film, it doesn't make it better. If they want to release Speed Racer in 3D, then I am 100% backing that decision.
Avatar was awesome in 3D, nothing has even come close to how great the 3D in that movie was, I'm hoping Hobbit in 48FPS3D will top it.
Just got back from seeing it, took about 10 minutes to get used to and when I did I was immersed into the film, some of the scenes while watching 48fps were just mindblowing. The scene with Gollum, the detail and movements he was making seemed so life like I felt like I was looking through the window at a Gollum enclosure. The cave trolls mixing with the real actors looked insane, the final scene is one of the best uses of 3D I've seen, hell the whole movie was a technical masterpiece. It was the first 3D movie that I had seen that I real forgot I was wearing the glasses, there was real depth to the scenes, not unlike other 3D movies that just looked like cut outs like a diorama you made at school, I felt I could look anywhere and just see alot of detail, the scenes filmed on location were just so huge. And the CGI was mindblowing. Easily the greatest 3D movie I have ever seen and the best movie of the year, I could of sit in that theatre for another 6 hours and watch the rest of the trilogy. I can't recommend enough people go and see this movie in 48FPS.
Log in to comment