It makes one wonder just how much effort movie plexes put in to setting up their theater. I wonder if they would even tell us if we asked? Or do they just order the gear & have it installed assuming all is well.

 

I know my local megaplex here in Philly actually showed me the schedule as well as contact info for folks that do their calibration.

Granted, I told them it was for a research paper.

 

Wow. This isn't the kind of review I was expecting....

What about 24fps makes the image more colorful and better contrast (or did I miss read something)...?

 

As you start using higher resolution film formats, like 70mm and IMAX, you stop seeing grain and just see the image. As you start using higher resolution digital, like current 4k and 5k cameras can do, you stop seeing pixels and just see the image.

So when using the best that each respective medium offers, you can't easily tell film from digital, since the image is not suffering breakdown into grain or pixels. In that case, what makes us psychologically think that something looks like a traditional movie we see in a cinema vs looking like you're watching a daytime soap opera on TV?

Turns out that cadence (seeing 24 images per second vs seeing 60 images per second) does more to create that feeling than image structure (grain vs pixels). I'm sure we've all seen video based footage displayed as black & white with phony grain and scratches added, but still didn't feel like film for whatever reason. What's missing is the 24fps cadence.

I've seen film shot at 60 fps (Showscan) and it looked like hi-def video. I've seen live video shot at 24fps (MTV Movie Awards) and I swore it was film. The latter was uncanny: I couldn't figure out how MTV could shoot an event on film and still claim it was live. Turns out they set their video cameras to 24fps and converted it to 60 using 3:2 pulldown before broadcasting.

The younger generation who, unlike us, have not permanently imprinted on the 24fps cadence being an indicator of film, might have less of a problem with the way Jackson shot 'The Hobbit'. For me it's too late. It's not that I hate higher frame rates, it's just that I reflexively think 'video' the moment I see it. Let me underscore that last part: this isn't something I choose to do deliberately, it's an automatic reflex based on decades of getting used to a certain cadence that I always associate with movies.

 

I am in my mid 50's and I am ready for the movie industry to move to much higher frame rates.
24fps holds no special place in my heart.
When I was a kid and knew nothing about frame rates I remember talking about movies going out of focus when the camers panned.
When the blur and flicker are gone will be a happy day for me.

 

I bought a prosumer Panasonic video camera that records in true 1080p 60frames per second and I love it for shooting video thats got alot of movement. 24p is just far too riddled with studder when pans happen. I am also on the higher frame rate bandwagon.
My Panasonic E4000u has frame creation and I use it often with movies as it does a great job in filling those missing frames.

 

I saw the movie, and the main reason I noticed it is that I was looking for the difference. After the first few minutes, I really stopped looking and became immersed in the story.

 

Thanks Mechman. I'm interested to see how this shapes up for me. We're seeing the HFR Dolby Atmos show in... 4 hours. I was glad to read in your other thread that the HFR doesn't make it look like 120Hz LCD effect TV, because I had forgotten how much I hate that until we watched part of Transformers at a neighbor's house on the weekend. I kept staring at it wondering what was wrong.

I'll chime in with my impressions tomorrow, and as of right now I'm optimistic. The popcorn is half full, you might say (which is good because the big theatres here don't offer free refills anymore).

 

I saw the movie and it started out slow and then picked up very fast.. I can't tell any difference in fps..

I highly recommend the movie. I just wish they didn't split it into 3 parts. I know the reason why -- $$$$$

Now, I have to wait sometime for part II and then part III..

 

I actually felt more immersed with the 48fps. In 24fps it looks like the rest of the movies the last whatever years. The funny thing is, many of those movies we associate with film aren't using film. But that fare actually always made me feel like I am looking at a stylized window. Perhaps with some frost on it. This felt like that window had been removed. Especially during the battle sequences. I disagree about the contrast comment. Especially the first Smaug scene. The contrast and colors of the whole set and costumes was incredible. Especially the fire. I had to take my glasses off to get a little glimpse outside of the glasses. Simply incredible I thought. I think Avatar would have been truly awesome in this format.

 

Well, I have to say I came away from The Hobbit happy. Without getting into detail, I really enjoyed the movie. I felt that there were a few scenes that could have been shorter, ideally this probably should have been split into 2 movies instead of 3, but overall I think we all really enjoyed it.

As for the HFR presentation... honestly I couldn't tell a huge difference. It may be because we haven't seen a 3D movie in a long time, they just aren't our thing. I wear glasses to the movies, and I hate having to wear glasses over my glasses. It did look good, and there was definitely no 120Hz-like soap opera effect, but I guess I was expecting perfect smoothness and was left a little disappointed on that front. I could still see some ghosting in a lot of movement at certain speeds. Slower movement was great, and the fast action content never bothered me, but I did notice it a fair amount somewhere in between. The 3D itself was very well done, and didn't give me the usual feeling that everything fits into one of 3 layers on screen. It was pretty dynamic and effective.

The Dolby Atmos was what I was most looking forward to, and while I can't say it blew me away, I think it was effective. I meant to pay more attention, but found myself wrapped up in the movie and I forgot most of the time. When I did try to listen critically, it seemed to help blend transitioning sounds, or to add new dimensions to effects coming from places other than front and centre. There was an Atmos trailer before the film began, which was a pretty good showcase of its ability. We were near the back of the theatre, and it may have been even better a little further up.

All in all, it was a very enjoyable presentation and I'm sure I'll see the others this way as well. I would really like to see a 2D film that uses HFR and Atmos, since 3D still hasn't won me over, but I don't think that's in the cards in the near future.

 

The Hobbit is a trilogy??? Is that what I got from this???

 

Yes. To make more $$$, they decided to make it a 3 parter.

The movie in theaters now covers the first 7 chapters..



(the $$$ part is my opinion.. )

 

I am hoping it is because they really want to tell the story in depth and stay true to the book, but you are most likely right.... :heehee:

 

Considering how much $$$ LOTR made, to me it makes sense to break "The Hobbit" into 3 parts.

lol

 

Hello,
Just thought I'd jump on the invatation given in the notes at the top of the page to chime in. not something I'm inclined to do but this is a subject I just happen to know a little about. although it's been, wow six and a half years sense retirement, for 30yrs I earned my living behind the camera in L.A. Only after retierment did I find time to persue any kind of hobbies, like my hometheater, which lead me here. Again, thank you Sonnie for REW. Working in the "industry" robs you of anykinda life, 65-80 hr work weeks. OK enough of that.
Was wondering what was being said about the new fangaled tec-no-alogy. you see there's alot more to film than meets the eye, pun intinded. Video cameras, oh sorry digital cameras are not something any qualified cinamatographer, by the way that's who shoots a motion picture, not the director, he's the guy who makes sure the actors spit out there lines right, would chose to use. There is a picture of an indavidual, not a 2nd assistant cameraman, holding a slate at the top of this post, if you notice there is a name after DP he is the guy who shot the hobbit.there is so much that the average Joe dosen't know about what it takes to make a major MP and I don't say that as a put down. but that is what the romance is all about. anyway's this is probably too snarky to get posted any how but I'll hit post and see what happens

 

Thanks JBSAUNDERS, its always interesting to get input from someone with experience behind the scenes, whether that's behind a camera, behind a computer designing circuit boards, or behind a CAD machine turning out precision parts.

I can't say if digital is a step forward or backward in quality, or "feel" but I do think it makes things faster and easier so it is probably here to stay. Who knows, maybe there really will be a backlash against it and the film purists will prevail! I do have to say that I enjoy the look of proper film, and gravitate towards plasma displays that show it off better at home than any of the LCDs I've seen, which I really don't like.

 

Owen
yes if I was to buy new it would be a plasma, although I think I remenber somewhere that they are getting harder to find. That's new, as for me I still prefer a good old CRT, takes a little more love'n to get it right, but short of a reel to reel film projector, it dose the best job. they last 10 times what a digital dose and you can find them on craigslist for next to nothing. with a little knowhow and a little box here and there, checkout http://www.moomecard.com/ You will not be abel to do 3D but I watch blue ray in 1080 on what I believe to be the best RPTV ever made, Mitsubishi ws-73909. beats the pioneer because of it's size and has as good as a service menu as a $35000 marquee 9500lc. just my opinon though

 

When talkies were debuted there was backlash, same stuck in the past attitude displayed when color was introduced.
Qualified cinamatographers will get over it soon enough and in a few short years 24fps film will just be part of movie history.
Saving money on the price of film and managing the reels for distribution has as much to do with the frame rate as anything else. It was the minimum frame rate they could get away with.
Now that technology can provide something better and cheaper film is dead.

 

So i watched the Hobbit in 3D the other day at the theater. I don't know what all the commotion was about in the papers and reviews. It was not nauseating or any such thing. Other than a few scenes that panned a little awkward I found it rather fine to watch. I was quite pleased with the film. Maybe more than I should have been do to such a calamity that was made over it. Definitely worth a watch. If your hesitant don't be.

 

Well, I called the local AMC theater here in Tallahassee to ask about the offering. Like I figured, no IMAX 3-D HFR available. They do have IMAX 3D, and HFR 3D, but not both. Guess we don't watch enough movies to warrant putting in new equipment. Boy that's a shame, I would have gone to see this one.

 

If you go to the theater to see other movies and you liked the LOTR movies I do not understand why you would pass on this one.

 

I went to a standard theater and I don't know how their stuff was setup, but I didn't notice any difference with the increased frame rate.

 

I saw the movie a few weeks ago, in 48fps at the AMC in San Francisco, also with the Dolby Atmos, and I have to agree with the original poster. For a 3D movie especially the image is razor sharp, but somehow for a movie like this which is set in a Middle Earth fantasy world, it doesn't quite work, everything looks just too perfect.

About the sound, I have seen a demo of Dolby Atmos at the Dolby Labs in SF a couple of months ago, and it was pretty stunning (very interesting technology and wonderful if you are a sound designer or re-remixing engineer but that is yet another story). By contrast, I thought the sound was a bit underwhelming -- not that there is anything wrong or distracting, just had expected a bit more.

About the story, I am a big LOTR fan and have the entire series on DVD. Great story, magnificent music, etc. Still, I thought that the movie was a bit too drawn out, the editing was too slow. After nearly 3 hours, and then an open ending?! I later found out there's supposed to be a second and even a third part? Frankly that seems a bit too much for me.

Still, it is very enjoyable. The high frame rate just doens't quite work for this type of movie. Apparently Avatar II is being shot at 60fps or 48fps as well, possibly it will work better there.


Peter Roos
www.summeroflovemusic.com
IMDb: www.imdb.com/name/nm2039241