The Hobbit

Sprintex · January 03, 2013, 01:35:41 PM

I'm afraid I have to disagree there. It was fantastic in 3D, gave you more of a feeling of being there with them sometimes, and especially good for the many scenic shots.

Only wish they had done LOTR in 3D as well.

One thing that struck both of us though - the cinema looked like some weird Roy Orbison appreciation convention!

Paul

scotsoft · January 03, 2013, 01:42:10 PM

"Only the Lonely"

zwilnik · January 03, 2013, 01:43:54 PM

It's 3 films now? I thought it was pretty ridiculous when they said they were making it into 2 films from what's almost a short story. I don't think I could stand watching that many panning vista shots of New Zealand.

intraclast · January 03, 2013, 03:45:27 PM

Quote from: Sprintex on January 03, 2013, 01:35:41 PM
I'm afraid I have to disagree there. It was fantastic in 3D, gave you more of a feeling of being there with them sometimes...

I thought the 3D was good a lot of the time but was distracting at other times and on the whole I think I would have preferred it without it. Either way its still an excellent film that had me captivated throughout.

I wonder, did you see it in a 48 fps cinema as this should have illiminated the blurring (I would hope)?

Mark

Sprintex · January 03, 2013, 10:08:19 PM

Quote from: intraclast on January 03, 2013, 03:45:27 PM
I wonder, did you see it in a 48 fps cinema . . .

A what??

Paul

kester · January 03, 2013, 10:24:52 PM

Quote from: Sprintex on January 03, 2013, 10:08:19 PM
Quote from: intraclast on January 03, 2013, 03:45:27 PM
I wonder, did you see it in a 48 fps cinema . . .

A what??

Paul

48 frames per second - films are usually shot and played back at 24 frames per second. Supposed to get rid of a lot of the motion blur.

I really enjoyed the film (saw it yesterday) - 3D was very good in the flying sequences. I can see how it might give people motion sickness...

kester

Sprintex · January 03, 2013, 10:34:37 PM

No idea on the frames-per-second at the cinema, there's nothing on their website to say what it is.

Paul

intraclast · January 04, 2013, 07:58:37 AM

Quote from: Sprintex on January 03, 2013, 10:34:37 PM
No idea on the frames-per-second at the cinema, there's nothing on their website to say what it is.

Paul

It probably wasn't then, I think its pretty new technology and if the cinema had it, they'd be making a song and dance about it.

EtchedPixels · January 04, 2013, 09:58:27 AM

This all seems to be another desperate attempt to offer something not available on the TV so they can keep the cinemas in business with their crap overpriced popcorn, people talking over the sound and lunatic prices. I'll wait it to appear on disc thank you very much.

It's really funny here - the 3D showings have loads of space the 2D ones seem to be sold out

kester · January 04, 2013, 10:10:41 AM

Quote from: EtchedPixels on January 04, 2013, 09:58:27 AM
This all seems to be another desperate attempt to offer something not available on the TV so they can keep the cinemas in business with their crap overpriced popcorn, people talking over the sound and lunatic prices. I'll wait it to appear on disc thank you very much.

It's really funny here - the 3D showings have loads of space the 2D ones seem to be sold out

It may well be just marketing...but according to an interview with Peter Jackson, the original 24 fps was because that was about as fast as celluloid film could run in a projector, anything faster would tear it apart. Digital project removes that restriction. He was also talking about the cinema-going public being used to look at 24fps and almost expecting the blur from fast motion on the screen. I suspect that the 48fps will need up to twice the storage space on digital (would be less because of compression) - so the would need bigger storage devices.

All technically very interesting - but a good film in regardless of fps and 2D/3D.

anthony