# I just saw the future of movies, and I'm not sure I like it (yet)



## midphase (Dec 12, 2012)

So I just got back from The Hobbit, this was the "bells and whistles" screening at the Warner Brothers lot with a top of the line projector spewing out images 48 frames per second in glorious 3D.

I have to say that:

1. 48fps (or 60 if James Cameron has his way) is here to stay.

2. Right now, it looks like ass.

I felt as if I was watching the most expensive production of a Discovery Channel historic documentary ever made. While Peter Jackson obviously spared no expenses on VFX and fancy set dressing, it all looked like bad green screen and very fake movie sets. 

I really wanted to like it, but the video-y quality of the image was very distracting and a constant reminder that I was watching something not-real. By comparison the original Lord of the Rings films (now a decade old) look like state-of-the-art visual masterpieces.

I'm not going to comment on the story since many of you won't see it until Friday, but I am curious as to your responses to the 48fps projection. Yes it looks stunningly detailed, but it made the film (IMHO) look terribly un-cinematic.

Score was good though (if you liked LOTR music).


----------



## midphase (Dec 12, 2012)

Here is an interesting article worth reading if you're interested in this type of thing:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/8054/4k-48 ... up-artists


----------



## Hal (Dec 13, 2012)

i reserved my tickets yesterday cant wait to watch


----------



## Carles (Dec 13, 2012)

I work at Weta Digital so I'm very familiar with that movie and its visual effects 

What I can proudly say is that Weta (as well other major studios) is in the top ranking of visual effects providers, so the quality of the visual effects is not the key to understand why some people has negative reactions.

I also found non realistic things in the projection while the same shot looks fine in 2D on a standard computer screen, so the effects are well done and very convincing.

What it's surprising is that one of the shots that I found wrong was real footage, so obviously movement and aspect are already perfect so there is no way to make it more realistic.

The conclusion I can take is that while we are used to see movies we are not used to see a movie in this media and that's why we found it not real.
Actually no any of the media we're already used to, is neither real but we learnt how to manage the illusion.

I think it's a matter of getting used to it, so to teach our brain how to manage that.

There is big difference between reading a comic and watching a movie but once used to the media you can get immersed in the story in both cases.

The very first you try to read a comic it's kinda weird watching a drawing and reading a text inside a balloon. What you do first, watching the pic or reading? is the visualizing order left to right and top to bottom or just other? is not that simplistic balloon in discordance with such detailed drawing?...

Once used to the media you don't think anymore on that, you've got a "6th sense" for reading comics and you feel you watch and read simultaneously, even passing to next page becomes an automatic gesture.

Same thing with cinema transitions from black and white to color or 2D to stereoscopic, viewers always got distracted by the new technique and had to comment about as logical.

The good thing IMO is that these new techniques are not replacing the old ones but just expanding the field.
Black and white movies have been produced after the color technique, as well as you have options normally to watch a movie in 2D or 3D.
It's just one more option. If you don't want to get used to it you always can choose a more classic alternative.

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 13, 2012)

midphase @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> So I just got back from The Hobbit, this was the "bells and whistles" screening at the Warner Brothers lot with a top of the line projector spewing out images 48 frames per second in glorious 3D.
> 
> I have to say that:
> 
> ...



Wow 3D AND in 48fps.... that sounds painful. Why do you hate yourself so much? 8) 

I might see the Hobbit but I'm mainly waiting for Django and Zero Dark Thirty.


----------



## TGV (Dec 13, 2012)

Well, movies are like music: if it looks good, it is good. If 48fps WAIIF(*) doesn't look good, it just isn't good. Perhaps it's just this movie, perhaps it's the technology in general, but I don't think our brains needs retraining or even can be retrained. Because in contrast to listening to music, our eyes are pretty accurately trained on reality, and they continue to do so throughout your life, 16 hours per day. We do might change our preferences, though, based on new technology. It might be a bit like vinyl vs. CD. Let the flame wars begin!

Anyway, I'm not going to see The Hobbit. I did like LOTR, but a three part film out of a 100 page book with only half a plot in it, that's not for me. And I already disliked the New Age-y aspects in LOTR, and the trailers only seem to emphasize that bit further. Dwarfs showing their deeply human soul singing Celtic stuff? Plz.

WAIIF: Whatever Abbreviation Is In Fashion


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 14, 2012)

midphase @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> I felt as if I was watching the most expensive production of a Discovery Channel historic documentary ever made.



Exactly what I was thinking yesterday :mrgreen:

Stray remarks: 

- I liked the film nonetheless
- Had similar experience when we switched to 200 Hz HD television recently. Suddenly much content looks like home made videos, even including some newer actual movies. Strange. I contemplate reselling it and switching back.

I guess for me a certain 'cinematic artificiality' or 'unreality' has a place in a good movie. By that I mean the film colors (and I mean _film_), the play of focus and defocus, even the grain ... it is as if a switch is pushed and I am in film world, opposed to a reality show or a Discovery Channel documentary. Somehow this does not happen when I see too many details.

Back to the Hobbit film: It was nice and drew me in most times. However there were scenes that left me irritated. The singing dwarfs scene in the hobbit cave especially. Not because of the singing but again perhaps because I saw too many details ... and suddenly it were too real ... but 'real' in the sense of singing actors with false beards - instead of a fantasy scene where my imagination fills the blurred parts of the picture. Does that make any sense?


----------



## Simon Ravn (Dec 14, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Fri Dec 14 said:


> midphase @ Thu Dec 13 said:
> 
> 
> > I felt as if I was watching the most expensive production of a Discovery Channel historic documentary ever made.
> ...



You don't need to sell your set. Just turn off all the image "improving" s*it... Like Intelligent Frame Creation (or whatever it's called on your set - on Samsung it is somewhere in "advanced" I think, a motion setting that can be set to different values), and it will look like a movie again 8)


----------



## reddognoyz (Dec 14, 2012)

If you purchase a new LCD tv with a high refresh rate, you can experience the same sort of issue. These new smart tvs interpolate new frames to smooth out the picture. Google "soap opera effect" I find it very disconcerting. It makes everything, even film, look like it's shot on video. I was able to "downgrade" the image on my tv by turning off a couple of things and it looks grainier and film-ier......better somehow.


----------



## midphase (Dec 14, 2012)

Funny, so we're being talked into paying a premium for those 120hz (or above) HDTVs, and then end up downgrading the settings back to 60hz so that it looks like what we're used to. All of a sudden, the world feels like a weird Dr.Seuss/Orwell future.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 14, 2012)




----------



## MacQ (Dec 14, 2012)

I watched a DKR screening where the projector was slightly out-of-phase so it had subtle purple and green fringing from misaligned colours ... and THAT took me out of the movie. I can only imagine what 48fps 3D is gonna do.

How was the motion blur?


----------



## midphase (Dec 14, 2012)

Little discernible blur actually...I do have to say that judder was almost eliminated (at what cost though?).


----------



## park bench (Dec 14, 2012)

It seems to boil down to whether you want reality on the screen or Art.

"reality" will never be fully achieved because no matter what you do, it still is a projected image. 

Art, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the frame rate and just wants to tell/show a great story.


----------



## schatzus (Dec 14, 2012)

Just saw "The Hobbit". I didn't see it in 3-D so maybe a few items listed already didn't bother me as much as others. Few things though:
Left to right or right ot left fast panning was annoying to the eye. Very blurry, and there is ALOT of panned shots.
Hated the singing hobbit scenes.
How did the "fighting mountains" fit into the story?
Score was fantastic!
Could have been 1/2 hour shorter.
Loved everything else though...


----------



## IFM (Dec 15, 2012)

Schatezus...have you read the book? The stone giants are in there as is the singing in Bilbo's home. I didn't find the blur and worse than any other film. 
Chris


----------



## schatzus (Dec 15, 2012)

In all honesty, I haven't read The Hobbit books.
Just asking. I thought cinematically, the stone giants scene was very impressive, I just couldn't figure how it pushed the story along. (Same with the singing.)


----------



## schatzus (Dec 15, 2012)

In all honesty, I haven't read The Hobbit books.
Just asking. I thought cinematically, the stone giants scene was very impressive, I just couldn't figure how it pushed the story along. (Same with the singing.)


----------



## midphase (Dec 15, 2012)

There is a saying in script writing -- you want all your scenes to connect to each other using "because..." and not "and then..."

So Neo takes the red pill "because" of everything else that happened to him up to that point.

In The Hobbit movie, I felt like all the scenes were connected by "and then..."

Bilbo and co. cross the mountains "and then" stone giants appear, "and then" they get taken prisoners by goblins, "and then" Gandalf shows up...

Nothing seems connected by cause and effect.


----------



## schatzus (Dec 15, 2012)

> Nothing seems connected by cause and effect.



That is a clearer explanation of what I was trying to say. Thanks Midphase!


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Dec 15, 2012)

midphase @ Sat Dec 15 said:


> There is a saying in script writing -- you want all your scenes to connect to each other using "because..." and not "and then..."



From a script / structure perspective, did anyone else notice how the storyline was eerily similar to Fellowship of the Ring? Even some of the wide shots had me doing a double-take - "Hey, that line of humanoids running on a hilltop... I've seen that before!"

I still enjoyed the picture, though. It was a visual masterpiece (even the 2-D version). I thought it was cast very well - Freeman was very believable and Gollum 2013 was really fun :-D

Even my judgmental and hard-to-please teenagers liked it. We are all looking forward to part 2. A day spent in Middle Earth is rarely a bad thing.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Dec 15, 2012)

As a side note, we hesitated to see the 48fps version because of all the negative feedback. 

We decided to stick to the regular version first and maybe see the 48fps version next time around. I don't think I've heard anyone say they preferred the high-res version over the standard one...


----------



## IFM (Dec 16, 2012)

schatzus @ Sat Dec 15 said:


> > Nothing seems connected by cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a clearer explanation of what I was trying to say. Thanks Midphase!



The book is exactly the same way. In fact the movie did a good job on trying to get events to connect. 
Chris


----------



## snowleopard (Dec 23, 2012)

Back in the late 70's Douglas Trumbull created Showscan, his term for shooting 65mm film at 60fps and projecting it at 60fps (he tried other high frame rates as well). Trumbull believed that the higher the frame rate the greater emotional response from the audience. But Trumbull was most focused on clarity. Despite Showscan engineers winning a technical Oscar in 1993, the process repeatedly tested with audiences, and alternative, less expensive methods tried such as Maxivision, the process was never widely accepted by audiences. The main complaint over and over was that despite looking clearer, it looked like video. People were even saying it looked like soap operas. 

A quarter century later, we're seeing the same reactions. Top filmmakers insisting how great and clear it looks, regardless from the recoil from audiences that it looks like video.

Meanwhile, shot on film, 24fps, in 2D, Lincoln continues to marvel audiences, not only for the story, but it's beauty as well.

Now, some may note that IMAX is shot and projected at 48fps. While this is true, the content is documentary by and large, so the suspension of disbelief we associate with storytelling (movies) we are used to seeing at 24fps and call "filmic" is not as relevant. 

This is the essential barrier, one that's existed for nearly a century, that Jackson, Cameron and a few others are trying to break. And I don't really see it happening. 

48fps and 3D are the future, and they forever will be.


----------



## midphase (Dec 23, 2012)

I remember reading about Showscan, Ebert was a big fan of the process, but it never caught on. I suspect price of film had a substantial effect on that. 

I do believe that there is something to be said about 48fps playback, it is considerably crisper and clearer (qualities which we have until now associated exclusively with resolution and not frame rate). The other part of the equation is that most pro cameras like the Alexa and Red can easily shoot at up to 60fps so no need expenditures are necessary (hell, the Epic can go up to 240fps). Further, most new generation Christie digital projectors can also accommodate 48 or 60fps with just a firmware update. It does also give studios and theatres yet another reason to justify the ever increasing cost of movie tickets. 

I think the key will be for filmmakers to adapt to this new technology, which might bring back a much needed focus on skill and craftsmanship which will now play a much more important role in the overall look of the film. 

Now about that 3D....


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 23, 2012)

I've still yet to see HFR for myself, but from all reports I'm anticipating agreeing with you, Snow. For as long as video has been around, people have been trying to make it look more and more like film... it's very odd that film is now attempting a reverse trip.

I could accept the intellectual argument that HFR strips away the layers and makes it look like we're looking at reality, except we aren't - well, certainly not in the case of The Hobbit we're not. We're looking at studio sets, make up and CG. The sheen, the flaws and imperfections are part of the magic of cinema, and you mess with that at your peril in my view.

I don't know if it is anything to do with the fold down of the HFR process, but I find all the Hobbit trailers and clips I've seen in glorious Quicktime look significantly worse than the decade-old LOTR films. One of the great things about LOTR is how real it felt. It came on the heels of the abomination of the Star Wars prequels, and the difference was striking. But this looks to me like a step backwards - the cave just looks like a set with a backdrop, Rivendell looks like a painting, not a real place.

Perhaps the technology will mature. CD went through quite an evolution as folks realised that there were side effects that came with what was billed as sonic perfection. Maybe HFR will go through something similar. I'm all for great quality, but they need to find a way to preserve the magic, not strip it all away.


----------



## snowleopard (Dec 23, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Dec 23 said:


> I think the key will be for filmmakers to adapt to this new technology, which might bring back a much needed focus on skill and craftsmanship which will now play a much more imporortant role...


Somewhat agree. The challenge may wind up in the laps of artisans to create a look for this new medium. Production designers, make up artists, VFX teams, gaffers, etc. But is there a point if they are asked to achieve a reaction from audiences that we can already achieve shooting and projecting at 24fps, and preferably shot on actual film?

I thus just dont know that despite filmmakers catching on, that audiences will. You can't force feed them something they don't want, and have never really liked the look of. 

I think part of what is going on are studios running from the spectre of superb home systems and HD streaming. Desperate to find a method that we can't get in the comfort of our own homes with our 65" LED TVs with surround sound, they search for something new. Something you can only get in the theater. I just don't know that 48fps or 60fps, or 3D is it, despite all the talk about it being the future.


----------



## midphase (Dec 23, 2012)

Most TV's nowadays can display at least 120 frames per second. 

I agree that this will all play out interestingly in the next few years. 

I do wish that 3D would have fallen out of favor by now...but it still lingers on!


----------



## IFM (Dec 23, 2012)

Well today I finally say the HFR version after seeing The Hoobbit in standard non 3D on opening day. I'm inclined to agree as it really felt I was watching a made for TV movie shot on video. It could have also been the 3D too. Regardless I kept having the feeling like I was watching the thing in fast forward yet with dialog at normal speeds. The standard version looked more like the LOTR films. 

Chris


----------



## Brian Ralston (Dec 23, 2012)

I wonder how many theaters (even the supposedly good LA ones here in Hollywood's back yard) have done the proper calibrations and adjustments after their required firmware upgrades to their digital projectors to display these 48 fps files? Much less 48fps 3D. 

I tend to think that there is going to be a learning curve on the theater chain/presentation side as well as this is the first major release with the HFR. 

Theaters are notorious for cutting costs by displaying aspect ratios wrong.(not caring to assign man power to change it)...running their bulbs at a lower brightness to save on bulb life, having just one guy run a large projection room where he is overwhelmed with things to do. Etc...etc...


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 25, 2012)

Brian, I saw the film in a new, top-end theater with Dolby Atmos and the whole works. It's not a calibration issue. Technically, it was perfect. Artistically, it was a fail.

http://cinetopia.com/cinema/digitalc.htm
http://cinetopia.com/aboutus/press.htm

My son, who works in Hollywood, couldn't comment on the quality of the film because he was so bothered by 48 fps from start to finish. 

I work in the TV business and knew what to expect. I told my wife that it looked like a BBC documentary.

My daughter had no knowledge of it being in 48 Hz. Independently, she turned to my wife and told her it looked like a BBC documentary.

That said, when there is fast camera or object motion and it's a 3D presentation, I liked that 48 fps reduced the 3D judder. Then, when the camera showed people, YUK! It was the dreaded soap opera effect.

What we need is a hybrid. Show most of the movie with 24 discrete frames. (BTW, they are flashed at 48 or 72 Hz in the theater to keep flicker low.) Then, when things move quickly, go to a high frame rate to reduce 3D judder. As soon as things slow down, go back to 24 fps on the next cut. That could balance our desire to see "the magical 24 fps film world" with the desire to not see 3D judder on fast motion. One could also go to 60 Hz when doing a TV show POV within a movie.

HFR shouldn't be an either/or proposition. It needs to be used sparingly as an artistic effect. Okay, for BBC Earth 2.0 it can be used throughout.


----------



## Gablux (Dec 27, 2012)

As I usually am, I get very excited to try new technology and I had the same feeling yesterday when watching the Hobbit on HFR, 3D, 48fps, Atmos ... as the feeling I had the first time I experienced watching anything on a higher refresh ratio TV than 60hz...

Soap opera effect. I tried hard for the entire length of the film to catch the good side of this new tech but... I wasn't too successful.

Although I don't agree that the effects looked not real - they were very convincing to me -
I do agree to Hassan_F statement. I missed very much the balance between focused and unfocused parts of the picture, specially on wide fly-over takes. Everything was cristal clear, no film grain feel or any texture on the picture. Still looks weird to me, specially on a story about fantastic beings in a medieval-like time...

Side note: am I crazy or the music was stereo? Didn't feel the full power of atmos yet.
(not that I expected the music to be in atmos format, but at least... surround 5 or 7 channels)


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 27, 2012)

I watched The Hobbit at home so luckily I didn't have to deal with friends trying to drag me to a 48fps screening. 

I thought the movie was okay-ish... the first act is like 4 hours long and then the rest of the movie Gandalf just saves the day. If Gandalf isn't around, don't worry he'll show up and save you. If he is with you, just hang on until he decides to do something. If he disappears on you, go look for him, idiot, he's probably built a hole or something for you to hide in. 

This Gandalf thing and the fact that the CG that attacks our heroes never manages to kill a single person results in a film with no tension -- It all felt like I was being pulled along a predetermined path on a LOTR nostalgia theme park ride. "Now folks, it's the three hour mark and if you look to your left we're comin' up on the elf city! Who likes maaagicall exposition delivered in a sleepy fashion?!" "Memememe!"


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 27, 2012)

Try watching The Godfather (or any classic movie) on an LCD tv with the 'SMOOTH MOTION' setting on.
Makes it look like a 1970s Brazilian Soap Opera :roll:


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 28, 2012)

passenger57 @ Thu Dec 27 said:


> Try watching The Godfather (or any classic movie) on an LCD tv with the 'SMOOTH MOTION' setting on.
> Makes it look like a 1970s Brazilian Soap Opera :roll:



Beautifully put.

BTW, there are three things to do to "fix" many new TVs.

1) Turn off any smooth motion or interpolation technology. It's fine on sports, but not on movies or prime time dramas.

2) Lower the noise reduction setting. It doesn't need to be at zero. A small amount can help reduce compression artifacts. But too much and people look plastic.

3) Reduce the contrast. Many TVs are set to really push the whites and blacks, but this can end up smashing the details out at both ends. Typically, you want to set the contrast mid-way, and then adjust brightness so that you see details in the blacks, but not so much that they are lifted to a gray tone.

Also, if your TV has a THX mode (lucky you!) choose that.

When people choose a TV in the store, they are often drawn to the smooth motion, low noise, and blazing picture; hence, manufacturers sometimes choose these settings as the Store default picture setting to sell TVs. Fortunately, it's easy to tune new TVs for good movie viewing. But if you don't make those adjustments, I hope you enjoy 1970s Brazilian soap operas.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Dec 28, 2012)

A couple interesting opinions and analyses about the HFR in The Hobbit.

(Bob Degus blog...Bob was an executive at New Line for many years and produced Pleasantville among others. He is also a member of the executive board in his branch AMPAS)
http://degusarts.com/TalkingPictures/48-frames-per-second-has-thehobbit-brought-the-end-of-cinema/

Gizmodo
http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 29, 2012)

Brian Ralston @ Fri Dec 28 said:


> A couple interesting opinions and analyses about the HFR in The Hobbit.
> 
> (Bob Degus blog...Bob was an executive at New Line for many years and produced Pleasantville among others. He is also a member of the executive board in his branch AMPAS)
> http://degusarts.com/TalkingPictures/48-frames-per-second-has-thehobbit-brought-the-end-of-cinema/
> ...



Hmm. The first link was totally unconvincing, a purely intellectual defence that addressed none of the issues. That second link - golden. Really interesting and incisive.

I saw the film yesterday, had to try HFR so I can now moan about it from an informed perspective. Here's my 2 part reactions.

*THE FILM*

The Hobbit is a kids book. Its adventures and scrapes are really pretty silly - the ludicrous / audacious escapes at the 11th hour, the very tall tales of absurd adventure, the humour etc. Now that's all well and good if packed into a 2 hour romp. But gee, all that portent of Galadrial moping around and the endlessly long diversions which drove the plot nowhere... to me it was phenomenally indulgent. Not just on the part of Jackson (who seems to have learned nothing from King Kong) but also adults in general, who clearly crave LOTR part II. The Hobbit isn't the book to do that imo. The basics - 3x3hr films, rated 12a, are absurd for a kids book, and it robs the target audience - kids - of what should be theirs.

I should say - I really do have a thing about this in general, far too many dark and adult-targeted films these days that should be far lighter and more kid-friendly. I think an entire generation of 30-40 somethings are being indulged with comic book angst while kids just have Pixar and video games.

There was good stuff in The Hobbit, it wasn't all awful by any means. When all three are done, someone will hopefully make a PG cut of the whole lot with a running time whose hour digit is a 1, not a 9. I'll be first in the queue for that.

*HFR*

That link above at Gizmodo says it more eloquently and in more depth than anything I'll muster, but it was absolutely ghastly. Totally UNimersive from a storytelling perspective, kept taking me out of the film. It made it all look cheap and unreal - I didn't believe a frame of that world, whereas I bought into LOTR completely. It was a bastard hybrid of TV drama and a video game. I also got that horrible lighting feeling, with highlights blown out that Vincent Laforet mentions. Weird.

I'm not a fan of 3D, but to be fair when done at its very best - Hugo, Pixar - I am either ambivalent or mildly impressed. On the basis of this screening, I'll never pay money for HFR again. I hated, hated, hated it.


----------



## dedersen (Jan 4, 2013)

Guy pretty much summed up my feelings about the film as well as the tech. I am having a hard time understanding who this movie was really targeted at; the story seems catered towards kids but the whole vibe, and the violence, is definitely not for kids. I enjoyed watching it, but it never really grabed me in any way. It just sorta went along, rather aimlessly.

As for HFT, I feel almost exactly the way I feel about 3D. Instead of enhancing the illusion, it takes me further out of it. I don't know if it's something like the movie analogy of the "uncanny valley". I think 3D often makes the whole thing look like actors placed in front of a flat painting.

I think the industry has to remind itself of the power of imagination that most movie-goers have. I have been absolutely immersed in movies that did not have the best effects or the most impressive set pieces. But it seems like the more "real" they try to make it look, the more difficult it is for imagination to fill in the blanks.


----------



## Dan Selby (Jan 10, 2013)

Good article, I thought:

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2013/01/pain_of_the_new.php


----------



## Dan Selby (Jan 10, 2013)

Good article, I thought:

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2013/01/pain_of_the_new.php


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jan 11, 2013)

It's interesting seeing people who aren't used to seeing different framerates try to explain the difference - stuff like 'sped up', saying the colour is different or the sets looked fake, no grain etc. 
The only difference with 48p should be the motion characteristics. Since higher framerates were/are used for sports, news, soaps, it was inevitable that The Hobbit would elicit comparisons to those examples. 
I knew what to expect when I saw it, and although it was a culture shock seeing something so cinematic at a higher framerate, I didn't mind it too much. 

I noticed they didn't shoot at a 180 degree shutter angle, which may have contributed to some of the issues I had with motion - it almost seemed like some of the fast shots were slightly ghosting/strobing at times. 

I kept trying to imagine what the difference would be, visually, if next to the screen there were a bunch of actors in costume, doing exactly the same thing. Would a 180 degree shutter have made the difference smaller? Going up to 60fps? A less pumped grade?

I really like the look of 24/25p though - there's a sort of 'sheen' it gives things which instantly gives your suspension of disbelief a helping hand. Probably because we're so used to seeing cinematic/dramatic content shot and displayed at 24fps.

I'm not sure what the HFR format needs to iron out those quirks, but I'm sure Jackson/Cameron and the likes are investigating...

One thing I didn't really like was the 3D. Cinema seems to be pushing 3D as if they've finally 'cracked it', but to me the Hobbit still looked too dark in many scenes, and the 3D mostly looked very 2d - like three or four 2D cutout planes at staggered differences.

Film was a bit 'meh' - I can't really get into the whole elves/goblins thing. Gollum was great in 48p though.

And for anyone who says hdtvs look like the hobbit in HFR - they bloody shouldn't! It's a maddeningly awful frame-interpolation setting that should be banished.


----------

