Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstar
oh drat! forgot to give you my impression of the 48HFR presentation of 'The Hobbit' I saw for you... oh well.
|
No problem, take your time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWaffle
Doesn't 48 just mean the movie takes half as long to watch so us ADD folks don't fall asleep?
|
I’m sure you jest
but, that does bring up an interesting format conundrum, which I haven’t seen yet addressed….on a grandeur scale, I would also like there to come a day which is more conducive to a fair format (2D and 3D) visual experience.
Meaning, you just can’t optimally edit in one format (such as in 2D, which I believe was done with The Hobbit) and exhibit both a 2D version and a 3D version using that same editing style, without some visual
compromise to the storytelling of each format. Meaning if you optimally edit for 2D, then the 3D version risks becoming choppy in some scenes and possibly even headache/eye strain inducing if it includes multiple, quick edits having different parallax. On the other hand, if you optimally edit for 3D, then the 2D version risks becoming ponderous
in some scenes, as compared to your typical traditional 2D films.
Best recommended practice
….have two
content versions –
The 2D version should be edited in 2D and the 3D version should be edited in 3D.
P.S.
Which also brings up another interesting frame rate conundrum given the fact that all Academy membership in the U.S. should have received their screeners for The Hobbit by the end of this week…the latest, given shipping variances. They have/will be getting a traditional frame rate (24 fps), traditional format (2D) experience and if they don’t attend one of the theatrical HFR 3D presentations, then how exactly does one vote meaningfully in certain categories?