The Hobbit Trilogy 3D Blu-ray (2012-2014) [Region Free]

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by DViper2399

Thank you for the link, I guess we could always view it at the forced 60fps if we have a TV that has that option. 60fps would be closer to what the 48fps looks like then the standard 24fps. Not certain but you would think 48fps would be something obtainable via firmware if the tv company & BD players took the time to issue it, almost certainly any tv made prior to Feb 2013 will not be issued any such firmware by the TV companies though.

I can still enjoy 24 fps and 48 fps, so either way on blu ray 3D will be fine. I just hope they can fit the entire movie on one disc and not split the experience into two separately loaded discs, which jars the sense of immersion in the movie while taking the disc out, waiting for the other disc to load, etc.

Originally Posted by sookymonster

The HFR looked really strange to my eyes, like something that is over glossy. Took some time to get used too. It reminded me , as someone else mentioned,of a cut scene from a video game.

It was also way too long. I fell asleep.

Originally Posted by formula_nebula

Guess you never saw any of the LOTR films then

Being a big Tolkien fan, I'll admit the movies can get a little dry during the lengthy dialog scenes in an effort to tribute the books. Of the four so far, I'd say Two Towers was the most dry film IMO, but no big deal. In Hobbit 1 3D, the first scene with the Dwarves was a little lengthy, but I was glad they finally started the adventure. Great movie IMO.

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by formula_nebula

Guess you never saw any of the LOTR films then

Yes your right. How did you guess??

[mseeley]

I've had the chance over the past couple weeks to see the movie in HFR 3d again 2 viewings in a row and I absolutely love the 48 FPS versions now. The realism and clarity it brings to 3d is extraordinary( even my dad was super impressed and gave an out loud "wow" at the first shot of the city of men at the prologue"). I finally got used to 48 FPS during the second viewing and I'm dying to see the rest in the format now. So so awesome! And the 3d is still very good too if my memory serves me correct and the shots that still impressed me in HFR 3d still impressed me each time on subsequent viewings

The movie also still kicks major Orc a*** xD

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I can still enjoy 24 fps and 48 fps, so either way on blu ray 3D will be fine. I just hope they can fit the entire movie on one disc and not split the experience into two separately loaded discs, which jars the sense of immersion in the movie while taking the disc out, waiting for the other disc to load, etc.





Being a big Tolkien fan, I'll admit the movies can get a little dry during the lengthy dialog scenes in an effort to tribute the books. Of the four so far, I'd say Two Towers was the most dry film IMO, but no big deal. In Hobbit 1 3D, the first scene with the Dwarves was a little lengthy, but I was glad they finally started the adventure. Great movie IMO.

Two Towers was quite dry until it started raining at Helms Deep, and when the Ents broke the dam at Isengard. Then it got pretty wet.

I'm sorry, really i am

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by levcore

Two Towers was quite dry until it started raining at Helms Deep, and when the Ents broke the dam at Isengard. Then it got pretty wet.

I'm sorry, really i am

That is true, the war scenes were really good. I'll add that the choreography of the Hobbit's battle scenes was much easier to follow, maybe in part from the slow motion, but also just the smoothness of the fights and calmness of the camera, as opposed to shots where the camera zooms in too close or cuts too fast combined with half hazard choreography which sometimes happens with a war scene of this size.

Originally Posted by mseeley

I've had the chance over the past couple weeks to see the movie in HFR 3d again 2 viewings in a row and I absolutely love the 48 FPS versions now. The realism and clarity it brings to 3d is extraordinary( even my dad was super impressed and gave an out loud "wow" at the first shot of the city of men at the prologue"). I finally got used to 48 FPS during the second viewing and I'm dying to see the rest in the format now. So so awesome! And the 3d is still very good too if my memory serves me correct and the shots that still impressed me in HFR 3d still impressed me each time on subsequent viewings

The movie also still kicks major Orc a*** xD

That's good your Dad enjoyed it also. The first time, in XD 3D HFR, the 3D was amazing and strong. The 2nd time, on a regular screen, it seemed more diminished. So only with a third viewing will I know for sure. But I do remember sitting up in the seat, which immediately seemed to improve the 3D if that's possible, and then the underground battle scene also had strong 3D for certain.

WIll have to wait for the Hobbit blu ray 3D, hopefully out by May 2013.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Got to see The Hobbit today at a Cinemark HFR RealD 3D showing. I had no physical issues with the HFR or 3D. I watch 3D content and/or play 3D PS3 games multiple times per week.

It took me about 20 minutes to get used to the look of 48fps. At first, it was a little distracting and gave the impression that the video was playing faster than it should. I also got the feeling that I was looking at actors on a stage and CGI video game cutscenes rather than movie characters and Middle-Earth. However, that feeling went away as I settled into the story and just enjoyed the adventure, and the benefits were well worth the initial awkwardness.

I really appreciated the clarity and solidity that 48fps added to the 3D. There is much less motion blur when objects move, and that helps them look more real. Like Rainhurt mentioned, strobing was much improved. Many scenes seemed to be designed to take advantage of 48fps--the plate-tossing dishwashing scene being an obvious example to impress the viewer early on. I also liked the extra smoothness that HFR gave the fly-in camera shots.

After seeing The Hobbit though, I really hope James Cameron goes with 60fps for Avatar 2. 48fps is nice, but to get the full intended effect of life-like motion, HFR needs to be pushed more. Hopefully, on-set data storage and transfer for the filmmakers, as well as home theater discs will be able to better accommodate HFR over the next couple of years.

Nice review Orange.

As to your observation that “it was a little distracting and gave the impression that the video was playing faster than it should” I believe the discrepancy among reviewers as to some seeing The Hobbit as “sped up” (such as when characters walk fast or run) and other reviewers here on Blu-ray.com seeing normal motion during their respective Hobbit HFR viewings is firstly, due to the theatrical projector systems utilized in the various venues at which they saw their Hobbit HFR exhibitions.

People in my immediate family and visiting relatives for the Holidays have now viewed The Hobbit HFR at two different venues. The first was digital ‘IMAX’, e.g. dual projectors with static polarizers. The motion described by all observers was completely natural from the get-go with no evidence of *speed up*.

The second local viewing was at a Multiplex which employed a single lens double flash projector (Barco DLP), and from the very beginning observers noticed that the motion appeared sped up…then things settled down, and later on in the movie a few motions appeared to play faster than they should.

So, how well each type of projector system deals with The Hobbit seems to be a determining factor in the observation as to whether or not things appear ‘sped up’ or not, to theater patrons. The only question in my mind at this point is whether in this case 48fps proper or post processed 48fps at 270 degree shutter ( see the P.S. here ….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...on#post6894679

is a contributing factor to some projector systems performing better than others.

P.S.
For your eyes (and probably interest) only…
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ution-for-2013

[Zivouhr]

So can anyone imagine blu ray 3D discs having a 2 hour 54 minute movie with a constant 48 frames per second by the first release in 2013, as in the HFR Hobbit 3D theatrical presentation?

Chances are we are only going to get the 24 fps as already noted, which I won't mind.

I'm guessing it'll be sadly split up onto two discs though for the 3D version.

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I'm guessing it'll be sadly split up onto two discs though for the 3D version.

Not necesarily, Avatar has about the same runtime and has the entire feature on one disc. If the extended version eventually does get a 3D release, It'll likely be split up.

[brian9229]

I personally would prefer the 3d version to be on 2 discs while maintaining A/V quality. Cramming the whole movie in 3d, plus the audio, on to one disc would most likely mean a severe cut in A/V quality.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

So can anyone imagine blu ray 3D discs having a 2 hour 54 minute movie with a constant 48 frames per second by the first release in 2013, as in the HFR Hobbit 3D theatrical presentation?

Chances are we are only going to get the 24 fps as already noted, which I won't mind.

I'm guessing it'll be sadly split up onto two discs though for the 3D version.

I wold think its totally possible and I'm dying to know if the HFR version Weill be included. After all, aren't sporting events in 3d recorded at 60 FPS?

[Mikeatron85]

I didn't think they could do 48fps on Blu-ray 3D? I thought the additional frames that Blu-ray 3D allows were taken up with the sequential left and right eye images?

I'm sure I remember reading on here that they have 2 options they could use for presenting The Hobbit in 48fps on a home video format:

a) 48fps 2D in full 1080p HD

or

b) 48fps 3D in half side-by-side (or over-under) format (resulting in a lower resolution picture - though having said that, if the user has a passive 3D setup, it shouldn't be any different to any other 3D content they are viewing in terms of resolution)

Personally, I hope they go with both - as I can't imagine watching this any other way after having seen the 48fps presentation.

EDIT:

Just checked out the official Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D specs. Those frame rates are allowed provided that they are in 720p:

Frame rates/sizes

The Blu-ray 3D specification defines a more limited number of frame size and frame rate combinations than standard Blu-ray. The allowable frame size/rates for BD3D are as follows:

* 1920×1080 @ 23.976 fps progressive
* 1280×720 @ 59.94 fps progressive
* 1280×720 @ 50 fps progressive

[kenny3001]

Originally Posted by Mikeatron85

I didn't think they could do 48fps on Blu-ray 3D? I thought the additional frames that Blu-ray 3D allows were taken up with the sequential left and right eye images?

I'm sure I remember reading on here that they have 2 options they could use for presenting The Hobbit in 48fps on a home video format:

a) 48fps 2D in full 1080p HD

or

b) 48fps 3D in half side-by-side (or over-under) format (resulting in a lower resolution picture - though having said that, if the user has a passive 3D setup, it shouldn't be any different to any other 3D content they are viewing in terms of resolution)

Personally, I hope they go with both - as I can't imagine watching this any other way after having seen the 48fps presentation.

EDIT:

Just checked out the official Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D specs. Those frame rates are allowed provided that they are in 720p:

then 24ps only then

[Jsmith82]

We saw The Hobbit this weekend at Ronnie's 20 in Saint Louis MO, HFR 48fps 3D.

Holy ****.

It was amazing! I loved every second of the film, half the people I know said there was too much walking and blah blah blah but I was never bored with a cut scene nor did I see more than a couple walk scenes between action or more dialog. A fan of the books, I think Jackson did a great job - a round of applause, well done

Now comes the down time and wait for the second to come out...............

As for the reviews that the film felt "fake", or too real - that it was so clear you felt on set rather than watching the movie, or that the 3D and 48fps took away from the story because you were in too much awe over the effects and surroundings. In my opinion these people are 100% wrong, and I hope to see more film makers follow in Jackson's footsteps. It was beautiful to see that crystal clear picture, and no blur whatsoever - like watching the largest LED super refresh screen ever. Not only did the cleanliness and depth of the 48fps dual reds hold my ADD driven brain to full attention, I can not remember the last time I was so immersed in a film. I didn't pee, I didn't eat popcorn. I took 1 sip off of my 5 dollar bottle of water and that was that, I was all in.

The first time in a long time I feel that my 27 dollars (admission for my wife and I) was justified and returned on screen.

PS - true story, call me snobby (my friends did lol), but we brought our lightweight passive LG Cinema glasses from home and boy did that make the experience more comfortable. Those RealD Buddy Holly glasses the theater's hand out don't sit well on my nose and I've always found them very uncomfortable. The LG's worked fine, and ahhhhh - so comfy. Anyone else ever do this?

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Scorpion Soldier

Not necesarily, Avatar has about the same runtime and has the entire feature on one disc. If the extended version eventually does get a 3D release, It'll likely be split up.

Good point. I own Avatar 3D and forgot it was well over 2 hours, yet looks awesome for HD and 3D on one disc.

Originally Posted by mseeley

I wold think its totally possible and I'm dying to know if the HFR version Weill be included. After all, aren't sporting events in 3d recorded at 60 FPS?

Originally Posted by brian9229

I personally would prefer the 3d version to be on 2 discs while maintaining A/V quality. Cramming the whole movie in 3d, plus the audio, on to one disc would most likely mean a severe cut in A/V quality.

I think this is certain for any possible extended version, or HFR 3D. We'll see what happens with the theatrical one.

Originally Posted by Mikeatron85

b) 48fps 3D in half side-by-side (or over-under) format (resulting in a lower resolution picture - though having said that, if the user has a passive 3D setup, it shouldn't be any different to any other 3D content they are viewing in terms of resolution)

Just checked out the official Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D specs. Those frame rates are allowed provided that they are in 720p:

For side by side, even on a passive 3DTV, the side by side resolution would be reduced by half probably, since each side of the screen contains a different image, even though it still looks good combined. Top to Bottom has no reduction I've heard.
Normally, MVC encoded 3D looks great on a passive 3DTV, the only limitation being the ever slight aliasing caused by the 3D passive glasses crystals when looking at any TV set, 2D or 3D, which tends to highlight pixels better, when up close.

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

We saw The Hobbit this weekend at Ronnie's 20 in Saint Louis MO, HFR 48fps 3D.

Holy ****.

It was amazing!

Those RealD Buddy Holly glasses the theater's hand out don't sit well on my nose and I've always found them very uncomfortable. The LG's worked fine, and ahhhhh - so comfy. Anyone else ever do this?

Glad you enjoyed the 3D HFR. It looked great, agreed. Great movie, also.

The real D ones leave a non-painful imprint on the bridge of the nose, but nothing that would create a headache thankfully. I have yet to try the pair that were included with my passive 3DTV set. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Rainhurt]

Hopefully they release two 3D Blu-Rays. The regular 24fps 3D one and a delux 3D Blu-Ray with 3D 1080p 24fps and 3D 720p 48fps.

[Mikeatron85]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

For side by side, even on a passive 3DTV, the side by side resolution would be reduced by half probably, since each side of the screen contains a different image, even though it still looks good combined. Top to Bottom has no reduction I've heard.
Normally, MVC encoded 3D looks great on a passive 3DTV, the only limitation being the ever slight aliasing caused by the 3D passive glasses crystals when looking at any TV set, 2D or 3D, which tends to highlight pixels better, when up close.

Sorry - what I meant is that, since passive 3D sets use half of the 1080p screen resolution for one eye and the other half for the other eye, you'd be seeing it in half 1080p anyway, regardless of how it was encoded. So for the Blu-ray to come encoded in either side-by-side or over-under format, you technically shouldn't be missing anything in terms of 3D picture resolution. Only ones missing out would be those who use active 3D sets. I have heard that the over-under format yields better results on passive 3D sets though - guess that has to do with how it re-shapes the picture to fit your screen.


I've got active 3D and passive 3D displays in my home. And though there is a noticeable drop in quality when you're viewing a 1080p video containing side-by-side/over-under picture information, I'd much prefer have the option of a 720p 48fps encode than 1080p 24fps only. Agreed with Rainhurt - they should definitely offer both options

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Nice review Orange.

As to your observation that “it was a little distracting and gave the impression that the video was playing faster than it should” I believe the discrepancy among reviewers as to some seeing The Hobbit as “sped up” (such as when characters walk fast or run) and other reviewers here on Blu-ray.com seeing normal motion during their respective Hobbit HFR viewings is firstly, due to the theatrical projector systems utilized in the various venues at which they saw their Hobbit HFR exhibitions.

People in my immediate family and visiting relatives for the Holidays have now viewed The Hobbit HFR at two different venues. The first was digital ‘IMAX’, e.g. dual projectors with static polarizers. The motion described by all observers was completely natural from the get-go with no evidence of *speed up*.

The second local viewing was at a Multiplex which employed a single lens double flash projector (Barco DLP), and from the very beginning observers noticed that the motion appeared sped up…then things settled down, and later on in the movie a few motions appeared to play faster than they should.

So, how well each type of projector system deals with The Hobbit seems to be a determining factor in the observation as to whether or not things appear ‘sped up’ or not, to theater patrons. The only question in my mind at this point is whether in this case 48fps proper or post processed 48fps at 270 degree shutter ( see the P.S. here ….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...on#post6894679

is a contributing factor to some projector systems performing better than others.

Thanks, Penton. I had almost the same experience as your family at their second viewing. It seemed like Bilbo was moving abnormally fast very early on in the Shire. Then things settled down and looked more normal for the rest of the movie. My mom noticed it as well. That "sped up" motion could certainly be a result of the projector's capability. I might go to a Digital IMAX showing next weekend to compare.

P.S.
For your eyes (and probably interest) only…
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ution-for-2013

Nice to see some interest in the Vols! Are you a UT fan or just of football in general?

I'm glad to have the new coaching staff. From a fan's perspective, those resolutions are dead on. The "Cincinnati-Like Defensive Turnaround" is especially needed.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

...Nice to see some interest in the Vols! Are you a UT fan or just of football in general?

I'm glad to have the new coaching staff. From a fan's perspective, those resolutions are dead on. The "Cincinnati-Like Defensive Turnaround" is especially needed.

I’m an avid football fan in general and, in addition, one of my nephews attends The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Going back, I reread your Hobbit review and forgot to comment on something else you noted of significance, one moment please. It has to do with Jim Cameron’s upcoming Avatar II.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

...After seeing The Hobbit though, I really hope James Cameron goes with 60fps for Avatar 2. 48fps is nice, but to get the full intended effect of life-like motion, HFR needs to be pushed more....

I agree, but honestly, if you scan many of the comments from all over the web, I think it’s fair to say that The Hobbit, rightly or wrongly, is generating *mixed* reviews, as a whole....actually quite polarizing in fact.

Given that, and especially for the reason described in the following link (i.e. post processing work), the acquisition and exhibition at 60 fps for Avatar II will take steel cajones on the part of Jim C. I hope he's still up to the challenge. -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...es#post6862836

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I agree, but honestly, if you scan many of the comments from all over the web, I think it’s fair to say that The Hobbit, rightly or wrongly, is generating *mixed* reviews, as a whole....actually quite polarizing in fact.

Given that, and especially for the reason described in the following link (i.e. post processing work), the acquisition and exhibition at 60 fps for Avatar II will take steel cajones on the part of Jim C. I hope he's still up to the challenge. -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...es#post6862836

I hope so too. Cameron has earned the right to do whatever he wants creatively. If anyone could get it done, it would be him. It may be that he is able to use HFR better than Jackson and make it an essential component of Avatar 2's story-telling in the same way that 3D is essential to the first one.

Also hoping for an HFR X-Men: Days of Future Past from Bryan Singer.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m an avid football fan in general and, in addition, one of my nephews attends The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Very cool.