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

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by Rainhurt

Ten years ago when I became interested in movie making I noticed it in 2D, before I didn't really notice. Most movies have slow camera movements to compensate for the strobing and warm projection so you don't notice. In 3D 24p strobing is something I have found intolerable so far and just been putting up with because I like 3D. Strobing sticks out like a sore thumb in 3D. With HFR a filmmaker can speed up the camera movements and project as vivid as they want.

Yes, with sufficiently HFR you can avoid strobing, but I think that 48 fps isn't high enough, at least not on an IMAX screen seated relatively close (the jitteriness of the image when things were moving quickly was very obvious, my girlfriend noticed it too). Maybe seated closer to the back, or on a smaller screen, it wouldn't be noticeable though (or at least not unless you were specifically looking for it).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

The book wikipedia got that claim from is not a medical/scientific one, and so I have my doubts that it's really accurate...

Quite so . The general consensus now in the scientific community is that humans don’t have to be ‘in panic mode’ in order “to see” at the equivalent of 60+ fps….and that’s *bell-shaped curve* humans.

Not to mention the fact that science is always improving/evolving in regards to measuring devices as well as conclusions attributed to them….

“They found, surprisingly, that 3-D motion processing occurs in an area in the brain—located just behind the left and right ears—long thought to only be responsible for processing two-dimensional motion (up, down, left and right)”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-bcf072009.php

“How we perceive motion is a significantly more complex process than previously thought”
http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-public...ve-motion.html

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Rainhurt

...With HFR a filmmaker can speed up the camera movements and project as vivid as they want.

By ‘vivid’, I assume you mean ‘bright’, and that is good and arguably necessary for today's stereoscopic exhibition but, keeping in mind, it does come at a tradeoff, i.e. flicker….

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ff#post6879108

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

The book wikipedia got that claim from is not a medical/scientific one, and so I have my doubts that it's really accurate in general that "the vision centre in the brain retains each individual image for one-fifteenth of a second.

I thought the 3D was OK but not too memorable compared to the best 3D movies like Avatar or Hugo--but again, I was sitting closer to the screen than was probably ideal, maybe I'll like it better if I see it again at a further distance (or on blu ray).

Yeah, 12 frames per second image processing for humans seems like a very low number according to Wikipedia's page. I would have thought closer to 48 frames per second like the movie was, since that's closer to how we tend to see real motion compared to standard cinema's 24.

Originally Posted by Lovemy3D

I saw this today. Wow, what an interesting experience.

I really loved the intense realism combined with the 3D, wow.
As far a s the 3D goes. As always I was sitting just high enough to be level with the screen. The 3D wasn't super strong, but certainly strong enough to make it a wonderful experience. I went with a friend who has sensitive eyes. he said that with the HFR he didn't have trouble with eye strain at all. And I certainly didn't have any kind of troubles with it either.

Yes, the 3D was great. I'm sure they could have pushed it a little more, but really well done. I definitely think the theater screen size, projector, contrast and seating position and posture can all make a difference in the 3D quality as I found out watching it a second time.

[Rainhurt]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

By ‘vivid’, I assume you mean ‘bright’, and that is good and arguably necessary for today's stereoscopic exhibition but, keeping in mind, it does come at a tradeoff, i.e. flicker….

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ff#post6879108

Yes bright. 60p is efficient enough to reduce flicker/strobing to optimal levels at home and in cinemas.

[Paul H]

Interesting spin:
Dolby Atmos, 3D, ETX, not HFR, rescue Hobbit

As for the High Film Rate, as opposed to the oft-repeated reports of viewers getting nauseous due to the heightened image clarity (didn’t we hear the same thing initially about HiDef and 3D?), there was inexplicably no discernible difference in definition between the HFR projection at the Ontario Mills or Century City theaters compared with a standard 2D version in the auditorium next door. What was noticeable in the HFR projection, however, was a heightened awareness of the digital technology and the lack of a sense of traditional cinematic visual texture. The result is an image that resembles something you might expect to see from a home video camcorder shot by someone visiting the studio set. It’s not clear whether this is something inherent to HFR (if so, it will be even more prominent if James Cameron proceeds with plans to consider shooting “Avatar 2” and “3” at 60 fps, as reported) or if this was a creative choice by Jackson to make the film feel more like a documentary (unlikely, since the non-HFR version feels more like a traditional cinematic experience)

.

Paul

[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.

[Lovemy3D]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

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.

That's exactly what I was thinking as I was watching it. Reminded me of video game animation.

Strange how it can look like that, and yet at the same time look extra real. More real and less real at the same time, it's just weird. That would be interesting to see how 60fps looks.

[Zivouhr]

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.
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.

60fps, they hopefully can upgrade with a firmware update to their existing equipment by 2015. I wonder if the new Star Wars VII will be in HFR also in addition to classic 24 fps 3D?

Glad you liked Hobbit's 48 fps 3D. Did you feel the 3D was strong, really good, average or weak for the most part?

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

60fps, they hopefully can upgrade with a firmware update to their existing equipment by 2015. I wonder if the new Star Wars VII will be in HFR also in addition to classic 24 fps 3D?

Glad you liked Hobbit's 48 fps 3D. Did you feel the 3D was strong, really good, average or weak for the most part?

Yeah, it would be nice to see more filmmakers experiment with HFR, especially those with big budgets and those who want to use it creatively with scenes designed for fast motion. Most set and costume designers and CGI artists will have to amp up the level of detail in their work as 48fps seems pretty unforgiving at exposing little blemishes or omissions.

I liked The Hobbit's 3D very much. Depth strength seemed mostly strong. Around 85% of the shots looked appropriately round from my mid-backrow viewing distance (~40ft away maybe), and nothing was ever offensively flat. The 3D style was more natural and subtle, rather than aggressive and engaging. I'd compare it to Prometheus although Peter Jackson was little more creative with the 3D. My favorite 3D moments were

[Show spoiler]the rain in negative parallax, a few intimate close-ups of faces and small objects, the vertigo during the battle of the rock giants, the fly-in views of the underground orc bridges, and flying with the eagles at the end

.

Movie - 4/5
Depth - 4.5/5
Pop-out - 4/5
3D Creativity - 4/5

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Most set and costume designers and CGI artists will have to amp up the level of detail in their work as 48fps seems pretty unforgiving at exposing little blemishes or omissions.

I liked The Hobbit's 3D very much. Depth strength seemed mostly strong.

I'd compare it to Prometheus although Peter Jackson was little more creative with the 3D. My favorite 3D moments were

[Show spoiler]the rain in negative parallax, a few intimate close-ups of faces and small objects, the vertigo during the battle of the rock giants, the fly-in views of the underground orc bridges, and flying with the eagles at the end

.

Movie - 4/5
Depth - 4.5/5
Pop-out - 4/5
3D Creativity - 4/5

Cool. Yes, the 3D was great and I can imagine this one will help sell some 3DTVs when it's on home video 3D hopefully by Summer 2013. I agree that HFR also enhances the small details.

I'll also add to the best 3D scenes you mentioned, the

[Show spoiler]underground Goblin Battle. The 3D layers really stood out without mistake.

[dazkyl]

I was one of the first to watch this movie in 3d 48fps when it arrived in malta ... watched it in the best cinema room we got in malta full thx.... i must say its extraordinary ! 48fps brings every to life !

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by dazkyl

I was one of the first to watch this movie in 3d 48fps when it arrived in malta ... watched it in the best cinema room we got in malta full thx.... i must say its extraordinary ! 48fps brings every to life !

Nice. Glad you were able to see it in 48 FPS 3D. Anticipating the high frame rate made the transition last about two minutes, then I was thinking "48 frames per second does look a lot smoother and more fluid, more life like motion".

I wonder how many other filmmakers will be able to afford 48 and 60 fps cinema?

[Mikeatron85]

Saw it a couple of days ago and loved it. Agree with the previous comments that at the same time, it's capable of making the film seem more real, yet more fake.

I think HFR is the god-send that CGI has been waiting for. I've always been of the opinion that CGI feels too smooth when compared to live action (though both are obviously shown in the same FPS in each movie). However, the CGI feels more at home in HFR, and when the live action stuff is being shown at that frame rate - they seem to match a lot better. Don't know how else to explain that, but hopefully some of you will get what I mean

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Mikeatron85

the CGI feels more at home in HFR, and when the live action stuff is being shown at that frame rate - they seem to match a lot better. -----

Very good point.

[DViper2399]

I read through most posts & didn't see it mentioned, Anyone know if the 3D bluray will be released in the 48fps HFR, & if so do the current TV's & players support it natively or is it just the usual forced option from within the tv's menus?

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by DViper2399

Anyone know if the 3D bluray will be released in the 48fps HFR, & if so do the current TV's & players support it natively or is it just the usual forced option from within the tv's menus?

It was said on an earlier post that 48HFR does not give the opportunity for home theater Blu-ray enthusiasts to view The Hobbit in 3D @ 48fps.
Link

[DViper2399]

Originally Posted by Paul H

It was said on an earlier post that 48HFR does not give the opportunity for home theater Blu-ray enthusiasts to view The Hobbit in 3D @ 48fps.
Link

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.

[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.

[formula_nebula]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

It was also way too long. I fell asleep.

Guess you never saw any of the LOTR films then