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

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Livelong420

It's not like Tolkein translates that well into film. It's so so so dry.

The Hobbit is going to look fantastic on a 4K set, not to mention in theaters!

I kind of feel that way about The Two Towers, the book and the movie, as good as they are. Gollum really helps the Two Towers remain interesting, along with the other great performances, though the story is less of an adventure and more of a film to save the humans in Helm's Deep, with a last stand effort. Return of the King and Fellowship have more variety and tempo it seems, for the books also.

Disappointed the extended Fellowship didn't include Frodo in the Barrow Downs, with the evil Wight capturing him. That was a great scene in the book.


HOBBIT 3D: Less than 20 days away. December 14, 2012.

Filming in 3D, and possibly converted shots? In the first trilogy, they would often use Forced Perspective to create the illusion of a tiny hobbit standing or sitting next to a giant human. They'd also use the very effective blue screen shots, where one guy would be in the scene, then wait for the other hobbit sized guy to enter it in a retake, then combine the two. Plus the use of tiny humans with masks for far shots.

With that in mind, if they used forced perspective in Hobbit 3D, those shots would have to be filmed in 2D and then converted, since being filmed in 3D would have revealed the depth, resulting in the 2D technique's 3D flaw.

A lot of commercial previews on TV now for Hobbit 1 3D.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I kind of feel that way about The Two Towers, the book and the movie, as good as they are. Gollum really helps the Two Towers remain interesting, along with the other great performances, though the story is less of an adventure and more of a film to save the humans in Helm's Deep, with a last stand effort. Return of the King and Fellowship have more variety and tempo it seems, for the books also.

Disappointed the extended Fellowship didn't include Frodo in the Barrow Downs, with the evil Wight capturing him. That was a great scene in the book.


HOBBIT 3D: Less than 20 days away. December 14, 2012.

Filming in 3D, and possibly converted shots? In the first trilogy, they would often use Forced Perspective to create the illusion of a tiny hobbit standing or sitting next to a giant human. They'd also use the very effective blue screen shots, where one guy would be in the scene, then wait for the other hobbit sized guy to enter it in a retake, then combine the two. Plus the use of tiny humans with masks for far shots.

With that in mind, if they used forced perspective in Hobbit 3D, those shots would have to be filmed in 2D and then converted, since being filmed in 3D would have revealed the depth, resulting in the 2D technique's 3D flaw.

A lot of commercial previews on TV now for Hobbit 1 3D.

Well,I don't think the converted shot will stand out in a negative way.... hat's CGI is a conversion anyway,so.

Yes,the Hobbit ads are now coming thick and fast.... what's interesting is that it's mainly being advertised with HFR,3D and IMAX,the 2d is only a scrawny little option at the end. GOOD!!

[sookymonster]

Intersting news-

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20171...but-nears.html

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

Intersting news-

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20171...but-nears.html

With respect, that’s ^ rather old news, like this guy (well, other than the luncheon today?, I guees)…http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comment...tion_he_looks/

A bit fresher news is the fact that some theaters already are 3D HFR capable but, the distributor won’t allow them to exhibit it in that format.

Just plain sad for open-minded 3D theater-goers. For if you truly want a fair evaluation of a product (e.g. HFR), you don’t purposely restrict the distribution like that because, for one thing, it lowers the sample size making the feedback/data even less statistically significant.

P.S.
Some theaters are reporting problems with implementing the HFR upgrade but hopefully, these will get ironed out by the time the film releases at the theaters allowed to distribute that version.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Will21st

Well,I don't think the converted shot will stand out in a negative way.... hat's CGI is a conversion anyway,so.

Yes,the Hobbit ads are now coming thick and fast.... what's interesting is that it's mainly being advertised with HFR,3D and IMAX,the 2d is only a scrawny little option at the end. GOOD!!

Agreed. With Titanic's 3D conversion as a great example of what can be done to create strong 3D, I bet they won't have a problem for any shot that needs to be converted for whatever reason, if necessary.
Yeah, that's nice they're really highlighting the 3D as an advantage over flat 2D, as good as 2D is.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

A bit fresher news is the fact that some theaters already are 3D HFR capable but, the distributor won’t allow them to exhibit it in that format.

Just plain sad for open-minded 3D theater-goers. For if you truly want a fair evaluation of a product (e.g. HFR), you don’t purposely restrict the distribution like that because, for one thing, it lowers the sample size making the feedback/data even less statistically significant.

P.S.
Some theaters are reporting problems with implementing the HFR upgrade but hopefully, these will get ironed out by the time the film releases at the theaters allowed to distribute that version.

I saw Cinemark advertising the 48 FPS HFR (frames per second high frame rate) in their Hobbit 3D ads.

I do prefer the more stylized 24 fps over a soap opera's HFR, but can understand why they would want to try something new, to reduce the panning flickering that can occur with 24 fps, 48 fps being closer to real human vision processing. I'll keep an open mind for 48 fps.


I'm interested to see if Frodo will be a cameo, or maybe play a bigger role later on somehow? For the 3rd movie, I'd like to see the story of Moria in its prime, before it was overrun by the orcs (in the appendices of ROTK).

[Penton-Man]

I would like some specific feedback as to viewer experience with the 3D HFR version of The Hobbit. My apologies if you also read this on another thread as I’m going to post it in a couple other places on Blu-ray.com for as much feedback as possible.

First some background…

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...In the meantime, elaborating a bit more on my post near the bottom of the last page, those attendees questioned at the world premiere certainly do not represent statistically significant sampling and I would have liked to know exactly where in the theater the naysayers were sitting, as well as to whether this was the first 3D motion picture they’d ever seen because maybe they fit into that small minority of folks who get *sick* viewing any stereographic content on a 2D screen, BUT

the thing I find a little disconcerting about that news item is that if you’ve been following the HFR developments since the very beginning, Jim Cameron touted as one of the primary reasons (if not thee primary reason) why HFR would be so advantageous was that he claimed LESS people would get headaches or eye strain, feel nauseous, etc. than with the traditional frame rate. In turn, this would draw larger audiences into 3D screenings and help grow the format.

After that initial pronouncement, i.e. less people would get *sick* with HFR 3D as compared to 24fps 3D, then other more esoteric cinematographic advantages were touted by both Jim C. and P.J…. looks more real and life-like etc...

( from…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...es#post6830520)

To be candid, in contrast to the filmmakers of note, and in all honesty I hope I’m wrong but I’m in the camp that actually believes, if anything, prolonged viewing of 3D HFR could (depending upon the panoramic/close-up ratio of shots and how they’re strung together) could cause more people rather than less people to experience minor temporary side effects (eye strain, headache, nausea) while viewing the 3D movie at 48fps rather than at the traditional frame rate because the higher frame rate definitely induces viewers’ eyes to sweep faster in the close-ups in order to process all the details on the screen, which in turn , may lead to a greater propensity toward eye strain, headache and nausea in predisposed individuals.

Why do I feel interested/qualified in making that prediction, one might ask? Well, I read and professionally review topics akin to this, routinely -
http://www.vectorvision.com/html/edu...DRSAcuity.html < for example, at the end of the ETDRS Background paragraph where it says “Other inadequacies also exist in the Snellen Acuity test. These include the types of letters used on the test and the spacing of the letters. These details are beyond the scope of this website”

^ Well it’s not beyond this website, i.e. Blu-ray.com
In a nutshell, the major advantages of logMAR charts are the regular geometric progression of letter size and spacing (following a logarithmic scale in steps of 0.1 log units), the equal number of letters in each row (five), and the comparable legibility of the five Sloan optotypes used.

So, anyway, back to The Hobbit, for those who do view the 3D HFR version (which is the format of choice by the filmmaker, and was how it was shot, edited and color corrected), please be so kind as to either PM me or post on this thread, if -

1. You experienced any side effects….list type of symptoms please.

And if you did…

2. Approximately where in the theater was your seating location?

3. Was this your first 3D commercial theatrical viewing experience, and if not, had you ever experienced such side effects before with other 3D movies?

4. In case you happen to know offhand, what brand projector(s) were used by the theater operator for the exhibition? (it’s too involved to explain now but, it has to do with possible temporal artifacting given differences in flash rate between different brands and to rule out that as a contributing factor to the symptoms)

Thanks

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

To be candid, in contrast to the filmmakers of note, and in all honesty I hope I’m wrong but I’m in the camp that actually believes, if anything, prolonged viewing of 3D HFR could (depending upon the panoramic/close-up ratio of shots and how they’re strung together) could cause more people rather than less people to experience minor temporary side effects (eye strain, headache, nausea) while viewing the 3D movie at 48fps rather than at the traditional frame rate because the higher frame rate definitely induces viewers’ eyes to sweep faster in the close-ups in order to process all the details on the screen, which in turn , may lead to a greater propensity toward eye strain, headache and nausea in predisposed individuals.

So, anyway, back to The Hobbit, for those who do view the 3D HFR version (which is the format of choice by the filmmaker, and was how it was shot, edited and color corrected), please be so kind as to either PM me or post on this thread, if -

1. You experienced any side effects….list type of symptoms please.
2. Approximately where in the theater was your seating location?
3. Was this your first 3D commercial theatrical viewing experience, and if not, had you ever experienced such side effects before with other 3D movies?

Penton-Man,

Interesting prediction. I'd be interested too in hearing how those who don't often watch 3D will take to the 48 fps and 3D combo. I think if we hear from those who stay away from 3D most times, we'll get plenty of "I got a headache" complaints, so it'll be tough to know if it's due to untapped eye muscle soreness, or because of the smoother, faster frame rate.

I'll post here about it provided everything at Cinemark goes to plan with the 48 fps 3D.

No big deal, but I haven't gotten a 3D headache watching 3D movies about twice a week for the past 2 years, so I'm doubting it can actually ever happen again, unless a movie had serious convergence issues that force the eyes to try to blend two very far apart double images, or a lazy camera that twirls while the other one remains anchored (which won't happen with The Hobbit's pro 3D team).

[BleedOrange11]

The bigger problem might be HFR + 3D inducing motion sickness in sensitive viewers. Motion sickness can occur when your eyes receive stimuli that you are moving, but the hair cells in your inner ears do not. (Or it can be the other way around where you feel like you are moving, but it doesn't look like it--the kind you get with air-sickness, car-sickness, or sea-sickness.)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Penton-Man,

Interesting prediction. I'd be interested too in hearing how those who don't often watch 3D will take to the 48 fps and 3D combo. I think if we hear from those who stay away from 3D most times, we'll get plenty of "I got a headache" complaints, so it'll be tough to know if it's due to untapped eye muscle soreness, or because of the smoother, faster frame rate.

I'll post here about it provided everything at Cinemark goes to plan with the 48 fps 3D.

No big deal, but I haven't gotten a 3D headache watching 3D movies about twice a week for the past 2 years, so I'm doubting it can actually ever happen again, unless a movie had serious convergence issues that force the eyes to try to blend two very far apart double images, or a lazy camera that twirls while the other one remains anchored (which won't happen with The Hobbit's pro 3D team).

Well, I’m assuming that during principal photography and post production, P.J. complied with the basic known tenants as to what constitutes *good 3D* in comparison to *really bad 3D* (i.e. side effect inducing)for The Hobbit.

Anyway, if I can procure some reliable data as to the estimated % of the population who experienced minor side effects during their theatrical viewing of the 3D version of Avatar and I get an unbiased statistically significant sampling with The Hobbit, I will try to post the findings for public review.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

The bigger problem might be HFR + 3D inducing motion sickness in sensitive viewers. Motion sickness can occur when your eyes receive stimuli that you are moving, but the hair cells in your inner ears do not. (Or it can be the other way around where you feel like you are moving, but it doesn't look like it--the kind you get with air-sickness, car-sickness, or sea-sickness.)

Orange, you make a good point as that is the primary symptom with which my sister-in-law suffers from when she watches any stereographic content long enough on a 2D screen….she has been diagnosed with an inner ear malady.

As an aside, I see you’re not local (to me) but, for those in SoCal who may be interested…
http://la3dclub.com/ray-zone-memoria...ber-16th-2012/

Meanwhile, his spirit lives on for the readers out there…
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrar...icleid=1282677

and the watchers…
http://river-valley.tv/thinking-in-z...l-narrativity/

Sunny Bains, Susan Pinsky, and Ray Zone in 3D at SD&A 1992 - YouTube

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Orange, you make a good point as that is the primary symptom with which my sister-in-law suffers from when she watches any stereographic content long enough on a 2D screen….she has been diagnosed with an inner ear malady.

As an aside, I see you’re not local (to me) but, for those in SoCal who may be interested…
http://la3dclub.com/ray-zone-memoria...ber-16th-2012/

Meanwhile, his spirit lives on for the readers out there…
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrar...icleid=1282677

and the watchers…
http://river-valley.tv/thinking-in-z...l-narrativity/

Sunny Bains, Susan Pinsky, and Ray Zone in 3D at SD&A 1992 - YouTube

Thanks, Penton. Mr. Zone seems like he was an awesome guy. His "Thinking in z-space: flatness and spatial narrativity" presentation was fascinating. Just watched it during my lunch. Makes me even more excited to see The Great Gatsby.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Anyway, if I can procure some reliable data as to the estimated % of the population who experienced minor side effects during their theatrical viewing of the 3D version of Avatar and I get an unbiased statistically significant sampling with The Hobbit, I will try to post the findings for public review.

Thanks, I look forward to hearing the results.
With that said, would you agree that even with the high frame rate, most people with normal sight would be able to adapt to the HFR 3D after repeated viewings?

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks, I look forward to hearing the results.
With that said, would you agree that even with the high frame rate, most people with normal sight would be able to adapt to the HFR 3D after repeated viewings?

I know you're not asking me but afaik motion sickness with 3D is 5-10%,but it may be less.Anyway nowhere near a significant proportion of the population and nothing that would put the format in jeopardy.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks, I look forward to hearing the results.

In that regard, please everyone read the last paragraph (b.t.w.) here...
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...25#post6848325

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

With that said, would you agree that even with the high frame rate, most people with normal sight would be able to adapt to the HFR 3D after repeated viewings?

Most people with 'normal sight' won't have a *sick* issue to begin with.

In fact, most people, if they viewed enough HFR, 2D or 3D would adapt to it without a problem (and probably embrace it), if suddenly nothing in 24fps were shown.

Much of the aesthetic debate regarding HFR vs traditional frame rate, is because of prior *conditioning*.

I’m trying more to determine if the ‘therapeutic value added’ is a legitimate selling point of the HFR format…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...73#post6846573

[Jbug]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Most people with 'normal sight' won't have a *sick* issue to begin with.

In fact, most people, if they viewed enough HFR, 2D or 3D would adapt to it without a problem (and probably embrace it), if suddenly nothing in 24fps were shown.

Much of the aesthetic debate regarding HFR vs traditional frame rate, is because of prior *conditioning*.

I’m trying more to determine if the ‘therapeutic value added’ is a legitimate selling point of the HFR format…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...73#post6846573

That's how I feel. I don't anticipate any viewing problems at all.

[Zivouhr]

Sounds good.

A lot more Hobbit commercials on TV with only a week to go about. The latest preview on TV had a lot more new scenes in there I didn't see before.

In this one, they did a nice job making Gollum look a little younger.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Most people with 'normal sight' won't have a *sick* issue to begin with.

In fact, most people, if they viewed enough HFR, 2D or 3D would adapt to it without a problem (and probably embrace it), if suddenly nothing in 24fps were shown.

Much of the aesthetic debate regarding HFR vs traditional frame rate, is because of prior *conditioning*.

I’m trying more to determine if the ‘therapeutic value added’ is a legitimate selling point of the HFR format…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...73#post6846573

That is indeed all this is about..... people go on and on about how the format sucks when they only love the old cause they're used to it.I find that attitude lazy. Change is good and cinema is ever evolving,so get on board!

[eriaur]

Parts of 'The Hobbit' were shot at 96 frames per second | 3D News from 3D Focus

[5th-beatle]

Originally Posted by eriaur

Parts of 'The Hobbit' were shot at 96 frames per second | 3D News from 3D Focus

And now there is talk of 120 FPS!