I want to see it in HFR, But there is only one theatre in the state showing it in that format! and it's 4 hours from me, I may wait till i get to Florida next week to see it where there are more theatres showing it in HFR
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
I'm going to see it again in HFR tomorrow, so I'll see what my thoughts are after a second viewing
My TV has a mode that is pretty similar to HFR that i've been using for several years, So I don't really expect to have any complaints, I know it makes it look more like 'video' but so does my TV and I don't mind that at all.
Just wish somewhere near me was showing it. One of the drawbacks of living where I do now as compared to NYC where I used to live.
Yes, Samsung called it AMP on the older units, It takes some getting used to, but once you are used to it it is actually quite nice, I usually leave it off simply because my TV was an early model with it and has some issues with stuttering sometimes
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
My TV is 120Hz too and when watching content that benefits from it I really appreciate it.
It did take some getting used to, but now I love it.
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
So, I've just returned from seeing it again and I appreciated it just as much on the second viewing as the first.
Now I knew what to expect, I got used to the 48fps even more quickly than before. If all the adverts and trailers had been shown in 48fps too then I doubt it would even have been apparent.
Annoyingly, between the lights going down and the film starting took 30mins. During that time, we were shown precisely three trailers; two for Les Mis, and one for Despicable Me 2.....seriously?!
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
I saw the movie today. Good movie. Maybe a little dragging in a couple points - I wonder if maybe pushing it to three movies from two might have been a tad overreach.
As for HFR, the one thing I noticed: at times, the film looked to be strobing - I picked up a flicker of the 48Hz in my eye. It wasn't constant, but it definitely was there at times. I've not noticed this with standard 24Hz 3D (which incorporates a multi-frame overlap of more than 24Hz, generally at 72Hz by most projector systems). My guess is that the theater had to actually drop the projection framerate for the 48Hz because they were probably projecting at 72Hz for 24Hz films. Given that I can pick up flicker from anything under about 70Hz in my eyes (I used to have to run my CRTs at 80+Hz; those that could only hit 70Hz gave me headaches), this to me is a real impediment for current projection systems running HFR. Until they bump up the framerate of the projectors 120Hz (for Avatar 2's 60Hz planned rate, doubled), I suspect I'll be opting for the normal 3d over the HFR 3d. My theater uses Christie projectors; other brands may not experience what I saw.
As for the picture quality, though, HFR was above and beyond anything I've seen before. The limitations of HFR are from the theater projector systems, not the filmography.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I have seen it and it was good.
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
I didn't notice any flickering RC, maybe it is just the equipment. If I go and see it again I shall look for it though.
Another high quality and detailed review from Biggles :p
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Well, my eyes are very sensitive to flickering, more so than most people's.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
What more is there to say? :)
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
Oh i don't know, maybe something like why you liked it? What you thought of the cinematography? :p
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
He has a hard time watching movies with no face and all.
"[B]I have seen it and it was good.[/B]" - Biggles
"And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' And it was so. God called the dry ground 'land,' and the gathered waters he called 'seas.' [B]And God saw that it was good[/B]."
I see what you did there. Very profound indeed. ;-) (Smileys are offline again...)
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
I finally got around to seeing it, Wanted to do HFR, But the theatre locally wasn't doing it, and I didnt want to waste a day of my vacation driving 2+ hours to see it. So we just did regular 3d, I really liked it, It did feel like it was dragging in places, I think 2 movies would have been enough rather than trying to drag it out into 3. But all in all it was a very good film.
I saw the HFR version today. The difference was easy to see and it did take some getting used to. A few places the high frame rate was quite jarring, kinda like someone was fast forwarding through the video because the movement felt unnatural. But most of the time it was fine and the picture was so much clearer.
I'll definitely go and see the other two parts in 48fps if I can.
This is the third time I've seen the film and the pacing doesn't bother me, feels just right. Curious to see what the Extended Edition will add.
So finaly saw, but never read the book. I wish I had watched this before LotR, it would have made LotR so much cooler imo. :)
So it was 3d HFR version I saw. The higher frame rate didn't bother me after 20 - 30 minutes in. It doesn't have the same feel as the normal fps, but I think HFR still made it better at some places. 3D still annoys me, not the 3d effect but the bloody glasses. I want 2D HFR ;)
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
Yeah I think the glasses are the biggest problem. If they could make them less bulky, more designer-like (i.e. thin frames, light weight etc) then that would go a long way to making it more comfortable. Ok it would cost more, but given that you get to keep the glasses anyway it's a cost I would pay
James Cameron had a pair of polarized contact lenses made up for when they were making Avatar. That'd be fun, except there are different types of 3D screens (the Hobbit was the first 3D film I saw with horizontal/vertical polarization, rather than radial, so if you tilted your head the left and right images blurred into each other).
One of the problems with the glasses I had was that the lenses were not big enough. There were bits of the frames that covered some of the screen edges when looking directly at the screen. Not that it took anything away from the movie but it did distract me now and then, which isn't a good thing.
Comments
Just wish somewhere near me was showing it. One of the drawbacks of living where I do now as compared to NYC where I used to live.
Now I knew what to expect, I got used to the 48fps even more quickly than before. If all the adverts and trailers had been shown in 48fps too then I doubt it would even have been apparent.
Annoyingly, between the lights going down and the film starting took 30mins. During that time, we were shown precisely three trailers; two for Les Mis, and one for Despicable Me 2.....seriously?!
As for HFR, the one thing I noticed: at times, the film looked to be strobing - I picked up a flicker of the 48Hz in my eye. It wasn't constant, but it definitely was there at times. I've not noticed this with standard 24Hz 3D (which incorporates a multi-frame overlap of more than 24Hz, generally at 72Hz by most projector systems). My guess is that the theater had to actually drop the projection framerate for the 48Hz because they were probably projecting at 72Hz for 24Hz films. Given that I can pick up flicker from anything under about 70Hz in my eyes (I used to have to run my CRTs at 80+Hz; those that could only hit 70Hz gave me headaches), this to me is a real impediment for current projection systems running HFR. Until they bump up the framerate of the projectors 120Hz (for Avatar 2's 60Hz planned rate, doubled), I suspect I'll be opting for the normal 3d over the HFR 3d. My theater uses Christie projectors; other brands may not experience what I saw.
As for the picture quality, though, HFR was above and beyond anything I've seen before. The limitations of HFR are from the theater projector systems, not the filmography.
Another high quality and detailed review from Biggles :p
"And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' And it was so. God called the dry ground 'land,' and the gathered waters he called 'seas.' [B]And God saw that it was good[/B]."
I see what you did there. Very profound indeed. ;-) (Smileys are offline again...)
I'll definitely go and see the other two parts in 48fps if I can.
This is the third time I've seen the film and the pacing doesn't bother me, feels just right. Curious to see what the Extended Edition will add.
So it was 3d HFR version I saw. The higher frame rate didn't bother me after 20 - 30 minutes in. It doesn't have the same feel as the normal fps, but I think HFR still made it better at some places. 3D still annoys me, not the 3d effect but the bloody glasses. I want 2D HFR ;)