.

[Quintus 5,399]

Conversely, 24fps has had the same effect on me.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Can't be because I'm talking about HFR. I don't think you can be blown away by HFR if you saw it in 24fps, can you?

[Quintus 5,399]

No I meant seeing it in traditional 24fps and being extremely pleased with it has made me content to never experience the other way. I probably still will do, just so I can say I have done, but I really wouldn't be bothered if I didn't.

It's crazy that I'm even saying that, after all my previous excitement for the new tech. But bad word of mouth really took its toll.

[gkgyver 1,645]

F*** the critics, they are overreacting badly.

[Datameister 2,044]

I still want to see it in 48 fps precisely because I want to know if it looks bad to me. I've seen HFR stuff that looked great and HFR stuff that looked terrible, and I'm curious which category this film will occupy, especially since I've never seen an actual HFR theatrical release - everything I've seen has been at theme parks (Star Tours, Soarin', King Kong 3D, etc.)

[Quintus 5,399]

F*** the critics, they are overreacting badly.

Why would they do that? Some here weren't so keen either. Fuck them too?

[alicebrallice 134]

F*** the critics, they are overreacting badly.

how dare you, sir... how dare you.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The 48fps is far from flawless. Some people adjust better then others. But concerns are valid.

[Delorean90 42]

Well, turns out my dad's treating the family to The Hobbit this morning and he wanted to get the full experience, so HFR 3D it is! We'll see how this goes...

[KK 3,307]

48fps took a while for me to adjust to. I wasn't keen on the beginning, but it worked great for the end.

Watched it 24fps, and I think I just don't like the colour scheme for the prologue.

[Quintus 5,399]

Yes, there's an ugly amount of soft focus and bloom in play throughout the dwarven back story stuff, it looks like a Hallmark production. I disapproved of that at the time.

[Brónach 1,302]

It looked fine to me. The softness only looked a bit weird on the faces.

[KK 3,307]

At first, I thought the look of the prologue was a direct consequence of 48 fps, but having watched it in 24 fps, the problem persisted. As Quint said, the whole softness made it look like some outdated, over-budget tv production. I think they had the same softness in LotR prologue, but where it worked for that dark atmosphere and it was even excusable for that time, it doesn't settle well with me here. Rubs me the wrong way. That, plus the video-game-ish setting of Erebor, the prologue failed to draw me back to Middle-Earth.

[Delorean90 42]

For all of the complaints of a "soap opera" look, my problem with the 48fps is that it more often reminded me of a video game than anything else--the same problem I have with looking at Motionflow on an HDTV. The Azog flashback was a prime example of looking like a video game cut scene. Then there were places where it just looked BAD, with the pre-Rivendell warg chase being the absolute worst.

There were a good handful of scenes/moments, though, where the effect was more subtle and I thought, "You know, I could enjoy this being used in certain films or contexts." Ultimately, though, I feel the same way I did about Lucas's push for digital cinematography with AOTC and ROTS: I wish filmmakers would experiment with new technologies on totally new projects, instead of shoehorning them in to franchises with established aesthetics. At least there is a 24fps version of this film (though I understand it has its own problems due to that not being the native frame rate).

[Matt C 455]

At least there is a 24fps version of this film (though I understand it has its own problems due to that not being the native frame rate).

I've seen the 24 fps 3D, and I never really noticed any problems with the experience at all. There was some motion blur and cross-stalking during a few of the more action-packed scenes (especially the Radagast pursuit scene), but that's a problem with 3D movies in general.

I thought the movie looked stunning. After a while, I forgot I had the Real-D glasses on and enjoyed the film.

[Jay 37,374]

Well I saw the An Unexpected Journey at the midnight premiere in 24fps 2D and I thought everything looked great. I was instantly brought back into Middle Earth through the terrific prologue and never left again. I never thought any sets looked fake at all, I never noticed any unnatural color grading. The only things that ever took me out of the film was bad CGI.

Yesterday I saw the film for the second time, this time in HFR 3D. I arrived in the theater late, but luckily still during the trailers. First up with a 3D trailer for Jack The Giant Slayer, and I thought to myself "wow, the 3D is pretty good". Side note: I have never been a big fan of 3D, only having seen Spy Kids 2, Monster House, Aliens Vs Monsters, and Avatar in 3D theatrically, and always choosing 2D whenever possible every other time. Anyway the second trailer I saw was for Man Of Steel, and holy cow, that 3D was even better! I was now prepared to really enjoy An Unexpected Journey in 3D, and it did NOT disappoint at all!

Throughout the entire movie I thought the 3D was supremely effective! There was always a sense of depth that just seemed right, and it does help draw you into the film for sure. This 3D (and the trailer's 3D) was nothing like the 3D I had experienced in the past, I guess the technology has improved a lot in recent years. I absolutely want to see the film in 3D theatrically again before it leaves theaters, as I will likely only be watching in 2D at home for many years to come (I don't understand why you need a special 3D TV in order to watch 3D blu rays - its not like the theaters installed special screens, just special projectors. Weird.)

As for the 48fps...... Well I can't say it had much of an effect either way. On the negative side, there were a few times, especially early in the film and usually during closeups, where the action was suddenly moving very fast, which was TERRIBLE looking and COMPLETELY takes you out of the film. It reminded me of when you are watching a video online and the image slows down then speeds up to compensate. Made me wonder if there was a problem with my specific theater's projector or something, actually. Though with reports of many others seeing it, I'm not sure I can really explain it. It's clearly not what the film makers intended. On the positive side... well, I guess there were none. Throughout the film I never really noticed a difference that 48fps brought as compared to when I saw it in 2D 24fps (incidentally at the exact same theater). I definitely never saw the negative side effects some people claimed like sets looking extra fake, make-up being extra-noticable, etc. Though I also didn't think things looked BETTER or more clear at all, either. It was... basically the same. The 3D had a bigger impact than the 48fps, at least in my experience.

For my third viewing, I'll be seeing it in 3D IMAX, to get the STID teaser as well as seeing how everything looks on an enormous screen. Can't wait.

[Henry B 50]

There were a good handful of scenes/moments, though, where the effect was more subtle and I thought, "You know, I could enjoy this being used in certain films or contexts." Ultimately, though, I feel the same way I did about Lucas's push for digital cinematography with AOTC and ROTS: I wish filmmakers would experiment with new technologies on totally new projects, instead of shoehorning them in to franchises with established aesthetics. At least there is a 24fps version of this film (though I understand it has its own problems due to that not being the native frame rate).

This. I just couldn't get the classic 24FPS feeling of LOTR out of my head. I actually found myself thinking over and over "I wish this shot were choppier. Damn this smoothness!" I had no idea how important framerate was to the cinematic experience until now. The wave of the future? Yes, totally. It looks amazing. But it's too much a departure for a sequel to a beloved trilogy. I'm seeing the film in 24FPS 2D* tomorrow, and I can't wait.

* Not that I have a problem with the 3D... it was very well done. But I want the fully traditional experience.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

As for the 48fps...... Well I can't say it had much of an effect either way. On the negative side, there were a few times, especially early in the film and usually during closeups, where the action was suddenly moving very fast, which was TERRIBLE looking and COMPLETELY takes you out of the film. It reminded me of when you are watching a video online and the image slows down then speeds up to compensate. Made me wonder if there was a problem with my specific theater's projector or something, actually. Though with reports of many others seeing it, I'm not sure I can really explain it. It's clearly not what the film makers intended.

Definately i saw that too.

Also it makes battles hard to focus on. specially with 3D. i was lost..i couldnt focus on the characters... I think the reason is that the battles are shot at different angles (more close ups?) than the Original trilogy.

I want to see it in 24fps.

[Jay 37,374]

I was DEFINITELY glad I saw it in 2D FIRST. That way I knew exactly what the film was supposed to look like, so when I saw it again in HFR3D I knew immediately when something was wrong, like the sped-up movements.

I never had a hard time focusing on anything in either format. The entire film looked great IMHO (apart from some shoddy CGI)

[Brónach 1,302]

I'm intrigued by this sped up effect. I mean it must obviously be the same, however it's said to look sped up despite being the same movement. Interesting.

[Jay 37,374]

Yea, I'm at a loss to explain why it happens other than projector malfunction

[Brónach 1,302]

Are you sure it's a thing of the film, or the 48 fps, or the projection? Would you say things in real life look "sped up" so to speak, similar to the film?

At this rate, I'll end up going to a 48 fps session to take a look myself.

[Jay 37,374]

I don't understand your question, sorry.

I know this. When I saw the film in 24fps 3D, Bilbo reached into a chest and pulled out a map, and everything was normal. When I saw it in HFR3D, he walked to the chest at normal speed then when it switched to a closeup of his arm grabbing the map it was unnaturally sped up. It was clearly an error in presentation.

[Brónach 1,302]

But it would really weird if the projection was correct and incorrect all through the film.

[Jay 37,374]

Right, so perhaps its an error with the way the film was "saved" to this theater's "hard drive", I'm not really sure how the format works. Or maybe the "master" has these errors and every showing would have the same problem. I don't know.

[KK 3,307]

No. I noticed the sped up issue too. All the close ups of Ian Holm's movements, and the scene with Radagst rushing about looked all sped up.

Again, I don't know very much about 48fps, but maybe because its the fact that 48fps gets closer to how motion is seen in real life, and that's how the double frame-rate portrays the film. Whereas, in 24 fps, you have motion blur. Or something like that...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

What I meant is that 48fps is closer to how motion is perceived in real life...

[Jay 37,374]

I'm really surprised so many critics and internet users have said that 48fps made things look more like the actors were on sets than in a real place. I saw NOTHING like that at all, either way i saw the film I was completely immersed in the locations.

[KK 3,307]

I saw the "tv drama" effect in the first 30 minutes. But I didn't see the fakeness or any of that.

When it came last hour of big landscapes and all, it was beautiful.

[Brónach 1,302]

Maybe they can solve the sped up thing with an even higher frame rate.

[KK 3,307]

96 fps, here we come!

[gkgyver 1,645]

No. I noticed the sped up issue too. All the close ups of Ian Holm's movements, and the scene with Radagst rushing about looked all sped up.

Again, I don't know very much about 48fps, but maybe because its the fact that 48fps gets closer to how motion is seen in real life, and that's how the double frame-rate portrays the film. Whereas, in 24 fps, you have motion blur. Or something like that...

That's exactly what it is. The film is obviously not shorter in HFR, therefor it is not really "sped up".

[Brónach 1,302]

96 fps, here we come!

Render farms will revolt against us!

[Jay 37,374]

Well I've seen AUJ for a third time now, this time in IMAX (3D). Overall, I thought this was the best way to see it, though its only a slight edge over HFR 3D.

Basically the 3D effect was good in both HFR3D on a standard screen and in 24fps 3D on the IMAX screen, but it did seem the 3D effect was better on the HFR3D screening, at least the one I saw. However, the added clarity you get with the GIANT SIZE IMAX screen was to be a bigger improvement on the theatrical experience than the better 3D effect. I wish I could have seen it in 2D IMAX but there are no 2D IMAX showings available in New England.

Having seen it twice in 24fps now and once in 48fps, I still can't say the 48fps made any dramatic improvements in presentation. I saw no motion blur in any format I saw it in, and the downsides of the artificially sped up hiccups of the HFR process are enough of a downside to not bother with it.

On my third viewing I was really able to take it all the background details since I didn't need to focus on the foreground any more since I knew all the beats of the movie, and man, some of those sets are really freaking detailed! All all the dwarves were up to something in the background whenever Bilbo was talking to Gandalf, etc. Fun stuff.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

I don't understand your question, sorry.

I know this. When I saw the film in 24fps 3D, Bilbo reached into a chest and pulled out a map, and everything was normal. When I saw it in HFR3D, he walked to the chest at normal speed then when it switched to a closeup of his arm grabbing the map it was unnaturally sped up. It was clearly an error in presentation.

It's not a problem with your theater's projertor. I saw that too in mine.

[Delorean90 42]

Yeah, that map shot really stood out to me. It was my fears about the whole thing being confirmed right off the bat: I'm in Walmart or Best Buy watching a movie with the Motionflow on, and it looks too fast.

I don't that it stopped being an issue, though. People talk about "adjusting" to it after a certain amount of time, but I don't think it's really an "adjusting" so much as there are simply different shots with a lot of different factors impacting the effect of the HFR. Certain shots were definitely more subtle, whereas a few moments later, the speediness was visible. Unless people are talking about adjusting to different things, which could be.

[Datameister 2,044]

I indeed saw the film in 3D HFR this evening. Some shots looked insanely sped-up (drives me crazy trying to figure out how that illusion happens), others looked more or less normal, some actually looked distractingly juddery (maybe even 48 fps isn't enough?), and a handful actually looked better because of the framerate. The last category applied almost universally to the big sweeping helicopter shots of the landscapes with the characters running through. Those looked great in LOTR's 24 fps, too, but I think the higher framerate actually helped the shots like those.

Fascinating to watch, in any case. I wonder what I would think of, say, 90 fps.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I don't understand your question, sorry.

I know this. When I saw the film in 24fps 3D, Bilbo reached into a chest and pulled out a map, and everything was normal. When I saw it in HFR3D, he walked to the chest at normal speed then when it switched to a closeup of his arm grabbing the map it was unnaturally sped up. It was clearly an error in presentation.

It's not a problem with your theater's projertor. I saw that too in mine.

That is the first shot in the film with any fast movement. I think everyone must have noticed the speed issue.

I'm not gonna write of HFR as a workable concept, but that movement issue simply needs to be dealt with. My LCD tv has a DYNAMIC option in which the picture moves in a very similar and unnatural way and I've never gotten used to it despite trying. I dont use that feature anymore.

Yes the picture is a bit clearer then 24 fps, but like Jason stated its not really that noticeable. I guess is you were watching the two frame rates side by side it might be.

Trusting people to get used to it after a few minutes seems unrealistic. The brain doesn't work that way.

For better or worse, 24fps is the norm, and it's actually what looks natural too us.

[King Mark 3,631]

I agree.

I saw it in 48fps 3D and I somewhat got used to it but sometimes it just took me out of the movie.

I don't think our eyes see motion like this in real life.

I don't see this becoming somekind of norm for future movies

[Quintus 5,399]

They need to do more work on the various technologies involved in HFR movie making before it has any chance of replacing 24fps. Kudos to Jackson for experimenting all the same.

[Datameister 2,044]

Whatever, man! What did you think of the film?

Hmmm...the scenes with Gollum were definitely the highlight for me, and I greatly enjoyed all of the film's uses of "Song of the Lonely Mountain." Martin Freeman works admirably as a young Bilbo - as I expected - and Ian McKellen has almost as much charm as he did in FOTR. Other than that, though, I wasn't particularly impressed. My reaction might have been a bit different if I'd seen it in 2D at 24 fps, though.

[Jay 37,374]

"Song Of The Lonely Mountain" is the name of Neil Finn's end credits song (composed and performed by him). "Misty Mountains" is the name of the Plan 9 / JRR Tolkien composed / Cast sung song the dwarves sing in the beginning of the movie that then becomes a theme in Shore's underscore.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

They need to do more work on the various technologies involved in HFR movie making before it has any chance of replacing 24fps. Kudos to Jackson for experimenting all the same.

Indeed, but even the most positive responses by people seem too say. Not THAT distracting. But next time I'll see it in 24fps...

I wonder if there is anything they can do for the next film to improve things.

[Datameister 2,044]

"Song Of The Lonely Mountain" is the name of Neil Finn's end credits song (composed and performed by him). "Misty Mountains" is the name of the Plan 9 / JRR Tolkien composed / Cast sung song the dwarves sing in the beginning of the movie that then becomes a theme in Shore's underscore.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks!

[Jay 37,374]

How this this 48FPS presentation compare to higher frame rate stuff you've seen at theme parks?

[Datameister 2,044]

I thought it was generally similar in quality to PJ's own King Kong feature at Universal Studios Hollywood, which is also in 48 fps - although King Kong took me more by surprise, since I didn't already know it used a high framerate. Same issues with looking slightly sped up (even though it's not), and I still found myself distracted by judder, ironically. It may just be that I'm used to 24 fps judder and I'm used to judder-free reality, and anything else is just different and distracting.

Soarin' Over California is also in 48 fps, and I think it looks a lot better...but it's just a bunch of helicopter shots of landscapes, much like the ones that I thought looked great in The Hobbit. Apparently, my brain appreciates that sort of motion and subject matter in higher framerates...it's just everything else that's problematic, albeit to varying degrees.

Then there's the original Star Tours, which I sadly can't view anymore, but supposedly, it was in 60 fps, and I never noticed anything distracting about its motion. I've had a hard time finding info on the framerate of the current version of the attraction, but it looks like 24 fps to me.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Then there's the original Star Tours, which I sadly can't view anymore, but supposedly, it was in 60 fps, and I never noticed anything distracting about its motion.

Oooh, that must had been it. When i saw it, i thought, this looks like new CGI (in a good way) So with the high framerate the stop motion minatures looked better in movement than in normal 24fps.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well with 60 frames per second you they do have the possibility of getting rid of the jerkey movement.

The workload increases dramatically though.