Digital Spy Forums

Digital Spy Forums (http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/index.php)
-   Movies (http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   HFR or normal 3D? (http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1775899)

LaVieEnRose 26-12-2012 23:28

HFR or normal 3D?
 
I've seen The Hobbit in 2D, but I'd like to see it again in 3D. I haven't seen a 3D film before, so am not sure whether to go for a showing in the normal 24fps 3D, or the new HFR version.

Any recommendations or advice?

LaVieEnRose 27-12-2012 12:14

Has no one got an opinion then? :confused:

Dai13371 27-12-2012 12:52

Check the Hobbit......so excited thread for a multitude of opinions on the differing formats.

LaVieEnRose 27-12-2012 12:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dai13371 (Post 63204562)
Check the Hobbit......so excited thread for a multitude of opinions on the differing formats.

My specific question isn't answered there, though. I did try posting my question there but the thread moved so quickly, I thought I might have more luck with a separate thread.

Delboy219 27-12-2012 13:15

You might as well go for the HFR. You've done the 2D already, you may as well attend a screening of a format that you've not seen before. If you do see it in HFR, come back in and let us know if you preferred that, or 2D. :)

ironjade 27-12-2012 13:16

People have said that filming at a higher frame rate makes things look studio-like and shows up things like dodgy make-up or fx. They said it about the 30fps Showscan system too. Maybe that's the reason it never caught on.

LaVieEnRose 27-12-2012 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delboy219 (Post 63204832)
You might as well go for the HFR. You've done the 2D already, you may as well attend a screening of a format that you've not seen before. If you do see it in HFR, come back in and let us know if you preferred that, or 2D. :)

That's the thing, though, I've never seen any kind of 3D film.

I gather some people have problems watching in 3D (nausea etc) so I don't know if I'm likely to find it uncomfortable. In which case, does the HFR increase or lessen the discomfort?

My eyesight isn't what it was and I have to use specs for reading and close-up stuff - I don't know if that's relevant.

theonlyweeman 27-12-2012 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaVieEnRose (Post 63205003)
That's the thing, though, I've never seen any kind of 3D film.

I gather some people have problems watching in 3D (nausea etc) so I don't know if I'm likely to find it uncomfortable. In which case, does the HFR increase or lessen the discomfort?

My eyesight isn't what it was and I have to use specs for reading and close-up stuff - I don't know if that's relevant.

HFR supposedly reduces the nauseating effect of 3D, but it also supposedly makes it look like a TV show and shows up the fact it's studio based...

If you're blind in one eye 3D won't work, which is something you might have to bear in mind. I have a lazy eye and cataracts, but 3D TVs still work for me (never done it at the cinema, I didn't wanna waste 15 to discover it wouldn't), so the eyesight issues, assuming they're not too severe shouldn't be a problem.

LaVieEnRose 27-12-2012 13:52

Thanks for that, sounds as though I should go for the HFR then. Both eyes working :)

brangdon 29-12-2012 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaVieEnRose (Post 63205003)
My eyesight isn't what it was and I have to use specs for reading and close-up stuff - I don't know if that's relevant.

It shouldn't be, if you don't use them for watching cinema. (I'm short-sighted, and having to wear two pairs of glasses does degrade the experience.)

Dai13371 29-12-2012 21:20

Well I personally loved it. Just couldnt beleive what I was seeing. I really did imagine I was a floating disembodied head along for the ride. It was just breathtaking. I just did not look upon the prosthetics or sets as being blatantly artificial. I was originally dismissive of other peoples negative opinions of HFR which was wrong of me. I am genuinly sorry that many viewers did not have the same experience of the utter immersion of 3d HFR.

Karis 29-12-2012 21:23

I'm seeing it in HFR in 12 hours' time so I'll let you know :)

jediknight2k1 29-12-2012 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaVieEnRose (Post 63200034)
I've seen The Hobbit in 2D, but I'd like to see it again in 3D. I haven't seen a 3D film before, so am not sure whether to go for a showing in the normal 24fps 3D, or the new HFR version.

Any recommendations or advice?

Check your cinemas web site as most of them HFR information and screen times.

Hogzilla 30-12-2012 00:12

Just got back from the Hobbit in HFR having also seen in normal 3D and 2D. Huge, appreciable difference for me and well worth the effort to try to see it in HFR.

ninjablossom 30-12-2012 00:23

I found it very fake looking in HFR :(

According to another poster, it would look rubbish. But its nice to hear some people appreciated it!

LaVieEnRose 30-12-2012 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jediknight2k1 (Post 63246921)
Check your cinemas web site as most of them HFR information and screen times.

Errm, thanks for that.

DanMan01 30-12-2012 06:38

HFR makes for a smoother, non-flickering viewing. It does feel like a BBC2 drama in some places lol. But worth the experience to see it in 48fps. Nothing else will be released in this format... Until at least Pt.2 next year, that is ;-)

NorfolkBoy1 30-12-2012 09:01

I've never liked the 'normal' 3D experience since it kicked off a few years ago, The Hobbit in HFR was the first time I've ever been properly wowed by it.

AS for the "it's like TV" criticism, I don't see that as much of a criticism these days when you have things like Game Of Thrones, Fringe, Breaking Bad on TV these days, all of which have massively high production values and are pretty damn cinematic.

I never once thought: "that set looks terrible" but then I wasn't looking for it, which I suspect many people are.

LaVieEnRose 04-01-2013 20:44

Saw it today in the HFR 3D.

It was .... OK. I didn't suffer any ill-effects from the 3D. I'm not sure that the 3D effect added a great deal to the experience for me, though. There were a few highlights, like the birds, but on the whole I prefer the cinematic look of the LOTR trilogy. The 2D version seems to have been slightly compromised in places by the demands of HFR, which is a shame.

Some sequences I found were really naff in 3D, it was like looking at cardboard cut-outs against a painted backdrop.

I was particularly disappointed with Rivendell, both in the 2D and 3D versions. In LOTR, we know it was a miniature model, but my god, it looked so breathtaking and real. In this latest film it looks like a rather crap painted backcloth. I was hoping that it would look better in the 3D showing, but it didn't. (Lovely to see Figwit again though! ;))

Still enjoyed the film a lot. Just great to have more of Middle Earth.

pericom 04-01-2013 22:01

Personally I think most of these additional effects people are seeing is a placebo. They only effect HFR does is make things smoother after all its only an extra 24frames on the original. My new TV does a very similar effect but adds much more frames which it computes itself.

Is it worth paying more for if you've already seen it? No.

LaVieEnRose 04-01-2013 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by pericom (Post 63361242)
Is it worth paying more for if you've already seen it? No.

I wanted to compare the 2D and 3D. The fact that there were 2 versions of 3D available was just another complication.

But even if it had only been showing in 2D I would have wanted to see it again, as I did its LOTR predecessors.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35.