HFR or normal 3D?
LaVieEnRose
Posts: 12,836
Forum Member
✭✭
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?
Any recommendations or advice?
0
Comments
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.
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.
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.
Check your cinemas web site as most of them HFR information and screen times.
According to another poster, it would look rubbish. But its nice to hear some people appreciated it!
Errm, thanks for that.
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.
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.
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.