Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

HFR or normal 3D?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26-12-2012, 23:28
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,894

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-12-2012, 12:14
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,894
Has no one got an opinion then?
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2012, 12:52
Dai13371
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ammanford, South Wales
Posts: 7,900
Check the Hobbit......so excited thread for a multitude of opinions on the differing formats.
Dai13371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2012, 12:58
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,894
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.
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2012, 13:15
Delboy219
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,918
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.
Delboy219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2012, 13:16
ironjade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,350
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.
ironjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2012, 13:32
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,894
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.
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2012, 13:41
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,452
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.
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2012, 13:52
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,894
Thanks for that, sounds as though I should go for the HFR then. Both eyes working
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2012, 13:45
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 10,758
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.)
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2012, 21:20
Dai13371
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ammanford, South Wales
Posts: 7,900
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.
Dai13371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2012, 21:23
Karis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,731
I'm seeing it in HFR in 12 hours' time so I'll let you know
Karis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2012, 23:00
jediknight2k1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fighting the darkside
Posts: 2,685
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.
jediknight2k1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2012, 00:12
Hogzilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 22,142
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.
Hogzilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2012, 00:23
ninjablossom
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 175
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!
ninjablossom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2012, 01:07
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,894
Check your cinemas web site as most of them HFR information and screen times.
Errm, thanks for that.
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2012, 06:38
DanMan01
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sussex
Posts: 700
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
DanMan01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2012, 09:01
NorfolkBoy1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Norwich
Posts: 4,056
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.
NorfolkBoy1 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 20:44
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,894
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.
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 22:01
pericom
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,787
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.
pericom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 22:21
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,894
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.
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:26.