I viewed this film twice; the first time in 24 frames-per-second and 3D, and the second time in 48 frames-per-second and 3D. While we'll address the 48 fps issue in greater length in a later feature, I will say that it certainly looked better than it did at CinemaCon and ultimately didn't bug me as much as I thought it would. Still, it robs a fantasy movie of its escapism by making it feel too "real"; it still looks like broadcast video, making the 48 fps presentation of The Hobbit look like the greatest BBC or PBS production ever. I'm glad I saw it in 48 fps, but more glad that I first saw it in 24 fps. The movie looks just fine in 24 fps -- the format most people will experience The Hobbit in and the one which we've decided to review -- although the 3D in either frame rate simply didn't add enough to justify paying the higher ticket price.
Then there is the technical innovation of Jackson's decision to film not only in 3D but in 48 frames per second, double the standard number. The results are interesting and will be much-debated, but an initial comparison of the two formats weighs against the experiment; the print shown at Warner Bros. in what is being called High Frame Rate 3D, while striking in some of the big spectacle scenes, predominantly looked like ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film a oddly theatrical look, especially in the cramped interior scenes in Bilbo Baggins' home. For its part, the 24 fps 3D version had a softer, noticeably more textured image quality.
One of the biggest advancements Jackson chose to embrace with The Hobbit was shooting at 48 frames per second, now referred to as High Frame Rate (HFR). My screening employed this new technology and it’s a bit of a mixed bag. At times, the film looks immaculate. Regular landscapes and normal shots with static digital effects look so beautiful, it’s almost as if you could press pause and step through the screen. However, when there are a lot of effects on screen, or they move quickly (as when animals are present, for example) they look overly digital and obviously inserted. Fortunately, even with this problem, the look of the film never took me out of the story. I left feeling that HFR is a technology with a promising future, but it’s not quite there yet.
If you see this film in the new HFR/48 fps format, you’ll likely break into lively discussion, as well. I’m sure the film’s visual appeal is on a par with Jackson’s other work, but with HFR 3D you’ll be too taken with the strangeness of the new format to compare. Is 48 fps good? It isn’t a case of good or bad. It’s an aesthetic choice, like Michael Mann’s use of video in ‘Public Enemies.’ I never “got used to it.” In fact, I found it a distraction.
#101 Wangsgaard 11 år siden
#102 tiany 11 år siden
#103 JannikAnd 11 år siden
- IGN
#104 MMB 11 år siden
#105 MMB 11 år siden
#106 MMB 11 år siden
#107 MMB 11 år siden
Jeg tror sgu næsten, jeg reserverer til 24 fps i stedet for...
#108 Muldgraver 11 år siden
Hahah
#109 MMB 11 år siden
#110 MMB 11 år siden