CloneWars Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 I have heard a lot of complaints online about HFR 3D, but for me, I found it to be better than regular 3D. It felt less jarring, movement tracks didn't get slightly out of focus, I didn't get a headache after sitting down for almost three hours. Pretty much all the problems I've had before with 3D were gone.Does anyone else feel that HFR 3D is actually better than regular 3D? Is there maybe some sort of way that the brain processes 3D that makes most people feel regular 3D is better. If you prefer regular 3D over HFR, why? I am just curious why so many people hate on HFR when I feel it is a superior product. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverShark Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 For 3D its better i think... but sometimes movements on screen just seems to be too fast. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder / Operator Shawn Robbins Posted December 27, 2012 Founder / Operator Share Posted December 27, 2012 It helped in some ways, but not enough to convince me to ever see it again. I'd rather see 24fps 3D. The first movie that experiments with variable frame rates will probably be the next time I see see anything in HFR again. Not a big fan, personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accursed Arachnid!™ Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 My friend bought a TV that has the ability to fake higher fps and it's distracting, IMO. Personally, I think I'm lucky to now live in an area without 48fps yet. Had I still been living is Sacramento, I'd probably have seen TH1 in HFR and possibly not have been able to enjoy it as much. The thing is, we go to the movies to escape reality, not see a movie as though it was real. HD, HFS, 3D(maybe not as much here), is making it that much harder to have that escapism experience, IMO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder / Operator Shawn Robbins Posted December 27, 2012 Founder / Operator Share Posted December 27, 2012 My friend bought a TV that has the ability to fake higher fps and it's distracting, IMO. Personally, I think I'm lucky to now live in an area without 48fps yet. Had I still been living is Sacramento, I'd probably have seen TH1 in HFR and possibly not have been able to enjoy it as much. The thing is, we go to the movies to escape reality, not see a movie as though it was real. HD, HFS, 3D(maybe not as much here), is making it that much harder to have that escapism experience, IMO. Yeah, aside from HD I'm becoming concerned with the push toward some of these options. As long as their backers only ask for them to be "options" and not "replacements" though, I applaud anything that experiments and tries something new. If there's an audience for it, let 'em have it. But I don't think HFR will be expanding with the rapidity that 3D did after Avatar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 I actually loved HFR. Thought it made the 3d look better than usual and I'll probably watch the other Hobbit movies like that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 The HFR was distracting in the first 45 minutes when the visual effects intensive shots haven't started. It looked like a TV show in HD for some reason. My friend commented that it looked like a theater performance as opposed to a movie. It was much less distracting in the action scenes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 NO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I liked 48fps 3D much more than regular 3D. I still prefer 2D, but I'm seriously considering not bothering with 24fps 3D anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Alfred Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 It made the film nearly unwatchable, cheap and awful. No question that certain shots were breath-taking and the whole Gollum sequence was out of this world, but that makes things worse when a director sacrifices a whole movie for some incredible shots, Some part of a Hobbit looked like a bad TV movie, which is sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moviedweeb Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I think the potential for HFR 3D is huge. Many of the scenes were absolutely jaw-dropping but as others have mentioned, some shots like they were on a slight fast forward. I thought it was pretty incredible though and if I were to see TH again, I would choose HFR 3D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I loved it. My eyes relaxed on clarity so I didn`t get a migraine and eye pain like I do from motion blur.I also didn`t think the movie looked cheap. Yes, it had sound stage fakeness as opposed to regular video game fakeness but it didn`t look cheap because the set sure as hell wasn`t cheap. And I didn`t mind fakness because these movies always look fake one way or the other. It worked for me. I hope they make more movies in HFR cause it`s really easy on eyes in more ways than one.I also liked that people looked human. You could see wrinkles and crow feel but I like that more than airbrushed doll-like glaze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poseidon Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 It helped 3D, no question, but HFR makes a movie look like sitting in a theater piece, while normally, to me, a movie feels like a beautiful painting that builds a window into another world. That's why i love cinema and that's what cinema is all about, isn't it? By being not "real", cinema created another reality and that's its charme and i don't want to miss that in the future, so that's why i chose "The Hobbit" to be my first and very probably last movie having seen in that new HFR-format. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchumacherFTW Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I quite liked it to be honest. I was already kind of used to it though as I used to use motion plus on my TV all the time, and use it quite a lot for my 3D viewings. It was still quite odd at first to see such a smooth image, but I soon got used to it and enjoyed it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I haven't seen TH1 in HFR 3D, but there's no reason why they shouldn't consider HFR a viable option.The footage I've seen is more relaxing than regular 3D. It can get distracting at first, but I became more inclined later into the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 HFR was aces in scenes with a character in subdued make-up and a CGI character. Like Riddles. No fakeness here and clarity really emphasized the photoreality of Gollum. Avatar sequels would be beyond astonishing in HFR because they don`t have to worry about elaborate costumes, wigs and prosthetics. I didn`t mind those but since quite a few people did I`d say Avatar sequels would be the right movies to launch HFR wide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Well, you also need a director who doesn't give a shit about some negative comments and right now the only two who qualify are Cameron and Jackson. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sims Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 It was hideous. I felt like I was watching Teletubbies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovex Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I think it JUST worked with TH, but use of it needs to be selective. I dont think the usual Oscar fodder will be HFR anytime soon. Just imagine the first Transformers in HFR though, you would almost be able to see whats happening! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruthie Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I really like HFR. It allowed me to follow the fast camera and actor movements much better. Watching TH in 24fps after seeing it in HFR was somewhat of a letdown. The one drawback to HFR was that there were a few times that the special effects looked fake; no such problem with 24. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
