Search options (Page 15 of 16)

I don't really want to try to assess the film as a whole until I see it in 2D 24p, because the 3D HFR was a bit of a distraction... I think it was mostly the 3D, because that has been the case with every movie I've seen in 3D. After seeing Hugo I didn't really have a good grasp on the film itself because I was sort of lost in the 3D a lot of the time. I can say a few little things about The Hobbit though, mostly from a visual/technical standpoint.

As for the HFR... eh... I don't think they got it quite right. And I don't think it was mostly to do with the frame rate, but more the shutter speed. To me it actually looked a little more jarring than 24p at times because of the lack of motion blur. And some subtle movements actually looked like they were happening in fast motion because of it. I kinda started to get used to it as the film went on though. I think if this is the way of the future, the shutter speed needs to be slower. I think 48p at 1/48 would be better.

I will say that I agree with avatar for the most part. Yes, the dwarves were pretty ridiculously invincible, however so were Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, weren't they?

It did slightly annoy me when the "Misty Mountains" theme would come in every single time a dwarf lifted a weapon. Just felt a little too formulaic, and not necessarily fitting in every case. But when the "Breaking of the Fellowship" theme came in when Gandalf was talking to Galadriel, I got all warm and fuzzy inside. It was fantastic.

The CG was great for the most part, but Azog and the Goblin King didn't look real enough. I didn't have too much of a problem with the Goblin King, because his character was a bit cartoonish himself, and the CG was better than they could have done practically. But Azog didn't have to be entirely CG. I know most of the orcs/goblins were entirely real costumes, with the exception of CG faces. And that looked fine. Azog just didn't look real at all. It made me think back to ROTK and how great Gothmog looked.

I must say, the flashback slow-mo battle scene between the dwarves and the orcs looked AMAZING.

I'm seeing it in 2D 24p on Saturday. Then I'll get a better hold on things.

#SixSeasonsAndAMovie!

I don't know, maybe there's something I don't understand. We see the world at around 55 fps. I don't see how viewing at a frame rate closer to that would have a negative effect on your eyes (as long as the projection isn't screwed up). It would seem to me like slower frame rates would be more of an eye strain.

Of course I'll reserve judgment on the aesthetic of the frame rate until I see it, but I just don't get the headache complaints, unless bullet3's comments about projection issues are valid, which would have nothing to do with the frame rate itself. I've never had any issue with eye strain from a 60Hz TV.

Hahaha, I can't believe they deleted the Nedry joke, that was the best one!

I'm going to the premiere, seeing it in 3D HFR Digital Imax, the way it was meant to be seen (for better or for worse), but not the way it was meant to be heard! There's no theater within 4 hours of my house that's showing the film with all the bells and whistles, including Dolby Atmos sound. Shame, I wish I could have gotten the chance to hear it that way. Oh well, Atmos will probably be way more widespread next year, and especially the year after that.

I'm sure I'll see it in 2D 24p at some point as well.

Okay phew, glad I'm not crazy

Thanks iJim, you explained it better than I could.

I used to play it, a LOT. Got blue version in 3rd grade for my GameBoy Pocket and I was hooked all through middle school, and on and off in high school. It's since faded away though. It got to the point where I would only play LeafGreen at night to put myself to sleep, then eventually I just stopped altogether. And now my brain is full of tons of useless Pokemon knowledge. It was always a fun game though.

I'm not that into video games in general anymore.

Did the dreamlike quality in 2001 really come from the frame rate? I don't recall much fast movement in that film anyway. I'm not sure 48p would have made much of a difference.

Motion blur isn't so much a frame rate thing, that's a shutter speed thing.

Seems like most of those drawbacks have to do with having an underpowered machine. I don't need to transcode any of my footage, including multi-cam projects, so no waiting for that.

What NLE actually does good motion graphics? That's almost always a job for a dedicated graphics program.

And X does output a relatively small number of file types, that's why Compressor is a thing, just as it was for 7.

For number 8, isn't that a lot better than having no background rendering at all (FCP7)?

And though I have no experience with this, the presenter in the video I linked to earlier states that FCPX does recognize footage from servers. Maybe it just takes some googling, I wouldn't know.

Keep in mind I'm not trying to say FCPX is perfect, or always the right tool for the job, but I do think it gets a lot more criticism than it deserves. I think the Adobe ecosystem is great. If Premiere had the elegance and workflow of FCPX then I wouldn't hesitate to use that instead because of the easy round tripping you can do with their other programs. But I just can't go back to the clunkiness of it. That's just me.

I do think color correction in X is very limited, as it was in 7, except now there's no Color. Resolve Lite is a no-go for me until I get a monitor with a high enough resolution, so until then, I'm stuck with Magic Bullet. But pros can use Resolve just fine via XML.

Good for you, that's always exciting!