If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(E! Online)   Peter Jackson screens ten minutes of The Hobbit. Fans say it looks good. Almost *too* good   (eonline.com) divider line 90
    More: Interesting, Fashion Police, The Hobbit, hobbits, gallery, frame rate, partners, feature films  
•       •       •

7040 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Apr 2012 at 10:26 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-25 12:00:08 PM
Of course it was too good, it only lasted ten minutes. Call me back when they can make it last an hour.
 
2012-04-25 12:06:11 PM
mongbiohazard
Personally, I love watching movies in 3D


Honest question from someone who hasn't been in a cinema in the last two or three years:
I haven't seen a real movie in 3D yet, only "Spacestation 3D" and some trailers showing off 3D stuff at an IMAX ten years or so ago, i.e. before the 3D craze really took off.
I've vague memories that earlier "3D movies" were only partially in 3D, like only the last 20 minutes of Harry Potter 5 were 3D.
I guess nowadays "in 3D" means the whole movie is in 3D and not only some special effects-laden scenes that are supposed to look "Whoa!" are made to jump out at the audience?
 
2012-04-25 12:14:00 PM

The Voice of Doom: Vash's Apprentice
Oh boy! Two more movies of people walking!

Never understood why that's supposed to be a bad thing.


Or funny.
 
2012-04-25 12:22:15 PM
I'm not sure if this has been covered, but HD doesn't effect what people call the "soap opera effect"/video effect.

In LCD and LED-LCD TV's, they have to compensate for the poor motion performance, so they introduced motion interpolation which creates more frames. Anyone who has seen this effect as this feature turned on. Plasma's don't have this because they don't need it. They can display things correctly at 60hz (don't believe the 600hz hype. Plasmas have 10 sub-fields, and each one is driven at 60hz). A TV with motion interpolation software will double this to 120hz (and now they have 240, 480, etc). Separate thing altogether from the amount of pixels.

Some people hate it, some people love it. It's a vero polarizing thing. And it'll seem extremely odd to see it in a theatre. If you have one yourself, or if you've ever seen them in display models in stores, it looks like home video. Like someone is just on set filming the film being made. Personally I love behind the scenes stuff so I enjoy it (makes it look like it's a behind the scenes thing).

But it takes away the Cinema feel. It doesn't look like film, it looks like video. And I don't think anyone will switch over.
That being said, I think filming in 48fps would be awesome, as someone said above, you would eliminate judder and what not from pans and movement. That would be fantastic.
 
2012-04-25 12:27:49 PM

squidgod2000: fark 3D. I don't care what the fps is, all 3D is shiat.


If they could transfer the Avatar-style 3D to the next Silent Hill flick (preferably with the 'fleshy Otherworld' of 3), it could be truly innovative. Basically, it would be like the theater itself was being distorted by Samael.
 
2012-04-25 12:32:14 PM

Lsherm: You know how soap operas on TV look different than the other shows you watch?


It had bad, omnidirectional light because they just want to point-and-shoot rather than lighting each setup individually? That's the primary visual difference I see between soap operas and better produced shows.

I'm also not a fan of frame interpolation -- I can see it twitch often enough to annoy me -- but if the system you saw makes the lighting/color bad that's a failure all by itself, even without the twitchy fake frames.
 
2012-04-25 12:38:50 PM

QFarker: mongbiohazard: QFarker: Wellon Dowd: 24-fps provides a warmth and immediacy that 48-fps cannot. The latter is too sterile.

Frame rate has NOTHING to do with "warmth and immediacy," whatever that means. We hardly shoot movies on film any more, but most of those movies (yes, even digital) are still shot at 24fps, or more precisely, 23.976fps (or 25fps in PAL land). I can't wait to work on something shot at 48fps. Goodbye jittery motion. Do you folks know that at 24fps we are limited in how fast a camera can pan or how fast something can cross the frame?

Lighting, story, acting, and direction can change how "warm," "immediate," or "sterile" a film looks, but not frame rate. And something shot at 48 can be easily down-converted to 24fps.


Dude, he was mocking the people who listen to their music on vinyl. You missed it, and I thought that subtle mockery was pretty great actually.

Well, damn!!! I'm short, but stuff don't usually go THAT far over my head. Good job Wellon Dowd.


Just in case, I felt someone should point out that his name was another subtle humorous wordplay. You did well with this one, but if he offers to hook you up on a blind date with his sister Amanda Hugenkiss, don't go to the appointed bar and start asking for her by name.
 
2012-04-25 12:40:36 PM
48 frams per second?

24's the key number here. Think about it. 24-Elevens. 24 dwarves. 24, man, that's the number. 24 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office. Cuz you're farking fired!
 
2012-04-25 12:44:26 PM
It looks different because it is different. It is the same thing as going from black and white to color. Yeah things changed but color film is no less film than black and white film.


For people that watched black and white for years, decades even color seems different BECAUSE IT IS.

For people use to watching 24 fps switching over to 48 fps it will seem different BECAUSE IT IS.

That does not make it bad it just is not what you are use to, in a year of watching 48 fps you will forget what issues you had about switching from 24 fps to 48 fps.



In short change happens deal with it.
 
2012-04-25 12:56:48 PM
sure haven't:In LCD and LED-LCD TV's, they have to compensate for the poor motion performance, so they introduced motion interpolation which creates more frames.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Frame interpolation was introduced because displays were capable of much higher refresh rates than source material actually provided. Since it's not possible to actually improve existing source material displays offered temporal upscaling when they improved temporal resolution, just like they offered spacial upscaling when they improved spacial resolution.

There are certainly LCD panels with poor refresh rates, but that's a limitation on the maximum non-ghosting refresh rate, not the minimum. LCD panels can operate at essentially arbitrarily low refresh rates below their maximum when paired with appropriate hardware to drive them. Plus if you know what refresh rates will be used (as you do in TV/film) it's trivial to simply choose a maximum, static refresh rate that's an integer multiple of all your desired output rates and repeatedly display the same frame until the necessary time has elapsed (which is what most TVs do if you don't enable frame interpolation or provide high-rate source material).

And it'll seem extremely odd to see it in a theatre

Actually shooting more frames is nothing at all like frame interpolation. Yes, they both result in a higher displayed framerate, and depending on your sensitivity to that, and what's being displayed, you can probably detect that. But there's a real, fairly obvious difference between data that's been blurred in from the surrounding frames and genuine additional frames. It's the temporal equivalent of changing from scaled-up JPEGs to actually high-res JPEGs.
 
2012-04-25 01:06:02 PM
fark 3D. One of my eyes has slightly worse vision then the other. With regular movies this isn't an issue, but with 3D it's very noticable. That and having to wear uncomfortable glasses for a couple hours drives me crazy. Hopefully there will be a non 3D option when this comes out.
 
2012-04-25 01:16:05 PM

Lligeret: It looks different because it is different. It is the same thing as going from black and white to color. Yeah things changed but color film is no less film than black and white film.


For people that watched black and white for years, decades even color seems different BECAUSE IT IS.

For people use to watching 24 fps switching over to 48 fps it will seem different BECAUSE IT IS.

That does not make it bad it just is not what you are use to, in a year of watching 48 fps you will forget what issues you had about switching from 24 fps to 48 fps.

In short change happens deal with it.


It can be argued that its bad because, believe it or not, the audience WANTS a layer of separation between reality and the fictional world.

To deny this would be like saying that a painting that looks like a photograph is superior to one that does not.
 
2012-04-25 01:18:20 PM

profplump: sure haven't:In LCD and LED-LCD TV's, they have to compensate for the poor motion performance, so they introduced motion interpolation which creates more frames.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Frame interpolation was introduced because displays were capable of much higher refresh rates than source material actually provided. Since it's not possible to actually improve existing source material displays offered temporal upscaling when they improved temporal resolution, just like they offered spacial upscaling when they improved spacial resolution.

There are certainly LCD panels with poor refresh rates, but that's a limitation on the maximum non-ghosting refresh rate, not the minimum. LCD panels can operate at essentially arbitrarily low refresh rates below their maximum when paired with appropriate hardware to drive them. Plus if you know what refresh rates will be used (as you do in TV/film) it's trivial to simply choose a maximum, static refresh rate that's an integer multiple of all your desired output rates and repeatedly display the same frame until the necessary time has elapsed (which is what most TVs do if you don't enable frame interpolation or provide high-rate source material).

And it'll seem extremely odd to see it in a theatre

Actually shooting more frames is nothing at all like frame interpolation. Yes, they both result in a higher displayed framerate, and depending on your sensitivity to that, and what's being displayed, you can probably detect that. But there's a real, fairly obvious difference between data that's been blurred in from the surrounding frames and genuine additional frames. It's the temporal equivalent of changing from scaled-up JPEGs to actually high-res JPEGs.


You're right, I invented this whole 120hz/240/480 thing entirely in my mind. They don't exist in televisions, and don't give the effect I, and the viewers in that article, described.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2012-04-25 01:27:15 PM

The Voice of Doom: mongbiohazard
Personally, I love watching movies in 3D

Honest question from someone who hasn't been in a cinema in the last two or three years:
I haven't seen a real movie in 3D yet, only "Spacestation 3D" and some trailers showing off 3D stuff at an IMAX ten years or so ago, i.e. before the 3D craze really took off.
I've vague memories that earlier "3D movies" were only partially in 3D, like only the last 20 minutes of Harry Potter 5 were 3D.
I guess nowadays "in 3D" means the whole movie is in 3D and not only some special effects-laden scenes that are supposed to look "Whoa!" are made to jump out at the audience?



The whole movie is in 3D, but I saw Harry Potter, so I'm wondering what you mean about that...

When I go see a movie in 3D I'm expecting just that, to see depth as well as height and width. If the movie if making stuff "jump out at me" I think that shiat is for rides at Disney, not movies. I just want to be able to perceive the third dimension in the movie I'm watching.

Oh, and the only 3D movie I've been willing to see which was filmed as a 2D movie and had the 3D added in post production was Captain America. That one I'd heard the director intentionally filmed the way he did for the look of the film, and set up the shots with 3D being added specifically in mind ahead of time. In the end I thought it looked wonderful, and the care really showed.

But if another director just doesn't want to film in 3D, and the studio decides to cram it in to 3D after the fact just to charge the ticket premium then I will only want to see it in 2D.

Avatar was a case study in doing 3D right, which is fitting it being the first big widely available film with the new tech. In 2D I find the movie "ok"... but in 3D it was awesome... just GORGEOUS to an extreme enough degree that I could give the cookie cutter plot and characters a mulligan.

Strangely enough, Michael Bay used 3D very well in Transformers 3 too. Too bad the movie was so dumb.... but hey, it was about a toy from the 80's so you do have to keep that in mind with a movie like that and just hope stuff "blows up real good".

I also thought "Up" in 3D was good.... but really that film isn't missing much seeing it in 2D. I just like the look of 3D in general over 2D.
 
2012-04-25 01:48:40 PM
fark nerds, make the film you want.



/been looking forward to 48fps for a while now
 
2012-04-25 01:50:48 PM

profplump: sure haven't:In LCD and LED-LCD TV's, they have to compensate for the poor motion performance, so they introduced motion interpolation which creates more frames.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Frame interpolation was introduced because displays were capable of much higher refresh rates than source material actually provided. Since it's not possible to actually improve existing source material displays offered temporal upscaling when they improved temporal resolution, just like they offered spacial upscaling when they improved spacial resolution.

There are certainly LCD panels with poor refresh rates, but that's a limitation on the maximum non-ghosting refresh rate, not the minimum. LCD panels can operate at essentially arbitrarily low refresh rates below their maximum when paired with appropriate hardware to drive them. Plus if you know what refresh rates will be used (as you do in TV/film) it's trivial to simply choose a maximum, static refresh rate that's an integer multiple of all your desired output rates and repeatedly display the same frame until the necessary time has elapsed (which is what most TVs do if you don't enable frame interpolation or provide high-rate source material).

And it'll seem extremely odd to see it in a theatre

Actually shooting more frames is nothing at all like frame interpolation. Yes, they both result in a higher displayed framerate, and depending on your sensitivity to that, and what's being displayed, you can probably detect that. But there's a real, fairly obvious difference between data that's been blurred in from the surrounding frames and genuine additional frames. It's the temporal equivalent of changing from scaled-up JPEGs to actually high-res JPEGs.



Newb here. Does this mean that my plasma will "stay current" as faster frame rates are employeed without software type gimmicks?
 
2012-04-25 01:56:15 PM
One of the more recent versions of PowerDVD has something called TrueTheater which you can toggle as a video effect. The idea is to make a image even sharper and crisper than normal to make it more true to life. The good news is that it actually works. The bad news is that rather than make it look like you're looking at a really clear film, it makes it appear as though you're seeing at the actors as they're acting on set. That's potentially good if you'd like to experience it as if you were seeing it live on stage. The problem is most movies aren't designed that way. There's way too many shifts and background changes in movies, so it ends up making the movie feel phony. It's even worse if the movie is dependent a lot of special effects. My concern is that there might be a similar problem with this in The Hobbit, especially since the audience can't just toggle the effect off.
 
2012-04-25 01:56:57 PM

sure haven't: I'm not sure if this has been covered, but HD doesn't effect what people call the "soap opera effect"/video effect.

In LCD and LED-LCD TV's, they have to compensate for the poor motion performance, so they introduced motion interpolation which creates more frames. Anyone who has seen this effect as this feature turned on. Plasma's don't have this because they don't need it. They can display things correctly at 60hz (don't believe the 600hz hype. Plasmas have 10 sub-fields, and each one is driven at 60hz). A TV with motion interpolation software will double this to 120hz (and now they have 240, 480, etc). Separate thing altogether from the amount of pixels.

Some people hate it, some people love it. It's a vero polarizing thing. And it'll seem extremely odd to see it in a theatre. If you have one yourself, or if you've ever seen them in display models in stores, it looks like home video. Like someone is just on set filming the film being made. Personally I love behind the scenes stuff so I enjoy it (makes it look like it's a behind the scenes thing).

But it takes away the Cinema feel. It doesn't look like film, it looks like video. And I don't think anyone will switch over.
That being said, I think filming in 48fps would be awesome, as someone said above, you would eliminate judder and what not from pans and movement. That would be fantastic.


But that is what makes it look like "cinema". I really don't see how this can be a polarizing thing - are there people who actually want their movies to look like soap opera video? Really?
 
2012-04-25 02:15:37 PM

Kryllith: One of the more recent versions of PowerDVD has something called TrueTheater which you can toggle as a video effect. The idea is to make a image even sharper and crisper than normal to make it more true to life. The good news is that it actually works. The bad news is that rather than make it look like you're looking at a really clear film, it makes it appear as though you're seeing at the actors as they're acting on set. That's potentially good if you'd like to experience it as if you were seeing it live on stage. The problem is most movies aren't designed that way. There's way too many shifts and background changes in movies, so it ends up making the movie feel phony. It's even worse if the movie is dependent a lot of special effects. My concern is that there might be a similar problem with this in The Hobbit, especially since the audience can't just toggle the effect off.


Just did a quick google on their site, and it looks like TrueTheater does a bunch of things (including increasing the framerate, up sampling HD video, lighting adjustments, etc). If I'm reading this thread correctly I am guessing the increased framerate causes the effect you mentioned. I personally don't like it either, for the reasons you stated. Kind of gratified to know I'm not alone (and to learn it's an effect I can toggle off, depending on my hardware and/or software.)
 
2012-04-25 02:25:31 PM

Wellon Dowd: The Voice of Doom: Vash's Apprentice
Oh boy! Two more movies of people walking!

Never understood why that's supposed to be a bad thing.

Video of people can be quite mesmerizing.

[i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120][i.imgur.com image 90x120]


i172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.comi172.photobucket.com
 
Skr
2012-04-25 02:26:50 PM
I'm looking forward to the 48fps. I particularly like how Soaps look, it is the horrendous acting and plot that make those unwatchable. I have faith that the actors and writing in the Hobbit two parter are top notch.
 
2012-04-25 02:42:55 PM

Kryllith: TrueTheater which you can toggle as a video effect. The idea is to make a image even sharper and crisper than normal to make it more true to life. The good news is that it actually works. The bad news is that rather than make it look like you're looking at a really clear film, it makes it appear as though you're seeing at the actors as they're acting on set


Yeah, that setting sucks. It approximates a higher frame rate by essentially duplicating frames to fill in the blanks. It looks like shiat and they should feel bad for doing it.

24fps has a sort of dream-like quality because of the motion blur that fills in those spaces. That's the difference between the film look and video look. I'm sure that The Hobbit will be offered in 24fps as well because they're going to need new equipment to run 48fps movies.
 
2012-04-25 03:01:02 PM

Cythraul: Oh yeah? Well I'm going to make movie that has 96 frames per second! So there!


www.hotflick.net
 
2012-04-25 03:07:32 PM

frepnog: Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: As an avid enjoyer of 60fps porn I'm really looking forward to this. It looks really good.

THAT EXISTS?


and t is glorious
 
2012-04-25 03:16:04 PM

Znuh: I bought a new plasma T.V. recently and I bought one with 2000+ mhz output

HDTV noob here - finally about to buy a new LCD HDTV. I've seen this high mhz rate at a couple of friend's houses, and I absolutely hate it.

Is there any way to turn it off? Or do I have to shop strictly for low mhz sets?

Mucho thanks FARK,

-Znuh


That's probably actually the "CinemaMotion" or "TruMotion" where the TV interprets between frames of your NTSC signal to make it more 'fluid' which makes everything look like it was shot on video, and sometimes scenes where a lot changes look like the beginning of the scene sped up. It's such shiat technology. I have a 120 hz TV and any time the power goes out and it loses its settings, the first thing I do, before adjusting colours/tint/brightness, is immediately turn the motion enhancement off... Every time I see it on, I turn it off. If I'm at a friend's place and they're not looking, I'll turn it off for them.
 
2012-04-25 03:18:04 PM

MadSkillz: That's probably actually the "CinemaMotion" or "TruMotion" where the TV interprets between frames of your NTSC signal to make it more 'fluid' which makes everything look like it was shot on video, and sometimes scenes where a lot changes look like the beginning of the scene sped up. It's such shiat technology


I just said that.
 
2012-04-25 03:46:20 PM
mongbiohazard
The whole movie is in 3D, but I saw Harry Potter, so I'm wondering what you mean about that...


I think I read something back then about 20-30 minutes at the end (the battle in the ministry) being shot in 3D and it sounded like it was the only part, so I went to see the 2D and not the 3D version.

I guess I'll go and check out 3D when the Hobbit is being shown; I don't think there's another movie which interests me in the cinema this year (maybe Nolan's Batman, but a Google search says that it won't be in 3D).
 
2012-04-25 04:03:47 PM

frepnog: Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: As an avid enjoyer of 60fps porn I'm really looking forward to this. It looks really good.

THAT EXISTS?


Here you go, Riley Mason, one of my personal favs:

Link pt1

Link pt2

Link pt3

Link pt4

you'll need winrar to combine the files and it's OBVIOUSLY NSFW
 
2012-04-25 04:22:47 PM

karmachameleon: sure haven't: I'm not sure if this has been covered, but HD doesn't effect what people call the "soap opera effect"/video effect.

In LCD and LED-LCD TV's, they have to compensate for the poor motion performance, so they introduced motion interpolation which creates more frames. Anyone who has seen this effect as this feature turned on. Plasma's don't have this because they don't need it. They can display things correctly at 60hz (don't believe the 600hz hype. Plasmas have 10 sub-fields, and each one is driven at 60hz). A TV with motion interpolation software will double this to 120hz (and now they have 240, 480, etc). Separate thing altogether from the amount of pixels.

Some people hate it, some people love it. It's a vero polarizing thing. And it'll seem extremely odd to see it in a theatre. If you have one yourself, or if you've ever seen them in display models in stores, it looks like home video. Like someone is just on set filming the film being made. Personally I love behind the scenes stuff so I enjoy it (makes it look like it's a behind the scenes thing).

But it takes away the Cinema feel. It doesn't look like film, it looks like video. And I don't think anyone will switch over.
That being said, I think filming in 48fps would be awesome, as someone said above, you would eliminate judder and what not from pans and movement. That would be fantastic.

But that is what makes it look like "cinema". I really don't see how this can be a polarizing thing - are there people who actually want their movies to look like soap opera video? Really?


I mean yeah, like I said, I enjoy it. I don't have it as we currently have a plasma, but when I see demos in stores I get a kick out of it.
But the reason I like it, is because I'm a huge behind the scenes person (as a kid, I didn't care that the magic trick looked cool, I was only interested in how it was done). So to me, it sort of gives you an idea of what it looked like on set that day. If you read around, other people like it just because it looks like real life. They feel it gives a better experience.

That being said, for first-time viewing of films, I'd probably want to watch it without the motionflow on (or whatever each set calls it). The video effect would be cool to me for movies I've seen before. ie watching something like Die Hard with it turned on would be pretty freakin cool I think.
 
2012-04-25 04:30:36 PM

uknowzit:

Newb here. Does this mean that my plasma will "stay current" as faster frame rates are employeed without software type gimmicks?


I'm not really sure. I know mine can run 60fps, as it uses something called 3:2 Pulldown, which I understand as:

60fps doesn't divide equally into 24. So to do so, it goes like this: 1 frame plays 3 times, the next one plays 2, the next 3.
Or something to that effect.

Just google frame rate and refresh rates, and then say goodbye to about 2 days of your life. There's a lot of info out there on it.
 
2012-04-25 05:25:21 PM

sure haven't: uknowzit:

Newb here. Does this mean that my plasma will "stay current" as faster frame rates are employeed without software type gimmicks?

I'm not really sure. I know mine can run 60fps, as it uses something called 3:2 Pulldown, which I understand as:

60fps doesn't divide equally into 24. So to do so, it goes like this: 1 frame plays 3 times, the next one plays 2, the next 3.
Or something to that effect.

Just google frame rate and refresh rates, and then say goodbye to about 2 days of your life. There's a lot of info out there on it.


thank you sir.
 
2012-04-25 05:44:05 PM

uknowzit: sure haven't: uknowzit:

Newb here. Does this mean that my plasma will "stay current" as faster frame rates are employeed without software type gimmicks?

I'm not really sure. I know mine can run 60fps, as it uses something called 3:2 Pulldown, which I understand as:

60fps doesn't divide equally into 24. So to do so, it goes like this: 1 frame plays 3 times, the next one plays 2, the next 3.
Or something to that effect.

Just google frame rate and refresh rates, and then say goodbye to about 2 days of your life. There's a lot of info out there on it.

thank you sir.


My pleasure. Good luck


I've been reading up on it for months, and am mostly getting an LED next, but still. Those plasmas are sooo colourful....
 
2012-04-25 06:00:36 PM
Old news

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan
 
2012-04-25 09:19:26 PM
For people whining about 3d (including me because I hate it) 2d glasses!
www.2d-glasses.com

Link to buy 2d glasses: Link

/so hot
//the link, not the glasses
 
2012-04-25 11:36:10 PM

namegoeshere: namegoeshere: esmated

I swear to FSM I typed all the letters.

Keyboard must be getting sticky...


/sent from my iPhone.
 
2012-04-26 12:08:41 AM
I'm curious how 48 fps will look; but I have to admit I'm prejudiced against it. I don't even like 30fps.
 
2012-04-26 08:19:42 AM

sure haven't: That being said, for first-time viewing of films, I'd probably want to watch it without the motionflow on (or whatever each set calls it). The video effect would be cool to me for movies I've seen before. ie watching something like Die Hard with it turned on would be pretty freakin cool I think.


actually, i agree here. It is kinda like how I take movies that I have seen dozens of times that are formatted 2:35 and crop them to 16:9 so they fill the screen on my HDTV. I have seen those movies; I don't really care if the sides are cropped off. It also can make an older movie seem fresh.
 
2012-04-26 10:23:36 AM
Stand by for a doubling of ticket prices - you're seeing twice as much film after all.
 
2012-04-26 12:56:47 PM

namegoeshere: namegoeshere: esmated

I swear to FSM I typed all the letters.

Keyboard must be getting sticky...


You took the FSM's name in vain.
You must say 10 Hail Marinaras in penance.

/& we'll get to that 'sticky keyboard' thing later...
 
2012-04-28 02:00:27 PM

Weaver95: Perri was kind of a moron and did nearly get them all killed at least a couple of times.


Did Pippin and Merri get gay-Hobbit-married and pull a Brangelina?

I'm a little disappointed about this 3D business for this movie. I have to watch films with open-captioning, and there hasn't been an open-captioned AND 3D movie done yet. It's always either/or. I seem to recall there being some brief subtitles in Avatar that were a part of the context of the film when I saw it in 3D, and I thought to myself, "3D subtitling looks pretty cool the way the words float in the air in the foreground of the action. I hope we get more of this!" But it hasn't happened, and now those of us who need subtitles are going to have to watch The Hobbit either in 3D with no dialogue whatsoever, or in 2D with subtitles, but we won't have the benefit of both.
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report