View Single Post
  #25  
Old 12-18-2012, 06:01 AM
DNA-1842's Avatar
DNA-1842 DNA-1842 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe, Terra - ZZ9 PluralZAlpha
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
Sorry to hear of your disappointment, DNA.
If it's any consolation, as much as I'd like to see The Hobbit and the nine minute trailer/opener for STID, I don't think I really want to see the trailer. I want to be pleasantly surprised and blown away when STID opens next year.....barring the fruition of Mayan predictions.
Well, the opening scene of the last Star Trek film was my favourite bit of the whole film, so I was hoping to see a strong opening and be left wanting to see more. I wanted to be pleasantly surprised by THAT bit and thus not be worried about all the spoilers about that section of the film floating around... Oh well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
Hmm... I did better notice the HFR when I re-watched The Hobbit on a regular screen. In IMAX, I kept debating back and forth whether I was noticing anything different at all. Throughout the entire movie.
The IMAX screening I went to was only 24fps, but the normal sized screening I went to before that was 48fps. The first ten minutes I found the hfr quite distracting, and it did make the opening scene look quite cheap, but after that I was blown away by the quality of the detail and the crisp, sharpness of the camera movements. I've always been frustrated by action sequences with moving cameras (Like when Kirk was attacked in the bar in ST09, and just about the whole of Quantum of Solace) because you can't see a thing and only afterwards are you given an opportunity to find out what had happened.

Was it definitely an HFR screening?

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
As I understand it, watching a movie at 48fps on a big screen in the theater is very similar to watching a blu-ray on a 120hz 1080p HDTV. You get the "you are there" feel, as if seeing it with the clarity of your own eyes, as opposed to seeing it through the filter of a film camera. Is this accurate?

I don't think we have a 48fps system at our local theater. We have IMAX, but not the HFR I keep reading in these big screen discussions.
Not quite, because any movie currently available was not shot in 48fps, but in 24fps. So your 120Hz refresh rate on your TV fills in the sizeable gaps between each frame the film gives it and the next, but it doesn't actually have any information about what goes in between. So it looks pretty, and maybe a bit smoother, but it's kind of lying to you.

Whereas with The Hobbit they actually have twice as much footage for the same duration of film, so as the camera pans quickly through an action sequence, you can actually make out exactly was is going on. Coming back to Kirk in the bar, if that scene had been shot in 48 then no one would be complaining about not being able to tell precisely what was going on (though some people might have got motion sickness).

I recommend driving as far as necessary to see it in 48fps. The listings on the cinemas websites should tell you if they have an HFR projector.
__________________
Gronda Gronda to all Zarking Hoopy Froods! Bowties are cool.
I Am A Friend Of


(And an indirectly founding patron of the Elizadolots Avatar Thingy.)
Reply With Quote