The Hobbit - Part 1 in 48fps
If you look on the Movie thread you'll see my review of the film - in 2d; today I saw it again in the new format.
I think the first thing worth saying was that I enjoyed this film as much the second time round as the first. The only amendment I would make is that in the first review I stated that although Jackson et al have made some significant changes they were within the spirit of the book, in fact one change definitely isn't.
So what were my impressions of 48fps?
On the whole I really don't find anything to recommend 3d, I particularly dislike wearing sunglasses in a cinema, and losing colour saturation.
Except ...here I didn't, or not so much. What I DID get was detail and clarity, in spades.
I had time to see and absorb all sorts of detailed work, from the costumiers through to Weta. All sorts of small details, some that helped me enjoy the film more.
So, a great success then?
Initially I thought 'definitely not'.
In TLOTR there were two effects shots that I thought particularly clumsy:
1. Isildur putting on the ring next to the Anduin, before diving in. This looked like the actor just stood in front of a green screen; and
2. The hobbits stood in front of the great and good at Minus Tirith, after the destruction of the ring, and then approached by the King; this appeared equally false to me.
When I first started watching the film a number of shots looked equally crass to me, but then seemed to improve. Was this just me acclimatising?
Interesting article here about the 48fps effect, and how it can be perceived by different people in different ways:
http://movieline.com/2012/12/1...edium=hobbitcoverage
This film appeared more brightly lit than the 2d version, but I wouldn't describe it as 'video', and within the 3d context I preferred this to the washed out effect of previous films I have seen in 3d.
If I was going to see a film in 3d then this is the way I would try and see it, and the sound system in the cinema was a real step up.
I would LOVE to see a 2d 48fps.
M
