Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Rate The Last Movie You Watched
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rate The Last Movie You Watched - Page 796

post #11926 of 16420

I've read that 48 fps Hobbit has been making some people sick. I imagine it will be a lot like watching a movie on a 120 Hz HDTV that have that weird overly-fluid "PBS documentary" look to them. I dunno, looks strange to me.

 

On a side note, they will be playing a new Man of Steel trailer in front of Hobbit, but it's also available online. Looks awesome!

post #11927 of 16420

I don't understand people that don't like 120hz+ TVs. They looks so much better. I've heard 'unnatural' but to me it looks so much more real than regular TV...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dxanex View Post

I've read that 48 fps Hobbit has been making some people sick. I imagine it will be a lot like watching a movie on a 120 Hz HDTV that have that weird overly-fluid "PBS documentary" look to them. I dunno, looks strange to me.

 

On a side note, they will be playing a new Man of Steel trailer in front of Hobbit, but it's also available online. Looks awesome!

post #11928 of 16420

I'm intrigued to see what a film looks like in 48 fps, but I'm annoyed that my only option for seeing it that way is 3-D. I don't think I've ever watched a movie on a really high-end, high-def TV before, and most of the video games I play are either pretty old or are very indie, so I'm not really sure what to expect. I mean, I suppose I am--crisper detail while capturing movement and less judder during camera movement, but I suppose there will be other side-effects, as well. I'm trying to go into it with an open mind, but I'm getting increasingly annoyed with the movie industry's focus on technology rather than on what actually makes movies good. Never once while watching a movie have I thought to myself--boy, this sure would be a vastly better experience if it were in 3-D and filmed at a higher frame rate. So I'm sorta hoping that Jackson can make me a believer. Though he hasn't exactly gotten himself off to a good start, what with splitting The Hobbit into three movies...

post #11929 of 16420
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorbidToaster View Post

I don't understand people that don't like 120hz+ TVs. They looks so much better. I've heard 'unnatural' but to me it looks so much more real than regular TV...

 

 

For videogames, 120 Hz looks fine and I'll use it. But for TV and movies I leave it turned off, because it looks jarring. I remember when my roommate at the time got his 120 Hz TV, we watched Transformers 2 (I rate it 3/10) and during the really crazy shaky-cam parts it looked so bad and nausea-inducing that we both started laughing in disbelief. Some people don't see anything wrong with it, but I've always thought it looks weird as hell.

 

Also, I'm not sure how theaters can justify charging more for 48fps Hobbit. More film going through the projector, perhaps?


Edited by dxanex - 12/12/12 at 9:42am
post #11930 of 16420

Man, and I thought Transformers 2 looked bad and nauseating anyways. x.x Maybe I should stay away from these new-fangled TVs lol.

 

Also, is there an additional surcharge on top of the 3-D for the 48 fps? I didn't notice, but I admittedly didn't look at the pricing structure very carefully. I suppose it might depend upon the theatre. Also, I doubt that film has anything to do with it. I'm sure it's digital all the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dxanex View Post

 

For videogames, 120 Hz looks fine and I'll use it. But for TV and movies I leave it turned off, because it looks jarring. I remember when my roommate at the time got his 120 Hz TV, we watched Transformers 2 (I rate it 3/10) and during the really crazy shaky-cam parts it looked so bad and nausea-inducing that we both started laughing in disbelief. Some people don't see anything wrong with it, but I've always thought it looks weird as hell.

 

Also, I'm not sure how theaters can justify charging more for 48fps Hobbit. More film going through the projector, perhaps?


Edited by metalsonata - 12/12/12 at 9:58am
post #11931 of 16420

I'll complete this review tonight, but last night I watched the first half of The Bourne Legacy. Jeremy Renner has become one of my favorite actors, and after seeing him on SNL a few weeks back it's pretty clear that this is one very talented guy. I've enjoyed each of the first three Bourne Films and so far this one is living up to my expectations. I love the way they overlap this one with the end of the last film. It's very smart how they transition you from Jason Bourne to Aaron Cross (Renner). Unless the second half of this just fizzles, so far it's a winner, IMO.

 

 

The Bourne Legacy - 8.5/10 (through the first half)

 

 

700

 

 

Just finished the film and I'm actually going to increase my rating a bit...I thought this movie was solid. I haven't read many of the criticisms of the film, so it'll be interesting to see what aspects people have taken issue with, but my opinion is pretty firm. One of my main concerns going in was that we were going to see Jason Bourne "lite". That's not what it was at all. In fact, one of my favorite aspects of the movie was the fact that Aaron Cross is an entirely different person than Jason Bourne. His personality is different, the way he sees the world is different, what he knows about his background and his purpose are both different, etc. Jason Bourne is sort of taking it all in and functioning on auto-pilot much of the time as he's trying to make sense of what is going on. Aaron Cross has all his ducks in a row, knows the score, and is able to move pieces around like a chess board. One of the best sequences in the film are the scenes between Renner and Rachel Weisz when they are sort of exchanging information. There is even a bit of comic relief thrown in in some of the dialogue that I thought was great. 

 

In the 2nd half of the film we get more of the Bourne action, but to me the best part of the movie as a whole is how many nuggets we're served up about the history of Treadstone. They sort of mix in the political angle, the personal angle, the patriotic angle, and a few other ingredients and what you get is a really appetizing 2hrs, IMO. Renner is NOT Jason Bourne 2.0....he's Aaron Cross 1.0. I love where they took this movie and I can't wait to see the next one. 

 

Revised rating: 8.8/10


Edited by Focker - 12/12/12 at 9:45pm
post #11932 of 16420
^ I am really glad to hear that you are liking that so far. I am going to be watching that soon and I was hearing people say it was a disappointment.

I have seen all of the current Bourne movies at least 3 times each. eek.gif
post #11933 of 16420

120 hz is no problem at all. It´s just that no movies is shot at 120 fps. What the tv does is interpolation and introduce fake images or just repeat the same ones several times. If the movies was shot at 60 fps you would just get perfectly smooth and sharp images as nature intended..

TV broadcasts is way better in this regard.

So no reason be afraid of the Hobbit HFR or similar. Some like the 24p strobe effect. Me personally I just don´t get what is so great with panorama shots that isn´t rendered smooth. It´s a 100 year old standard they didn´t get it perfect the first time.

 

Speaking of 3D rewatched Prometheus again. Bluray 3D version. Made more sense this second time except for this snake hugging and some other stuff of course. But it was more clear what it´s missing. There is just no characters to like. Okay you died that´s good why care?

Sure I like David. The Android is just about impossible to totally fail at for any decent actor but the problem is everybody else is about as cold. Except Noomis character but I hate here accent. She is no Ripley she could die as well.

But as usual with Ridley Scott hard to blame his visual style.

 

Also watched first half of Titanic 3D. This is clearly the superior version I am happy they did this. Kind of a reference for 2D/3D conversion :)

post #11934 of 16420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc-holliday View Post

^ I am really glad to hear that you are liking that so far. I am going to be watching that soon and I was hearing people say it was a disappointment.
I have seen all of the current Bourne movies at least 3 times each. eek.gif

 

I've heard the same comments...so far so good, but it wouldn't be the first time that a film started off well and then went into the crapper. I'm hoping that doesn't happen, cause I love the way they've tied this into the jason bourne character. Also has a fantastic cast - Renner, Edward Norton, Rachel Weisz, David Strathairn, etc. Will probably get to sit down and finish it before midnight, so will post thoughts before I hit the sack.

 

I'm with you on the first three films for sure...I've seen them each a handful of times, and probably seen the first one at least ten lol

post #11935 of 16420
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalsonata View Post

Man, and I thought Transformers 2 looked bad and nauseating anyways. x.x Maybe I should stay away from these new-fangled TVs lol.

 

Also, is there an additional surcharge on top of the 3-D for the 48 fps? I didn't notice, but I admittedly didn't look at the pricing structure very carefully. I suppose it might depend upon the theatre. Also, I doubt that film has anything to do with it. I'm sure it's digital all the way.


Not sure on how they filmed it, and whether they used real 3D cameras, but I'll be watching it in IMAX HFR 3D, which is about 2x the usual price.

 

When watching the 48fps trailer, I couldn't let go of the feeling that I was hovering along with the camera, because of the fluidity of the motion. It almost seems like an uncanny valley effect to me.

Its realistic, but creepy.

 

Still, I'll reserve any further thoughts until I watch the movie.

post #11936 of 16420
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post


Not sure on how they filmed it, and whether they used real 3D cameras, but I'll be watching it in IMAX HFR 3D, which is about 2x the usual price.

 

When watching the 48fps trailer, I couldn't let go of the feeling that I was hovering along with the camera, because of the fluidity of the motion. It almost seems like an uncanny valley effect to me.

Its realistic, but creepy.

 

Still, I'll reserve any further thoughts until I watch the movie.


I didn't know they had a 48fps trailer of Hobbit up, and I just checked it out. Yup, it indeed looks like it does the same effect as 120 Hz HDTV...too fluid and weird..almost sped up, but not. I'm happy to hear that this is only on the 3D version of the film anyway, so that solidifies that I won't see it in this format.

 

Not to disrespect Peter Jackson or be a hater..but I hate 3D and this 48fps movement looks gross. There, I said it. I really hope this doesn't become the new standard whether or not it's technically more "correct" than 24fps.

 

Edit: ok, I can't say I totally hate 3D, because Avatar on IMAX was a sight to behold, and so was Transformers 3...but other than these rare occasions I find it totally unnecessary and gimmicky 


Edited by dxanex - 12/12/12 at 7:35pm
post #11937 of 16420

Where are you guys finding legit 48 fps trailers for The Hobbit? All I'm finding are fan-made 'post-converted' ones, which isn't quite right...

post #11938 of 16420
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalsonata View Post

Where are you guys finding legit 48 fps trailers for The Hobbit? All I'm finding are fan-made 'post-converted' ones, which isn't quite right...


http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4

 

I guess it's legit. I just googled "hobbit 48fps trailer"

post #11939 of 16420
Quote:
Originally Posted by dxanex View Post

 

Not to disrespect Peter Jackson or be a hater..but I hate 3D and this 48fps movement looks gross. There, I said it. I really hope this doesn't become the new standard whether or not it's technically more "correct" than 24fps.

 

Edit: ok, I can't say I totally hate 3D, because Avatar on IMAX was a sight to behold, and so was Transformers 3...but other than these rare occasions I find it totally unnecessary and gimmicky 


Not to mention the post processed 3D. Its the worst kind.

 

In any case, this movie is more like an experiment, lets see if it takes off.

 

I'm guessing 48fps also increases the post production work significantly, in terms of the rendering power required. Avatar required a supercomputer to get the work done, and from Wikipedia, each minute of the movie is some 17GB. I wonder what it would take to render Avatar at 48fps.


Edited by proton007 - 12/12/12 at 7:44pm
post #11940 of 16420

Checked that site out--looks like it's all still fan-work. I think the only way you'll really see The Hobbit in 48 fps without fan-tinkering is to see it on the big screen.

 

Edit: The only movie I've seen where the 3D added to the experience for me rather than detracted from it was Werner Herzog's wonderful Cave of Forgotten Dreams. Even the much-lauded 3D in Avatar I found to mostly be an annoyance...


Edited by metalsonata - 12/12/12 at 8:12pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Rate The Last Movie You Watched