Caught this in 3D on the Imax.

Overall, I enjoyed it and I was sad that the run has come to an end.


I'm starting to think maybe there's something wrong with either me, or my local cinema though!

There were many parts of the film that looked downright poor to my eyes. It was as though they'd set the frame rate far too high on the camera...it played out very "videoey"...which was very strange considering how the films usually look.

This affected all the daylight scenes...and made this huge budget film look like something from 90's British television...kind of Lord of the Rings meets Blackadder.

Don't know if they tried out a new camera, or had a different camera team working on it...but...it was strange.

EDIT: Seems it's been that way in all the films...but I never noticed it before. Really looked terrible in this one. Gave all the actors almost comedic movement when they exited scenes.

Odd. ;D

These movies were shot in 48 frames. I'm not sure if the last two were only shown in this frame-rate, because I remember there was quite a bit of publicity about the second one being shown in 48 frames. That most likely had something to do with it.

I saw the previous two, the second on in 3D at the cinema in 48 frames, I'll see this one as well. I wasn't a fan of the previous two so I doubt I'll like this one. But, I'll give it a shot.

Yeah, looked it up.

Apparently, they reckon 3D effects and CGI look better in 48 frames per second...but it looks awful on actors.

It made whole scenes comedic...especially because people were always saying something dramatic...then they'd run off screen like in a Benny Hill show. Very strange aesthetic. :)

(Americans might need to google Benny Hill!).

Strange how much it effects acting performance..it gave some scenes a real amateur feel. It was very hard to maintain suspension of disbelief...the fact I managed to was testament to some very well-made action sequences.

I watched the second one in 3D...I never noticed it there at all. It's really apparent here.

If anyone is interested, I found this little discussion about the topic that I didn't even know was happening.

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

Be interested what other people's thoughts are on the matter.

I'm not a fan of these super quality versions they show. Like you say people look weird, it's like watching someone act on film and then on some cheap TV movie where weird things are in focus. It's distracting and takes away from the performance. Maybe it's because we've been conditioned to watch people act on film so we are so used to the aesthetic.

At the end of the day I really don't need to see people's pores and skin blemishes. It's going to be hard when 4K TV's become the norm, soon. Hopefully they don't get too crazy with films.

I think we're conditioned to a certain extent, but we've also been conditioned because video looks so much worse than the "cinematic" look.

High frame rates have been around since video was invented. People have always tried to stay away from them and make things more "cinematic".

Doesn't matter how much you've spent on actors, lighting, locations, set design...it still looks like garbage.

There's three versions of the film: 3D High frame rate, 3D (which I realise I saw the second one in) and 2d (which I saw the first in).

Avoid 3D HFR...it reduces the film to a student parody in parts. Weird. So strange to see such a big blockbuster with cutting edge technology look like something you'd shoot on a HD camcorder. You could tell that everything was fake.

Very interesting how the exact same film can be totally changed purely in post-production though.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films High frame rates have been around since video was invented.

I have a VHS tape that claims it's 60 fps. It actually really does look smoother but not very "movie-like".

I was working with a colour grader the other day and learned about stuff called noise and how removing too much of it can make the image look like a painting. I'm not pretending I know enough about anything to make a suggestion. It was just something interesting I picked up while working with him.

I learned all about skin tones too... and how black skin can hinder great shots. We had one shot where lowering the tone made the actor disappear altogether. That was probably our fault originally though when filming it. We didn't have a proper DP on our first film.