Movie Reviews 2.0

Just to be sure, I mean that I liked Captain America quite a bit, apart from the Action scenes which I thought were a bit weak. There are some brilliant pieces in there.

And yeah, Iron Man is a really strong character, though personally I thought the first movie was much better than the second. Thor definitely isn't bad either - in fact much better than I had expected initially.

 

Burn After Reading : Is such an amazing film, i've watched it several times.

 

They do think it logically...
The problem with 48fps is that we are not used to it.
Otherwise there wouldn't be any tv manufacturers that support 24p on their tvs.
Our eyes are used to low frames and consider this a cinematic image.
It's that simple.

I liked the Hobbit, but it felt odd to me.
In the beginning, I couldn't shake the feeling that everything was cgi...
Perhaps the fact that there was a lot less motion blur was my problem.

It's funny, in games, we put motion blur in, to make them look more cinematic.

 

The Hobbit - 3/10 An overly long, utterly silly movie.

 

To make them look more realistic actually. There is plenty of motion blur in Real Life. I know it's not quite the same since in reality you can focus on a moving object and it is no longer blurred, but it's the best we can do right now with such limited processing power and display technologies.

If our monitors and graphics cards were capable of refresh rates approaching infinity (I'm sure somewhere in there would be "good enough", but I dunno where exactly that is and it's probably much higher than you might think) we could ditch the motion blur and let our eyes do that for us for Maximum Realism

As for movies, it's not there to make things look "cinematic". Motion blur changes from nice to necessary at very low framerate + large screen. If 24Hz film sampled each frame *instantly* rather than over a small period of time, you would yak every time you went to the theatre.

And while not vomit inducing, even at 60Hz you run into problems if something is moving fast across the screen. Put a 120Hz monitor next to a 60Hz one and move the mouse around quickly. Amazing!

 

The TV manufacturers support 24p because almost all movies and most TV-series are shot in that format.

And who are "we"? I did not have a problem with 48fps and I am not used to it.

 

Yup, they are shot in 24p, but many modern TVs had problems displaying the image especially in fast scenes.
I don't think i can describe the effect clearly, but it felt like in some scenes the motion was displayed in fast forward.

With "we" I meant the average movie goer. including myself.
And neither did I have a problem with it, it just felt, weird at times!

 

It's good for panning scenes but I hate what it does for character movement.

And 3 d just isn't for me.

 

Yeah, I wasn't clear!
In 24 frames per second, the motion blur is a lot more evident.
I thought, that the biggest difference besides a smoother (to the eye picture) was that there was less motion blur, and possibly a clearer picture???

There is motion blur in reality, but it happens in very specific situations. I think that in games we use it artistically rather than trying to simulate real life!
But that's my opinion!

 

Partly because he threw in some fast scenes that movies normally avoid because they look bad. This was not necessarily a good idea. It's understandable that if you have a new technique, you want to use it for something that hasn't been done before, but then you can expect some adverse reactions.

Yep. That's a normal reaction. It is weird, as in something you haven't seen yet in the cinema.

 

The Hobbit movie didn't use 3D to any particularly great effect imo. I saw the RealD version, and some of the scenes had quite a lot of blur in peripheral vision. It was quite distracting.

Overall, I liked the movie, but it seemed like it was just telling the back story for LOTR. I did like the goblins/orks though. They looked more sinister this time. Thorin's(?) character was cool too, although I get the feeling that being an arrogant, angry dwarf prince isn't going to end well for him.

 

I actually have to agree with the use of 3D - some of the Pixar and Dreamworks movies use 3D to a really good, emotional effect. Here it was almost transparent - it didn't get in the way of anything, but it didn't really enhance much either. There was a scene where you looked down into a cave from above where I noticed it most, perphaps. The mountain scene also didn't really do anything vertigo inducing.

As for the back story, it's definitely very true that Jackson is directing The Hobbit with an eye to create some kind of co-herent series of movies. I don't mind that, in fact I appreciate it. Only the start of The Hobbit I thought shouldn't have been so blatent about it.

 

Perhaps you can present this survey of movie goers and their preferences. How was the survey done, did they get to see both versions of the whole movie or just parts of if for comparison? I am really looking forward to reading it!

 

A modern TV that is not crap will display 24p better than most analog cinemas. Have you seen a properly calibrated TV being fed 24p?

 

I'm not talking about "The Hobbit". I'm talking about every movie since I was born and probably way before that. If I am missing one or two that were actually shot and presented in 48p feel free to correct me.

It's not a preference, it is what we actually got at the movies. Twenty four frames per second.
It's what the average moviegoer has seen.
You said it yourself a few posts above...

And that's why in my opinion, the 48p version of this movie felt weird.
I'll quote Arwin, "weird, as in something you haven't seen yet in the cinema". I hope this gets my point across.

As for TVs, yes I've seen my LCD projector playing 24p content.
My LCD TV though sucks at playing 24p BluRays.
It does play a lot better if I disable the frame rate doubling. (120hz)

A DVD is a better example because what I'm trying to describe is, I think, more evident there. An NTSC release of 29.97fps quadrupled to a rounded off 120Hz.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood you and got a bit carried away.

 

But the average person has seen way more hours of TV (with higher framerates)
In about 6 weeks Im gonna see the hobbit in the theatre where they had the premier, so it should be as close to ideal as possible. I'll make up my mind then

 

No worries.
English isn't my native language.
It's very likely that I wasn't that clear to begin with.

 

That depends on what you are actually watching for televised content. TV-series are usually filmed (or captured) in 24p. News and sports are often captured in 50/60i, but is sometimes transmitted in 25/30p.

 

Cant wait for the paranormal activity remake