Very nice assessment. Here's my point of comparison.
>
> The 48fps seemed to work for me, except for close ups with little actual depth. Those felt like pure video.
>
It does go "video" at points. For me it was not the close-ups as much as the lack of motion blur, grain, and the white point problem you note below.
> The lighter scenes seemed pretty heavily treated in post, whites seemed clipped at points, which distracted me and made things look artificial. Also I sometimes had the feeling I was watching an actor with a silly hat and suit in those lighter scenes. Just wasn't as convincing as in the darker scenes.
>
Agreed totally. Not unique to your viewing. This was most pronounced when whites had a blue cast (such as moonlight) rather than a warm cast. Warm whites looked fine. The bluer, the worse the problem.
>
> I felt that some actions - like running from A to B - actually felt slower because of the 48fps.
>
I did not register this consciously, but in hindsight I agree. This is my biggest concern with the lack of motion blur. As I have actually added motion blur in post to increase the sense of speed in a scene, it only makes sense that eliminating this can be a problem for action.
> Took me a few seconds to realize they were meant to be slowmotion - just felt like slowly acted scenes at first. Maybe that takes some getting used to.
>
I also missed the intentional slow motion at first. This might really simply have been bad choices in how this scene appears in context and is choreographed.
And my additional comments:
I went with the whole family (8 in all). They are big fans and harsh critics, but non technical. They all liked the film and were particularly impressed by the sharpness of everything, apparently positively so. None are fans of 3D but everyone agreed that they were pleasantly surprised. It did not bother them. I realize that is back-handed, but I did take this as a meaningful critique as I agree that the HFR definitely improves the believability and comfort of the 3D image.
The only negative (technical) comment was that several thought there was "too much CG" and would have preferred the creatures be more "real" as was the case in LOTR. Personally, I think that "real" would not have worked because of the stunning resolution. What was real (dwarf makeup) suffered, especially in well lit scenes as pointed out above. I think the CG worked better than makup and it is the sharpness that made it noticeable to them. Oddly, I thought the CG was stunning. A new benchmark.
Also the sound was terrible for me in all the opening quiet scenes. Please tell me that I was in a terrible dead spot in the theater!
In short, you MUST see this film if you care about theater technology. And you must see it in 3D HFR and then compare. I will be comparing to the 2D ASAP.
Cheers,
tod
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (7) |
No comments:
Post a Comment