[Movies] HFR - love it or hate it? (aka, 48 FPS)

[Deleted]

I have been reading a lot of Hobbit reviews lately.

While the film itself in generally critically acclaimed the HFR, aka. the 48 frames per second is a very controversial topic.


There seems to be a strong divide between supporter and haters.

I personally am not sure what to make of it. I can see arguments on both sides. After seeing the Hobbit in 3D-HFR I do think:

a) HFR makes everything look a bit more "cheap" and like a TV documentary.

b) but it really enhances scenes with special effects and CGI.

c) I got used to it very quickly. I only really noticed it for the first 10-15 minutes of the film.


Maybe a middle ground...roughly 32 FPS would have been a less controversial sweet-spot.

After all the heat the Hobbit is getting I don't think the HFR will catch on. But it was an interesting experiment none the less.

[Dispersedshadow]

Some scenes looked bad, but I'm not sure the HFR was entirely to blame. Some scenes, the lighting just looked off - and I'm not sure if that's from 3D or HDR or just bad lighting.

Most of the scenes looked brilliant and for those scenes I was in the movie 100%, but I think the use of HDR made it more likely to pull me out of the movie (especially in the slower scenes, when my eye tends to wander around the frame).

I think HDR will eventually catch on - but I think a modern day action or sci-fi action movie might have been a better vehicle to really sell us on this technology, rather than something such as the Hobbit.

[Markluzz]

Some scenes were brilliant, others looked like I was watching them film the movie.

[Fuzzzie]

Dying to go watch the film but I've been too busy. Hopefully this weekend