5 ms·

A slight bit off topic from the article here but was the 3D version the only one shown in 48fps? I saw the 3D version a fews days ago and was actually disappoin

A slight bit off topic from the article here but was the 3D version the only one shown in 48fps? I saw the 3D version a fews days ago and was actually disappointed that I wasn't able to experience the 48fps experience. To me the 3D effect seemed to cause a lot of jitter and poor fps so I was a bit ticked the whole time. But now having read this article I'm even more ticked off that I didn't even realize I was watching 48fps. ...and that makes me wonder why I couldn't tell the difference.

IvyMike 14y ago
I believe there were three versions: 2d 24fps, 3d 24 fps, and 3d 48 fps. Something like 400 theaters in the country had the HFR version. You probably saw 3d 24fps. Not all 3d projectors can do 48fps, and theaters wanted to hedge their bets about people hating it.
ramidarigaz 14y ago
Are you sure you watched the HFR version? Not all 3D showings had HFR. I think you may have only seen the regular version. HFR was really noticeable (for me, at least).
- JungleGymSam 14y ago
  See me other comment. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5034625 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5034625
mwilcox 14y ago
There's three versions: 24FPS 2D, 24FPS 3D, and 48FPS 3D. You most likely saw the 24FPS 3D version, unless it was specifically advertised as "HFR". The main aim of HFR is to make the 3D work better and not give the usual headaches, etc. people get when watching 3D. I haven't actually seen the 24FPS version yet, but I imagine there's a possibility the 24FPS version has a much faster shutter speed than would typically be seen in a 24FPS movie, which could give it a 'poor fps'/jittery feel like that you experience in a PC game with low FPS.
- georgemcbay 14y ago
  I saw the 2D-only version and there wasn't anything particularly jittery about it. It had the usual special effects issues with physics of unrealistic things looking, well, unrealistic (especially apparent in the dragon attack and the long shots when everyone is trying to run out of the troll mountain), but I didn't notice anything amiss that I could attribute to the 48fps->24fps down-conversion. Either the 3D/24-fps combo makes things weird or JungleGymSam saw the movie in a place with a janky projector.
- Firehed 14y ago
  Ironically, I saw the 48FPS 3d and that made it far worse. Any scene with motion was literally unwatchable with both eyes open - and this was true for every one of my friends that went that night. We suspect it was something wrong with the projector itself, as the 3d previews at 24fps looked fine. I'd really like to see it again properly if the operators get things straightened out, as the low-motion scenes looked incredible. Contrast that to Avatar, for example, which was an awful 3d experience for me as well, but mostly because I was stuck in the front row (I arrived "only" an hour early)
- chadgeidel 14y ago
  There's also an IMAX 3D version. IMAX used to be filmed on 4x larger film stock, but now that everything is digital, I'm not sure if the IMAX version is different than the standard 24FPS version.
- JungleGymSam 14y ago
  It was labeled as HFR and cost me a few extra bucks at that. Thinking back more I do remember a few scenes where I felt like things were smoother. Perhaps my expectations were too high or other people are simply way more sensitive to the effect? I'd like to see it at 4K, 48fps, and without 3D.
p0nce 14y ago
I saw the movie first in 2D 24 FPS and found it passable with the expected super-heavy storytelling. The second time was in 3D HFR and I thought it was really enjoyable and odd at the same times. HFR distincly made me think of reality TV or sport though and I would put all acting under increased scrutiny. I was definately more focused on the instant and less on the story. Overall I want to see what HFR films can do in the future.

IvyMike 14y ago

I believe there were three versions: 2d 24fps, 3d 24 fps, and 3d 48 fps. Something like 400 theaters in the country had the HFR version. You probably saw 3d 24fps. Not all 3d projectors can do 48fps, and theaters wanted to hedge their bets about people hating it.

ramidarigaz 14y ago

Are you sure you watched the HFR version? Not all 3D showings had HFR. I think you may have only seen the regular version. HFR was really noticeable (for me, at least).

JungleGymSam 14y ago
See me other comment. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5034625 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5034625

mwilcox 14y ago

There's three versions: 24FPS 2D, 24FPS 3D, and 48FPS 3D. You most likely saw the 24FPS 3D version, unless it was specifically advertised as "HFR". The main aim of HFR is to make the 3D work better and not give the usual headaches, etc. people get when watching 3D. I haven't actually seen the 24FPS version yet, but I imagine there's a possibility the 24FPS version has a much faster shutter speed than would typically be seen in a 24FPS movie, which could give it a 'poor fps'/jittery feel like that you experience in a PC game with low FPS.

georgemcbay 14y ago
I saw the 2D-only version and there wasn't anything particularly jittery about it. It had the usual special effects issues with physics of unrealistic things looking, well, unrealistic (especially apparent in the dragon attack and the long shots when everyone is trying to run out of the troll mountain), but I didn't notice anything amiss that I could attribute to the 48fps->24fps down-conversion. Either the 3D/24-fps combo makes things weird or JungleGymSam saw the movie in a place with a janky projector.
Firehed 14y ago
Ironically, I saw the 48FPS 3d and that made it far worse. Any scene with motion was literally unwatchable with both eyes open - and this was true for every one of my friends that went that night. We suspect it was something wrong with the projector itself, as the 3d previews at 24fps looked fine. I'd really like to see it again properly if the operators get things straightened out, as the low-motion scenes looked incredible. Contrast that to Avatar, for example, which was an awful 3d experience for me as well, but mostly because I was stuck in the front row (I arrived "only" an hour early)
chadgeidel 14y ago
There's also an IMAX 3D version. IMAX used to be filmed on 4x larger film stock, but now that everything is digital, I'm not sure if the IMAX version is different than the standard 24FPS version.
JungleGymSam 14y ago
It was labeled as HFR and cost me a few extra bucks at that. Thinking back more I do remember a few scenes where I felt like things were smoother. Perhaps my expectations were too high or other people are simply way more sensitive to the effect? I'd like to see it at 4K, 48fps, and without 3D.

p0nce 14y ago

I saw the movie first in 2D 24 FPS and found it passable with the expected super-heavy storytelling. The second time was in 3D HFR and I thought it was really enjoyable and odd at the same times. HFR distincly made me think of reality TV or sport though and I would put all acting under increased scrutiny. I was definately more focused on the instant and less on the story. Overall I want to see what HFR films can do in the future.