The HFR Question

For my general thoughts on the first installment of The Hobbit and seeing it in HFR 3D, click here. Today's post is simply a comparison of that viewing experience to seeing it in regular, 24fps (as opposed to 48fps) 3D.

I was right: the movie was better in HFR. It was much more stunning, crisp, and sleek in the visual sense. This format also allowed my eye to better take in all the details, particularly during fast-moving shots. 3D generally gives movies a kind of shakiness, if you will. It's not quite a blurriness during action shots, but it's similar to that. While the 48fps smoothened all of this away, I found it difficult to focus on certain scenes in 24fps. And while 48fps made it like watching the movie through a window, 24fps only added a little extra depth. My second viewing of the movie was ever so slightly visually disappointing.

My reaction is this: if movies are made in 3D, shouldn't they also be in HFR? I know without a doubt that if I am ever choosing between HFR 3D and regular 3D again, I will choose HFR. It made the 3D much better--unless you're one of those people who can't get used to how the format looks. I know there are such people, but I frankly can't understand their perspective.

The only unfortunate thing I may have discovered is that three hours of 3D may be too much for me (note: I've never had problems with 3D before). I remember feeling not quite sick, but a little off after seeing the movie the first time. I thought it was because I was getting hungry and had a late lunch and such. But the same thing happened the second time. . . and that time I had lunch almost right after the movie. It was New Year's Eve, and I felt not quite dizzy, not quite groggy, not quite nauseous until at least eleven that night. Was it the result of too much 3D? I hope not . . . but don't worry: I'm not too scared to watch a 3D movie again (I just wouldn't feel the need to watch 3D at home).