It is, although the "darkening" effect may be due to your local theater.

I'll never forget the reaction to the Beatles catalog being transferred to CD back in the mid-80's.

Please note I said transferred, not remastered or mastered for digital but transferred.

I was a young kid working a corporate summer job during college and people in the office were PISSED:

I've never heard that tambourine before.

I've never heard those voices before.

I've never heard those strings before.

This isn't the way The Beatles intended their music to sound.

LMAO

48 FPS (and later 60FPS) will not only change the way we look at cinema, it'll change the way we feel about cinema.

I can't imagine this being better than the LOTR movies because of how amazing those were, but I still can't wait to see The Hobbit. I expect it to be really good.

Completely.

Actually, there is no technical reason holding us back from shooting at 120 FPS right now. (current crop of digital movie cameras max at 120/5K)

My guess is that the next generation will top out at 300 FPS and we will stay there for quite some time ... instead focusing more on pushing resolution over frame rates. I just can't imagine the human eye would even be able to pick up anything after that point but I may be wrong. Either way, the main reason to stick at 300 FPS is because it can be divided easily by both 50 and 60. That reason alone may cause us to get there sooner rather than later.

Sounds awesome. Can't wait! :thumb:

It's definitely some cool stuff.

On a semi-related note, if you had a 60 fps movie on blu-ray, you're screwed trying to watch it at that rate. Unless you are ok with 1280×720. And of course you are probably screwed on HDMI transfer of the video until HDMI 2.0 comes out. (which should actually be soon)

Funny thing is.. the displays are pretty much ready for 300 FPS right now.

After further thought on this, it may be 600 FPS/Hz that we top out at actually. Depends on a number of factors, but that is the REALLY sweet spot as far as compatibility goes.

Wouldn't be hard to get movies to this level but will take some time before the home market catches up. (HDMI 4.0? UltraHD 2.0?) Yet again, the displays capable of this will be standard soon so who knows.

5-STAR REVIEW.

http://tvnz.co.nz/hobbit-news/unexpe...review-5261087


All in all, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has set forth a revolution in film. It's also a film which you really do have to see at the cinema and in the way Peter Jackson intended; there's no real technology currently which will offer the same experience on the small screen.

And it's sure as hell raised the bar for the upcoming Avatar sequels, having redefined what audiences should expect from a virtual world.

Magical, majestic, mystical and utterly masterful, The Hobbit movie is an enthralling,engrossing and unmissable return to Middle Earth (especially if you're a committed LOTR fan).

moar!!!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...pected-Journey

ROFL......like almost anything "new", it takes time for people to adjust.

I will definately seek out a 48FPS showing of this when its released. Im very curious about it.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! 71% on the tomatometer.


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_...ected_journey/

Example: An Unexpected Journey may as well be The Phantom Menace and God help us all if the next two movies aren't better than this one.

Reviews are starting to trickle out....and it sounds like it has pacing problems....mostly a meh.

Uh oh....the 48FPS backlash has begun....



The Hobbit's review embargo went up an hour ago, and right off the bat I'm reading all kinds of descriptions of how 48 frames-per-second photography doesn't cut it. It's too new, too specific, too crackling -- a "fiasco," according to a Movieline headline for a Jen Yamato story. TheWrap's Steve Pond called the process "a little disturbing and uncomfortable," and Variety's Peter Debruge said that with 48 fps "everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious."

And MSN's James Rocchi tweeted that we can "blame Tolkien for the dull plotting, but blame Peter Jackson for the ruinous 48fps." Rim shot!

Let me explain something. The 48 fps feeling of discomfort or unfamiliarity, if you insist on that being your primary response, goes away after 20 minutes or a half hour or thereabouts. You get used to it and then it's nothing. It doesn't get in the way, it doesn't call attention to itself -- it's just there. And it's fine.

Let me explain something else. 48 fps is a lot closer to what life looks like with your eyes. It's much clearer and sharper and more vivid than 24 fps, which looks like that special neverland called "cinema" -- a very peculiar world with very specific climates and textures, and all of it fake. No matter what Pond, Debruge, Yamato and Rocchi are telling you, there's nothing wrong, trust me, with a movie looking more vivid and life-like and less like the other-worldly realm of 24 fps, which the harumphs prefer because -- it really comes down to this -- they've been watching it all their lives.

All the harumphs really know is that 48 fps ain't 24 fps, and so they're saying "eff this noise!" But if you can just roll with the new way and stop having a hissy fit about it not looking like 24 fps, it's pretty cool. And it's really ideal for big, empty, drawn-out and wildly bloated movies like The Hobbit because at least it looks so much more gleaming and molecular than 24 fps, like it's happening on the other side of an absolutely spotless glass window.

Let me explain a third thing. Once you've seen a big, empty, splashy, FX-driven film at 48 fps, you'll never again be fully satisfied with seeing a big, empty, splashy, FX-driven film at 24 fps. 48 fps is perfect for comic-book whack-offs, Star Trek or Star Wars flicks, monster movies, vampire movies, pirate movies, adventure flicks, zombie flicks, animated features...anything that isn't straight drama or any kind of impressively written, character-driven adult fare aimed at anyone with a year or two of college.

My personal preference is that straight adult fare should be shot at 30 fps because it looks a lot cleaner than 24 fps and reduces pan blur and makes the action seem smoother. And all the rest of the films (i.e., those described above) should be shot at 48 fps. And believe me, the harumphs will eventually ease up and settle in.

As for The Hobbit itself, it's a major slog. I began looking at my watch at the 25-minute mark, at which point I moaned and muttered to myself, "God...over two hours to go!" It's like being on a long dull plane ride to Alaska without wifi. It's ponderous, meditative and glacially paced, and sporadically or episodically cranked up in the usual Jackson style. The acting is always broad (except for Martin Freeman's low-key Bilbo Baggins), but everything is always frenzied and amplified and compounded with the heroes facing terrible, insurmountable odds, and the action scenes always ending in a cliffhanger with the "oh my God!" rescue never happening until the very last second, and with nobody "good" ever getting seriously hurt, much less killed. They might be unconscious and look dead, but they'll wake up sooner or later.

I knew it would be like this, and it was. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" was a relatively slim volume but Jackson has turned it into a big lumbering trilogy. I really can't bear the idea of watching two more three-hour-long Hobbit flicks...and I don't think I will.


http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/...sting_hobb.php

People that love the book won't have a problem with pacing. Imo.

Scrolling through some more of that blog, the guy reads like your stereotypical self-aggrandizing film snot, who'll be naturally predisposed against anything that might be popular amongst the unwashed masses.

I meant "film snob", but "film snot" kind of works for me.