'Hobbit film wizardry left us feeling sick’: Cinema-goers complain camera speeds and 3D effects caus

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Uh, oh, the wife gets motion sick easy, including just in the car. This may not be good.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241758/Hobbit-film-wizardy-left-feeling-sick--Cinema-goers-complain-camera-speeds-3D-effects-caused-headaches-queasiness.html

'Hobbit film wizardry left us feeling sick’: Cinema-goers complain camera speeds and 3D effects caused headaches and queasiness
By Becky Evans
PUBLISHED: 10:27 GMT, 2 December 2012 | UPDATED: 16:33 GMT, 2 December 2012
Comments (192) Share

Cinema-goers have complained of feeling sick and dizzy after watching early screenings of The Hobbit.

Peter Jackson's eagerly awaited new film is the first to be shot using high-speed 3D cameras that capture twice the normal number of frames per second.
But some viewers said the filming techniques made them feel nauseous and even caused migraines.
Scroll down to watch trailer

The Sunday Times reported one 'avid Middle Earth fan', who had flown to New Zealand from Australia for the premiere, said: 'My eyes cannot take everything in, it's dizzying, now I have a migraine.'
Another fan tweeted: 'It works for the big snowy mountains, but in close-ups the pictures strobes. I left loving the movie but feeling sick.'
The Sunday Times said one fan described having motion sickness similar to being on a rollercoaster.
They said: 'You have to hold your stomach down and let your eyes pop at first to adjust. This is not for wimps.'
More...How on earth did they film Life of Pi? The novel's author Yann Martel reveals how it was finally done
Hobbit mania grips New Zealand with 'Elf' weatherman presenting forecast in Elvish and politicians referring to the 'fellowship'

However, others praised the way the film - starring Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins - had been shot.

Hollywood director Bryan Singer wrote on Twitter after the world premiere of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey on Wednesday: 'Having some serious frame rate envy. Amazing and involving. Loved it!'
The 3D company that worked with Jackson on the shoot said the new technology should actually stop people feeling ill.
Matt Cowan, chief scientist at RealD, told stuff.co.nz: 'What you will experience is smoother motion.

'The effect you get for things like explosions is much more real.
'It is a great experiment and kudos to Peter Jackson for doing it.'

Success: Other fans at early screenings said director Peter Jackson, pictured at the world premiere, praised the filming techniques

Glamorous: Thousands of fans turned gathered for the workd premiere of The Hobbit to see stars such as Cate Blanchett, pictured

Baggins: Martin Freeman stars in The Hobbit trilogy as Bilbo Baggins and Elijah Wood, right, reprises his role as Frodo
The movie - the first in a trilogy - is shot at a camera speed of 48 frames per second - double that normally used.

Critics did not react warmly to an unfinished version of the film describing it as looking like a 'made for television BBC movie - so uncompromisingly real, slightly sped up, that it looked fake. It was jarring.'
The movie came under fire earlier this year after critics who had seen ten minutes of the unfinished film compared it to a made-for-television film.
Ian McKellen, who reprises his role as Gandalf in the film, defended it as 'more exciting' and said the 3D brings fans into Middle Earth.

Thousands of people crowded into central Wellington, New Zealand, for the chance to see some of the films stars including Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett and Andy Serkis, who plays Gollum.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is due to be released in the UK on December 14.
The second film The Desolation of Smaug will be be released in 2013 with There and Back Again released the following year.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241758/Hobbit-film-wizardy-left-feeling-sick--Cinema-goers-complain-camera-speeds-3D-effects-caused-headaches-queasiness.html#ixzz2Dzw1twiX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

**Tibbsy**

This seems to be mainly for those watching in 3D I think...

Stick to the good ol' fashioned 2D and it'll probably be great!

**Frazzled**

Tibbsy wrote:
This seems to be mainly for those watching in 3D I think...

Stick to the good ol' fashioned 2D and it'll probably be great!

Will there be 2D available?

**d-usa**

This is not really anything new though I think.

I remember watching Avatar, and the seats we ended up with were fairly close to the screen. There were a couple of times I had to lower my head because I was getting motion sickness.

I've never had a problem sitting further back though.

**Ouze**

Indeed, this is not a new phenomenon.

Some people are more predisposed to it than others: my mother has problems with IMAX movies if we sit too close as well. I'm apparently immune to the motion sickness element, but non-native 3D films (2D extrapolated) can sometimes give me a headache so I avoid those.

More accurately, I avoid 3D completely unless the film totally embraces it as the gimmick it is (think 5nal Destination)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Will there be 2D available?

Good question. My googling did not find a definitive answer; only that there will be both 24fps and 48fps viewings available.

**d-usa**

Ouze wrote:

More accurately, I avoid 3D completely unless the film totally embraces it as the gimmick it is (think 5nal Destination)

There have been a few movies that really seem to do great with it. My personal top 5 movies where I think 3D really added something special are:

1) Avatar (maybe just because it was the first, but it was done very well).
2) Up! (used 3D to show depth, not make stuff jump out at you. A few other movies have done that as well since, but Up! did it really well).
3) Coraline (it just worked great with the animation in general, and really fit in the crazy story that was being told)
4) How to Train your Dragon (the flying scenes might be some of the best use of 3D.)
5) Life of Pi.

**Tibbsy**

Frazzled wrote:
Tibbsy wrote:
This seems to be mainly for those watching in 3D I think...

Stick to the good ol' fashioned 2D and it'll probably be great!

Will there be 2D available?

There better fething had be!

There usually is, even for films like Avatar there was a 2D option

**Ouze**

I'm surprised you threw the Life of Pi in there. I saw that and was unimpressed with the 3D; I didn't think it added much. Otherwise I agree with you on all of those.

**Necroagogo**

Personally, I found 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter' (or whatever it was called) was the best example of 3D outside of the IMAX specials. Some of the landscape shots looked wonderful.

**IronWarLeg**

The son of one of my Dad's good friends couldnt do IMAX films we discovered. We went to see one on "Hollywood Films" that showed King Kongs fall from the Empire State building from King Kong's view, and he promptly ralphed all over the seat in front of him. I normally dont get motion sickness from those things but that scene even made me queezy.

**Testify**

Most cinemas are showing it in 24 fps so i'm not that bothered.

**Cheesecat**

d-usa wrote:

Avatar (maybe just because it was the first, but it was done very well).

The earliest confirmed 3D film shown to a paying audience was The Power of Love, which premiered at the Ambassador Hotel Theater in Los Angeles on 27 September 1922.

**Fafnir**

Not too interested in the movie, but I'll probably get dragged to it, one way or another. I can't see in 3D anyway, so this isn't a huge deal, but I do hope that they at least release a 2D version, if only to placate similarly disadvantaged people to myself.

**Grey Templar**

It will be like any other release thats had a 3D option. You will be able to see it in regular or 3D as you prefer, paying a couple bucks more for the 3D version.

**Hulksmash**

The previews in 2d look good. I'm not seeing an issue. Granted, I won't be watching it in 3d. Not a fan of having to wear 2 sets of glasses

**Captain Fantastic**

When I saw the Avengers in 3D, my eyes felt like jelly, much like how they feel when I stare at a computer monitor in the dark for several hours. It didn't feel very good, in other words. I think I'll stick to 2 dimensional movies. Plus, it costs a LOT more than a regular movie.

I'll stick to 2D entertainment in general. I can't remember the last time I watched 3DPD.

**timetowaste85**

d-usa wrote:
Ouze wrote:

More accurately, I avoid 3D completely unless the film totally embraces it as the gimmick it is (think 5nal Destination)

There have been a few movies that really seem to do great with it. My personal top 5 movies where I think 3D really added something special are:

1) Avatar (maybe just because it was the first, but it was done very well).
2) Up! (used 3D to show depth, not make stuff jump out at you. A few other movies have done that as well since, but Up! did it really well).
3) Coraline (it just worked great with the animation in general, and really fit in the crazy story that was being told)
4) How to Train your Dragon (the flying scenes might be some of the best use of 3D.)
5) Life of Pi.

I'm surprised Spiderman didn't make it onto your list: of all the 3D movies I've seen, Spidey was the only one where I felt I got my money's worth.

**DutchKillsRambo**

I know of a certain herb that both combats the motion sickness and enhances the viewing experience. Highly recommended!

**AlexHolker**

d-usa wrote:
There have been a few movies that really seem to do great with it. My personal top 5 movies where I think 3D really added something special are:

1) Avatar (maybe just because it was the first, but it was done very well).

It was done properly, unlike its imitators that tried to get in on the action with 3D added in post-production, and it was a setting that benefited from 3D to convey the scale.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I know of a certain herb that both combats the motion sickness and enhances the viewing experience. Highly recommended!

I don't think you're going to get a prescription for medical marijuana just because you're going to go see The Hobbit.

**rubiksnoob**

Fafnir wrote:
Not too interested in the movie, but I'll probably get dragged to it, one way or another. I can't see in 3D anyway.

Your life must be really shallow.

**Necroagogo**

rubiksnoob wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
Not too interested in the movie, but I'll probably get dragged to it, one way or another. I can't see in 3D anyway.

Your life must be really shallow.

/rimshot

**Testify**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:I know of a certain herb that both combats the motion sickness and enhances the viewing experience. Highly recommended!

My friends and I are on this, and we're seeing it in 24fps 2D

Necroagogo wrote:
/rimshot

"Rimshot" is a filth word.

**Ouze**

Testify wrote:
"Rimshot" is a filth word.

It's an American colloquialism for a sound effect that punctuates a joke, generally a failed one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimshot

http://www.virtualrimshot.com/

**Crablezworth**

48fps just sounds wrong, wrong wrong wrong.

**Grey Templar**

Whats wrong with it?

What speed does the human eye track things at?

**timetowaste85**

Testify wrote:
DutchKillsRambo wrote:I know of a certain herb that both combats the motion sickness and enhances the viewing experience. Highly recommended!

My friends and I are on this, and we're seeing it in 24fps 2D

Necroagogo wrote:
/rimshot

"Rimshot" is a filth word.

You're thinking of "shim-sham". Nobody was talking about licking butt-holes before.

Haha. Switching "shot" to "job" changed it to Shim-Sham. Nice job MODs!

**kirsanth**

Grey Templar wrote:
Whats wrong with it?

What speed does the human eye track things at?

It doesn't really. Though most approximate roughly 20fps.
It is really about consistency, not rapidity.
Most of what the extra fps gains for movies like this is lack of/less blur in high speed shots.
Which irritates me to no end, so I like the idea.