I walked out of The Hobbit!

[MartinPurvis]

I am a massive fan of Tolkiens works but I went to see The Hobbit in IMAX 3D and halfway through the film I started having a coughing fit, dry throat, feeling incredibly sick and headache.

 

So, I walked out for about 5 minutes and I was fine, I thought it must have been a coincidence so I went back in. About 5 minutes after watching it again I displayed the symptoms again but I started sweating heavily as well and my eyes were going red.

 

So I went home with the remainder of the film left. Of all the films, The Hobbit. Seriously?

 

Has anything like this ever happened to you?

[Oubliette]

Nope. Then again I've never seen a film in IMAX 3D, never could find one close enough to where I was living at the time to bother with them. Perhaps that's got something to do with it. Still, sorry you missed out on the second half of the film.

[Thor.]

This might seem like something small, but its shot in a higher fps.. To bad movies are finally catching up with gaming lol. But high the fps shouldn't really cause sickness other then the fact its on a movie screen.

 

http://ca.m.yahoo.co...8nXzasJVHzMMct5

 

60fps would be better, the max the eye can see. Or a 120 hertz - 60fps-120 hertz like computer monitors or 3d tv's

 

Wonder why they have that standard, because of that one reason, might cause sickness at a lower refresh rate.

 

One thing i would like to say, nothing compared to James Cameron 3d, enough said http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/whistling.gif Even on today's 3d tv's, it was a one of a kind experience, and nothing came close to it.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Thor.

[AliasTheory]

Wonder why they have that standard, because of that one reason, might cause sickness at a lower refresh rate.

 

If you are referring to the 20 something FPS movies that we have been seeing for some time now, it's primarily because historically it was more cost efficient and it matched NTSC TV standards. More frames = more money. It also had to deal with the cameras shot with. Overtime this choice became a Hollywood standard, and since then, people have also associated it with "normal" movie speed.

 

Source: I read the paper this morning.

[Iv000]

I imagine that the 48 FPS is only with the 3D version of the movie? I watched it yesterday at my cinema with no 3D and it was great, nothing strange about it.

[bben46]

The 24fps standard is because in the early days of movies, film was very expensive - so they used the lowest frame rate that gave acceptable viewing results to save on film.

 

As I live in a rural area I will probably see The Hobbit in the old 24fps format as my local theaters are not equipped for 48fps yet. :(

[K00L]

Actually I heard on the radio last monday that it was making a number of people (at the early screenings) sick (all I heard was headaches and nausea) watching it. But only the 3D version, they said it was a combination of 48fps and the 3D effect.

[Keanumoreira]

I would be ecstatic if I could see the Hobbit in Imax 3D. I'd see it again just to see it in Imax 3D. I count you as blessed (is jealous). :armscrossed:

[Illiad86]

I also heard a lot of people are getting sick while watching it. The non 3D version is fine. Also heard that the 48FPS sometimes makes the whole movie look "fake". I haven't seen a movie in 3D since the early 90s, you had to wear these weird helmets in the theater.

 

Kinda want to see this, but I don't like the idea of it being 3 movies. I've read the book many times and the cartoon from the mid 70s seemed to get a good amount of the book in 2 hours (watch it if you haven't seen it, it's awesome). I'll just wait for the DVDs :P

[spets21]

At 48 fps it improves the cgi and 3d a lot, also its not raw 48fps, I read somewhere that they created some special filters , I really liked the movie but the start was very slow.