Pretty sure k.illa will ban me if I say that outside of 4L and I already got a 3 day vacation last week, so I'm good for now.

48p. Here's an article with professional nerd reactions. I am sure it is fine/whatever.

You didn't feel like some parts were sped up?

F OOT

(altho I do participate in voting for Miss OOT which I realize is hypocritical given the above statement)

I thought, in part, that it worked really well together with 3D. Some of the scenes did look a little more "fake" though I guess.

Also, lol old(er) people on half of those probably.


See above.

I'd probably give the Hobbit 3/5 or 4/5. It did a pretty good job of sticking to the source material. The source material just doesn't translate to a movie that well (at least the first 1/3 or so...Smaug could redeem everything).

The 48 fps was cool and some of the scenes were really awesome, but it did destroy the illusion in some parts. Specifically, the dwarves hanging out in Bilbo's crib looked like a bunch of guys wearing costumes hanging out on a movie set.

CP - star rating has to be out of 6 now. Don't blame me, blame the broseph from Broway.

Such a trend setter I am.

I'm confused. I had assumed people were complaining that they only shot it at 48 fps (assuming usual was 60 or something, so I was like wtf who cares), but I just found it it's double the usual 24. So that may make a difference. I still couldn't tell though. Shouldn't it only affect motion and not still images?

Regardless, I don't see the hobbit as "epic" of a tale as LOTR. I see it as deliberately goofy. And in this light, I think the "goofiness" of the filming style portrayed it quite well.

Also, I think I was wrong about my 30 fps comment earlier - I thought I remembered a professor saying it in one of my classes but probably not. I don't think a "max FPS" can be assigned to the human eye as there's a lot more things going on than the digital processing a camera does (the eye is continuous for one).

As a former computer hardware nerd, I can tell you you're quite wrong. Oh God, g2g vs. Black to white pixel refresh rate whatever bla bla bla I don't want remember. But yeah its something like 180fps iirc which I'm probably not.

Most of my vids are either 24 or 30, though I have used 60 before, but that's mostly for doing better quality slo mo stuff. But other than that I have basically zero knowledge of film stuff.

Also, this has been massively tilting me, and it probably shouldn't but here is a mini-rant:

I frequently open my weather app (I have 2, actually, and they both do this) and it will say something like:

27°

Today: 52°/30°

I just tilts me to no end telling me that it is currently 27 out but the low for the day is 30. I mean seriously wtf if it goes lower than projected just MAKE THAT THE LOW.

I might not be understanding how the high and low on a weather forecast work but ugh. It also does this in summer.

108°

Today: 78°/102°

I mean wtf how hard is this to fix?????????

Also as someone who has read the hobbit double digit times (was my favorite book growing up and I used to read like gangbusters), every slight deviation started the rustling. Still enjoyed it and will obv be seeing the next two parts though.

Always bugged me too. Can not be hard to make it adjust parameters when the only other number they're working with falls outside of the given parameters. Maybe they're just saying that was the projection and may not still be accurate?

iirc, high & low temps are based on an average of days which were similar to the current day. They aren't upper and lower limits.

Weather underground website does change the forecast numbers throughout the day if its original forecast was off. This always tilts me.

After googling I found 2 different answers.

1 is exactly the way I have it in mind.

The second seems... plausible I guess. It just shows the projected high and low temperatures for the day that way you can see if it got warmer or colder than the forecast.

The reason I don't buy that is because:

I would say there are like 60 days in a row here during the summer where the temperature is like 5 degrees higher than the high. It's like they don't want people to be mad when it's going to be 111 out so they say... uh... just 101 today.

% chance of precipitation bothers me a lot more than that temperature nonsense. How the **** can there be a 60% chance of it raining today if every hour from 9am to 6pm has a 60% chance on its own?

Alternatively, on Monday it said "Wednesday: 100% chance of precipitation" then on Tuesday it said "Wednesday: 70% chance of precipitation." Apparently the definition of "100% chance" is too difficult for the weather algorithms to grasp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabi..._precipitation

I had a meteorologist explain to me that if sunday has a 50% chance or rain, they are expecting it to rain for 50% of the day, not that it's a 50/50 chance of any rain happening.

So when the forecast says 100% chance of rain it doesn't mean that it's 100% going to rain, they are expecting it to be raining all day non-stop. But that can change, obv

The guy was trolling you imo.

"it doesn't mean that it's 100% going to rain, they are expecting it to be raining all day non-stop."

wat

You're close.

wp.