Maybe Jackson just messed up bad

LOL.

1080p60 from Panasonic camcorders is much sharper :-)

@brianluce Remember, the response to the framerate in The Hobbit is not from the cinematographer crowd: it is from the entertainment media and bloggers. The fact that such a high proportion is reacting so negatively to a technical aspect is catching a lot of people by surprise (and that surprise is catching me by surprise - the response to this is something that could easily be tested in a much lower risk environment).

Whether the aesthetic catches on or not, this is an important moment to acknowledge. Everyone noticed - not just the techies - whether they liked it or not.

@brianluce "We are the Men Who Film Bushes" having been here for a while...I ROFLD...good point

@thepalalias You are completely right. The fact that this is making headlines AT ALL in any sort of context outside the film industry / camera nerdsphere is pretty jarring to observe. To watch random people who've never shot on anything better than their iphone, debate over it on forums like ign and actually have a real opinion about it is... very strange to say the least.

It goes to show you, how much we potentially take for granted when we say "ah the audience doesn't care, it's just camera freaks like me who'll take notice of this minor detail here" (whatever it may be, frame rate, grading, camera work or any aspect of filmmaking). Reading about this seriously makes me reconsider what an average audience member will take into account when watching my own film when that day comes.

Most of us forget that details can be noticed by everyone, but not all can articulate what it is that they notice to be different or "off" about a particular element of a production. For example, maybe 120hz smoothing is even more annoying than anyone even realizes, but it's just too silly for an average person to make a conscious acknowledgement that the movie didn't "look" the same way that it did at their friends house / theater. So they just suppress it and think "eh, it is what it is".

Maybe Jackson just messed up bad

Yes, it poses questions as to whether the producers practised risk-management! Just how did they manage to get this feature so close to release date before finding out what viewers think of the look?

Well I saw Prometheus last week in "RealD" 3D, which was using a Sony 4K projector. Prometheus was shot on RED in 3D with the same lenses that The Hobbit is using, and I found the experience in theater to be great. The most important thing with 3D is strategic use of deep DOF. much of the film was deep, excepting some 2-shots and closeups. This was good. Constant use of shallow depth of field completely defeats the point of shooting 3D in the first place.

I'm pretty sure I was watching in 4K, but I know for sure I've seen 4K 3D at a REDucation event, and it looked awesome. I'm also not sure if it was in 24 or 48fps, but it seemed smooth enough whatever it was . . . and yet a bit higher frame rate wouldn't have hurt anything either. I could sense the frames in fast movements on screen.

I'm not worried. 3D is pretty good nowadays. Prometheus easily drew me into the world of the film. I was transported, invested in the story and characters. I know Peter Jackson is a perfectly capable storyteller, and I trust him to get me quickly from that "ooh, ah, 3D" mindset into the "what's gonna happen next" mindset, just as Ridley Scott did with Prometheus.