Aika perusliioittelun makua taas uutisoinnissa 
Noin 90% lukemistani kommenteista on ylistänyt uutta tekniikkaa ja elokuvaa. Itse olen lukenut vissiin yhden kommentin, jossa valitettiin huonosta olosta ja elokuvan on nyt kuitenkin nähnyt jo useampi tuhat ihmistä varmaan. Eikös silloin 3D:n tullessakin ollut kauhea pelottelu jostain pahoinvoinnista, mutta sen jälkeen ei ole kukaan puhunut taas yhtään mitään? Varmaan samaa porukkaa, jolle tulee autossa matkapahoinvointia, eli ovat muutenkin jotenkin yliherkkiä..
Joitain uusia kommentteja leffasta ja tekniikasta:
48 frames per second is essentially harsh-looking and disconcerting...until it isn’t. It’s incredible how discordant and off-putting the increased frame rate appears to the human eye initially, but as Jackson himself has asserted, audiences will tend to forget (and or tolerate) once they’re absorbed into the story (though admittedly, it takes about a good hour and the experience will be both subjective and divisive). And becoming engaged in 'The Hobbit' once the adventure truly starts isn’t difficult. In fact, by the third act when the action is at its thunderous peak the 3D/48 fps visuals are wholeheartedly spectacular and ravishing. Indeed, a few moments of panoramic action vistas are as stunning and gorgeous as anything seen in “Avatar,” “Hugo” or “Life Of Pi.”
People interested in tech should see ‘An Unexpected Journey’ in 48fps (which is being marketing as HFR 3D). People just looking to see a great movie should just see it in 24.
It takes a while to adjust to the effect (the first few scenes almost looked like they were in fast motion), and even after you get used to the effect it never does look like "a movie" as we've come to understand it. Some shots do create an astonishing effect like you really are there, but others just look like you're watching a really expensive HDTV. It was a worthwhile experiment to try making a film in the new system, but theatrical features are probably not the best format for the technology.
Here’s my take on 48fps:
Pros: Incredible clarity and sharpness of detail. Characters and objects in the background are nearly as clear and defined as those in the foreground of a shot. It makes for absolutely gorgeous establishing shots and exploration of new settings --- It’s great when steady or slow-moving camera work is applied. Beautiful for scenery or landscape shots; would make for excellent documentary applications.
Cons: Definite “motion sickness” potential during scenes of chaotic action or fast-movement; the increased clarity often feels as if you’re standing on set with the actors/characters, so when they take a crazy tumble down a rabbit hole, for example, you feel just as disoriented…which might not be too pleasant for some. There is a bit of an adjustment period for 48fps; I was jarred by it at the start but warmed up to 95% of its usage over time. 48fps means you cannot hide mistakes…period; there were some poorly-rendered VFX sequences that were unintentionally comical and resembled the old-school tactic of filming a stationary actor in front of a moving background. These effects were bad, bad, bad; there’s no way around it.
Noh itse menen katsomaan ekan kerran tuolla HFR-tekniikalla, koska uusi tekniikka kiinnostaa kuitenkin aina. Menen kuitenkin toisenkin kerran katsomaan tämän, jolloin voi mennä lomalla johonkin halpaan 2D-päivänäytökseen. Mutta ensi viikolla tosiaan 
Aihe: Hobitti
