Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

pcmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 91 posts

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#21

Post by rplnt »

sparkinson wrote: post #15
Schlaefer wrote: post #7

It's redirecting me to google.com (from Germany) ZDXI.OnCountryRedirect("DE", "http://www.google.com"); and http://static.ziffdavis.com/js/zdcc/1.0.0/zdcc.js Deactivate JS or googlecache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iZmzpFT...

Now what's the reasoning for doing something like that?

My guess would be that the ad network they are using doesn't give anything for German views/hits. So they are saving on traffic costs.

If it were the case that they have some local brand (as is the case when you can't buy music/games/etc online), it would probably redirect somewhere else as Google.

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#22

Post by Roelven »

rplnt wrote: post #21
sparkinson wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now what's the reasoning for doing something like that?

My guess would be that the ad network they are using doesn't give anything for German views/hits. So they are saving on traffic costs. If it were the case that they have some local brand (as is the case when you can't buy music/games/etc online), it would probably redirect somewhere else as Google.

That's possibly the lamest and poorest user experience I've ever come across.

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#23

Post by jabiko »

Schlaefer wrote: post #7

It's redirecting me to google.com (from Germany) ZDXI.OnCountryRedirect("DE", "http://www.google.com"); and http://static.ziffdavis.com/js/zdcc/1.0.0/zdcc.js Deactivate JS or googlecache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iZmzpFT...

It seems like you can override the IP check by using a GET parameter.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403746,00.asp?ip=this-...

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#24

Post by shardling »

protomyth wrote: post #13

There is a bit of a flaw in this article. A 24 fps film projector displays 1 full frame at a time, there is no scan line. This is very different from TV and the CRT originated scan line. Comparing frame rates between TV broadcast and Film projection is flawed.

The article discusses exactly this, so I'm not sure what your issue is.

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#25

Post by astrodust »

Zenst wrote: post #8
astrodust wrote: post #2

48p and 60p can't come too soon. I'm with Ebert on this one. The biggest problem with film is we're stuck with 1920s frame rates that end up destroying a lot of otherwise impressive shots. It's just too jerky under a variety of common circumstances.

I agree, I'd take framerate over resolution and beyond a doubt I'd take framerate over 3D (though when I tried 3D It in all effect just looked like 3 layers paralexing).

A lot of "3D" films are basically parallax because they add in the 3D after the fact, painting it on in a special compositing tool. Only a few live action films are genuinely shot in 3D from the start, like Avatar.

I've found that computer animated films often translate better to 3D since, obviously, it doesn't require any fancy cameras.

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#26

Post by MrScruff »

mikeash wrote: post #10
josephlord wrote: post #9

High framerates give the appearance of and in some cases substantially better images reducing significantly various temporal aliasing effects. They are without doubt better in every way from a technical point of view. There is however a cultural issue that is worst amongst the film creators that "film" is regarded as expensive, high-end and good so that things that don't have the artefacts (low frame rate, film grain…

I feel like I'll go mental if I hear one more film buff talk about the essential nature of various imperfections in traditional film. It's so obvious that nobody would have chosen to go with film grain, low frame rates, or any of the other limitations that were foist upon them if they had had a choice. But now these technical limitations get enshrined as the medium's supposed true nature, at least by some....

Would you feel the same about lens flares, vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion used as an effect in music etc...

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#28

Post by objclxt »

mikeash wrote: post #10
josephlord wrote: post #9

High framerates give the appearance of and in some cases substantially better images reducing significantly various temporal aliasing effects. They are without doubt better in every way from a technical point of view. There is however a cultural issue that is worst amongst the film creators that "film" is regarded as expensive, high-end and good so that things that don't have the artefacts (low frame rate, film grain…

I feel like I'll go mental if I hear one more film buff talk about the essential nature of various imperfections in traditional film. It's so obvious that nobody would have chosen to go with film grain, low frame rates, or any of the other limitations that were foist upon them if they had had a choice. But now these technical limitations get enshrined as the medium's supposed true nature, at least by some....

Film is more than just the quality of the image - it's about the mindset you approach shooting. If you're shooting on film you'll be lucky if you can have more than a 3:1 overrun. On digital it's much higher...you can afford to shoot more because you're not paying processing costs. Directors working with film shoot in a very different way to digital, and this does affect the final product: I know not because I'm a film buff, but because I used to crew on shoots with both formats.

I love digital, I love film. I'd like directors to have a choice, but I suspect we'll see studios effectively enforcing digital for all but the most influential directors going forward.

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#29

Post by roc »

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #14
davedx wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also the eternal discussion about whether vinyl or digital music formats sound better...

I thought that was an actual issue dealing with "loudness" and the dynamic range of the sound. ie, newer media is formatted so that it's so loud, it will clip parts off before it you can hear the softer bits in it. I could be way off though, I'm not really and audio buff in that sense...

"Loudness" is an orthogonal debate revolving around mixing (pop music). There's nothing about the various media that requires or prohibits one from mixing 'loud'.

vinyl vs CD, tube vs solid-state/digital -- those are more similar to film's 24fps vs higher frame rates: straightforward arguments against higher-fidelity technologies because we've grown emotionally attached to the particular artifacts of legacy technologies.

Re: 'The Hobbit' at 48fps: Frame Rates Explained

#30

Post by krymise »

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #14
davedx wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also the eternal discussion about whether vinyl or digital music formats sound better...

I thought that was an actual issue dealing with "loudness" and the dynamic range of the sound. ie, newer media is formatted so that it's so loud, it will clip parts off before it you can hear the softer bits in it. I could be way off though, I'm not really and audio buff in that sense...

That's just the way music is mastered these days, a great article on this stuff is here: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm

But the debate between vinyl and cds is completely separate from the debate on loudness.

Post reply on HN