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

31–40 of 91 posts

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

#31

Post by ender7 »

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…

Yes, bigger numbers are always better!

So, yes, increased framerates do make things like aliasing concerns -- long the bane of many an action movie director's existence -- go away. However, there is a concrete and visceral difference between 24fps and 30/48 that is impossible to ignore (unlike, say vinyl vs. digital, which requires an expert and a dollop of wishful thinking to recognize). This is not something that only the snooty directors and film buffs will notice -- everyone (and I mean everyone) in the theater will comment on it.

Now, perhaps we all as species just need to adjust to the new normal. We'll see. Personally, I find that 24fps adds a sense of larger-than-lifeness that I find really attractive. Maybe I'll just get over it, but I suspect that I'll miss 24fps for quite a while.

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

#32

Post by apl »

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...

You're confusing a couple of things here. DR is substantially increased with digital recording; so is SNR. Behaviour at the upper end of the DR differs between digital and analog media. Whereas tape, for instance, saturates (which may induce pleasant distortion!), digital audio clips (which induces headaches). However, that doesn't really matter in practice if the audio engineer in question is worth his salt. Levels at every point of the digital chain need to be adjusted accordingly: the old strategy of keeping everything close-to-maximum doesn't work anymore. One keeps everything well below clipping point instead.

Overeager compression (specifically, limiting) is a whole different problem, especially with modern pop production.

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

#33

Post by mikeash »

MrScruff wrote: post #26
mikeash wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Of course. Anything of this nature can be used to good effect, but they should never be imposed on everything just because people are used to inferior technology.

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

#34

Post by roc »

jfb wrote: post #20

I'll reserve judgement. Technical advances are of course an integral part of film history, but the idea that absolute fidelity to some Platonic ideal of an image is an end in and of itself is purest bafflegab. You don't get to throw away the existing language of film just because some consumer electronics consortium wants to sell new TV sets (see: stereo projection). It doesn't help the case that the last time this s…

> "the idea that absolute fidelity to some Platonic ideal of an image is an end in and of itself is purest bafflegab"

Particularly in artistic media, where emotion and tone are regularly conveyed through distortions.

48/60p may be great for some projects. Their technical advantages may enable shots that simply can't be done well at 24fps. But even that does not make them inherently "better". Merely the right tool for a given job.

As there's no technological requirement for us to use either one format or the other, I see absolutely no reason we can't go forward allowing people to choose technology on an as-appropriate basis without slandering particular choices as illegitimate in all cases.

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

#35

Post by scrumper »

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....

As in so many creative endeavours it's the limitations which make the art. It's not always about going for perfection, but it always has to be emotional.

Which is a more powerful statement? This: http://virgo.bibl.u-szeged.hu/wm/paint/auth/monet/parliament...

or this: http://isitthattime.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fog-over-the...

There's no question that the latter is more technically accurate, more lifelike, more realistic, but it lacks the guttural punch of the Monet. Monet was a master, but only by exploiting the limitations of his medium could he attain that mastery.

So it goes with film. A decent cinematographer uses the inherent faults of film to convey emotion. Without the low dynamic range of film, the dark corners of the Nostromo in Alien would have looked like a plywood movie set. Without lens flare and blown highlights then the plight of a dehydrated hero in the desert would be much harder to get across. Those things - 24fps, lens flare, low range, depth of field - have become part of our shared culture now. So much so that even media which aim for perfect realism (eg video games) mimic some of them to aid immersion and, once again, heighten the emotional response.

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

#36

Post by mikeash »

jakejake wrote: post #18
mikeash wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

I'm a bit of a film buff, by that I mean I like shooting of film & I own 16mm film cameras. (I shoot most if my work in digital though, so I don't consider myself all that snobby about it) To me some arguments for film hold up, but are rapidly becoming less relevant as digital sensors improve. The biggest case form film to me is the dynamic range (in film terms "latitude") compared to digital. Film is currently still…

I'm perfectly fine with preferring film for things that film is better at. Stuff like the dynamic range you mention is an excellent example of this. I'm not sure if digital has caught up in terms of raw resolution, either. Arguments like this make a ton of sense: if film is actually better for something, then that's a reason to prefer it.

I only have problems with weird arguments where people prefer stuff that's obviously worse, like the aforementioned grain and low frame rates.

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

#37

Post by gregsq »

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...

It was more a case of hard clipping vs soft clipping. You could get tube ( valve ) amplifiers moving high tension volts way over spec at the cost of lots of third harmonic ( mostly ) distortion by providing things like DC amplifiers. Semiconductor amplifiers would simply turn into a digital switch with enough current. Fast enough current and they're more or less flip flops.

Normalising within 16 bits has led to loudness wars. That's the medium. Analogue chains all overflow towards a chaotic end. Some people prefer that chain of events.

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

#38

Post by philmcc »

Just a personal 48FPS testimonial here...

For some reason I found myself at an IATSE event. IATSE is a union for motion picture professionals. At the end, they projected a scene, once in 24fps, the second time in 48fps.

48fps looked "real" to my eyes, insomuch as it looked how I imagine it would've looked to have been in the room.

Unfortunately, that's not the look I like in films and movies. It truly looked like a soap opera.

There's a chance that 30 minutes into the Hobbit, peoples eyes will acclimate, and you'll forget, but I think those initial scenes are going to be a bit of a disappointment.

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

#40

Post by protomyth »

shardling wrote: post #24
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.

It talks about scan lines and 3:2 pull down but does not mention an actual film projector displays the whole frame at once where TV's have scan lines.
Post reply on HN