My experience is the opposite of the author’s. The only really different thing I noticed while watching The Hobbit in 3D at 48fps was that panning shots weren’t distractingly jittery. The film was enjoyable and didn’t feel fake or unconvincing. I can only guess that, being younger than Vincent, my familiarity with 2D is simply less ingrained than his.
The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
11–20 of 146 posts
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#12Is there no non-3d 48 fps version?
You can see it in 24fps 3D or in 2D depending on the cinema.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#13Certainly captures a lot of my experience with The Hobbit. I saw it in HD/HFR, and I'm planning on going back to see it in 2D just so I can enjoy the Movie. I was distracted, and distressed at the experience - my entire "suspension of disbelief" was never engaged, and I constantly felt like I was watching a TV Show - one exception being where the Orcs where chasing everyone down inside the mountain, when I felt like…
> distressed at the experience I think this is interesting. Like yourself, and the author of the article, I applaud Peter Jackson for having the courage to try, and reserve judgement until I have the chance to see it myself next week. That said, I still think it's very much an open question whether people's responses to this are due to the intrinsic nature of 48fps or just due to how alien it feels. Personally, I can…
I doubt it's "legacy association" as you say.
There are lots of people out there (me included) that can see the "home video" effect and HATE it. For me, the 120 & 240HZ features on LCD TVs drive me absolutely batty when trying to watch a movie. It's fine for sports but completely ruins the movie experience for me.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#14Odd, my experience was exactly the opposite. For me, 3D HFR was a totally immersive experience. It felt like the action was happening right in front of me, on a stage.
Bear in mind, I cannot stand those TVs that double the frame rate to make everything look like a cheap soap opera. I've heard this comparison, or ones like it, in almost every negative review I've read. In my opinion, this is false comparison.
Imagine if soap operas were filmed in colour, and proper films shot in black and white. Then a film maker comes along and releases a colour film. Suddenly everyone says it looks like a cheap soap opera. To me this is the psychological effect that is hindering the acceptance of HFR and thus the negative reviews.
Ten years from now our children will scoff at our luddism.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#15I watched it both in the 3D HFR and 2D version. I prefer the HFR version since the action was more fluid. But that could just be the crude conversion. I really didn't noticed the 48 fps after 30 mins or so, I just enjoyed the movie instead.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#16Certainly captures a lot of my experience with The Hobbit. I saw it in HD/HFR, and I'm planning on going back to see it in 2D just so I can enjoy the Movie. I was distracted, and distressed at the experience - my entire "suspension of disbelief" was never engaged, and I constantly felt like I was watching a TV Show - one exception being where the Orcs where chasing everyone down inside the mountain, when I felt like…
> distressed at the experience I think this is interesting. Like yourself, and the author of the article, I applaud Peter Jackson for having the courage to try, and reserve judgement until I have the chance to see it myself next week. That said, I still think it's very much an open question whether people's responses to this are due to the intrinsic nature of 48fps or just due to how alien it feels. Personally, I can…
> Personally, I can't see how anything that replicates reality better can be intrinsically bad.
I think a potential problem with replicating reality better is that the reality is that the set/props/makeup/etc are all fake. Unless you really take some exceptional care, and probably do way more post-processing work than you would normally have to, replicating reality better means revealing reality better.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#17Certainly captures a lot of my experience with The Hobbit. I saw it in HD/HFR, and I'm planning on going back to see it in 2D just so I can enjoy the Movie. I was distracted, and distressed at the experience - my entire "suspension of disbelief" was never engaged, and I constantly felt like I was watching a TV Show - one exception being where the Orcs where chasing everyone down inside the mountain, when I felt like…
> distressed at the experience I think this is interesting. Like yourself, and the author of the article, I applaud Peter Jackson for having the courage to try, and reserve judgement until I have the chance to see it myself next week. That said, I still think it's very much an open question whether people's responses to this are due to the intrinsic nature of 48fps or just due to how alien it feels. Personally, I can…
> "I think back to Technicolor films and how crappy they looked at the time"
Technicolor films looked fantastic when they were first released. There are a lot of bad transfers that have been done since, but three-strip technicolor (the kind used on the Wizard of Oz, where you shoot using three separate film strips) had incredible saturation.
There were other, considerably less expensive alternatives that you might be thinking of, but Technicolor was the process to use for color: the problem was that to do so required a huge budget (unsurprisingly shooting on three film strips simultaneously requires three times the processing budget), and lots of light (the film speed was very low). One-strip Eastman became the dominant format for reasons of cost, but most people would agree the Technicolor 'look' was in most cases superior.
A lot of film stock from the 30s/40s has deteriorated significantly, and studios do not always take the greatest care when transferring (especially for films not so well known or renowned) - but I personally think three-strip Technicolor films like the Wizard of Oz have great, vivid color.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#18Maybe it's somehow like uncanny valley? It gets too realistic, but is not real, so it's disturbing.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#19I'm really curious what the reactions would be if the movie started at 24 fps and smoothly increased the framerate, to 48 fps at the end.
I would imagine you wouldn't notice first, but when the scene changes half through the movie you would say "hey, somethings different now"
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> distressed at the experience I think this is interesting. Like yourself, and the author of the article, I applaud Peter Jackson for having the courage to try, and reserve judgement until I have the chance to see it myself next week. That said, I still think it's very much an open question whether people's responses to this are due to the intrinsic nature of 48fps or just due to how alien it feels. Personally, I can…
I doubt it's "legacy association" as you say. There are lots of people out there (me included) that can see the "home video" effect and HATE it. For me, the 120 & 240HZ features on LCD TVs drive me absolutely batty when trying to watch a movie. It's fine for sports but completely ruins the movie experience for me.
MCFI is awful, yes. But that's because it's really hard to interpolate frames that aren't there to begin with, not because 24 fps is somehow the ideal framerate for video.
As for me, 24 fps is incredibly noticeable, especially during panning scenes. To the point that it often takes me out of the movie; I've been wishing for higher FPS movies for years.
Of course, I'm also one of the very few people that can see phosphor decay in plasma TVs, so...