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

The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

blog.vincentlaforet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 146 posts

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#21

Post by muhuk »

z92 wrote: post #5

Reminds me: during the transition from 8 bit color images to 24 bit color images in early 90s, some were complaining that 24 bit images looked worse than 8 bit images.

I agree. After watching Avatar, I was arguing that this 3D thing will be over really soon because no one would want to wear those cumbersome glasses and tolerate the eye-strain. But then I got used to it and it doesn't bother me at all.

It's quite possible the 3D film-making is going to see more advances both in the theater and during filming.

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#24

Post by heymishy »

I think this comes down purely to opinion..I watched it at 48 fps and thought it looked great. The story line was interesting and well developed from the book - the frame rate and quality weren't issue because I was engrossed in the film. Had the film been a run-of-the-mill hollywood action flick reliant on the latest HD and VFX to mask a reptitive and overdone plot, then I would likely be complaining about 48 fps and why it looked dull.

This is a natural step forward in terms of quality of medium and before long will seem normal.

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#25

Post by simonh »

I saw it last night in HFR 3D. It's actually the first proper feature film I've seen in 3D and I enjoyed it a lot.

There definitely were moments where it looked like you were looking at actors on a set. The fidelity was so good that it was obvious the characters were wearing prosthetics and makeup. However there were plenty of scenes where the increased detail and clarity were a huge advantage, especially some of the CGI scenes. The flight of the eagles was gorgeous and the feeling of actually being there you got from the combination of HFR and 3D added a lot to the experience.

It very much is a question of trade-offs. I'm very glad I saw it in HFR 3D because for a lot of the scenes it gives you an experience you couldn't get any other way, but if I were to see it in a cinema again I'd go for 2D, and I look forward to seeing it on TV at home. I'll quite happily watch the next film in HFR 3D.

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#27

Post by ColMustard »

Considering he's focusing on the fact that it's a 48FPS movie when watching it, a second time no less, doesn't that kind of detract from the conclusion that it's a bad thing?

I thought it was pretty magical for a movie to flow like this, I felt the 3D was well focused and in many cases hard to notice (As it should be), and not just a layer slapped on.

All in all I'd rather watch it in 3DHFR first, and 2D later, to make a fair judgement on whether it's a good thing.

I agree that in the start I was a bit focused on the looks of it all, but after a few minutes it added to my immersion rather than detract from it.

Isn't it possible that the reason you're distracted by this new way of doing things, is because it is in fact new, and different from other movies? If everything looked like this, we can focus on the right things instead.

I thought it was pretty damn magical.

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#28

Post by blots »

webjunkie wrote: post #19
fdej wrote: post #10

I'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"

I suppose you could use that for stylistic effect. Like a change of mood in the story, or a changed attitude of the character.
Post reply on HN