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

61–70 of 146 posts

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

#61

Post by DanBC »

Osmium wrote: post #3
ghshephard wrote: post #2

Certainly 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.

It's not intrinsically bad, it's just harder to use.

If people liked realistic Instagram would be dead.

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

#62

Post by JacobIrwin »

Thanks for writing on this topic.

Two questions I relevance:

1.) What was the order you watched the different [quality of] films in? 2.) Is it possible that the 48fps version (with its inclusion of elements that do not directly add to the story) was shot in such a manner specifically for the substantial number of psychedelic-using filmgoers?

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

#63

Post by jrajav »

This is a well-written article, but it seems to me like a lot of words to say, "The association with other high-frame-rate media made me uncomfortable and the movie harder to sit back and lazily process." The author says as much in several places, but then does not seem to think that that should be considered in their points about "magic," immersion, and art. I found very little relevant evidence (even given that the premise is subjective and somewhat abstract), and they make foggy points like this with no real assertion:

> In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR – I don’t recall hearing a single sigh, or laugh. Not one.

Okay? Correlation does not imply causation. Maybe the audience of the 3D HFR show was more Tolkien and/or cinema fans that were taking the movie less lightheartedly, or were more introverted. And what does this even mean to say? The related point further on saying that the movie is too comedic - and in the wrong places - doesn't serve his premise any better.

I hadn't read much from the perspective of those against HFR, but if this is the only real argument, I think it's time to start pushing. There's no reason not to have all the visual information we can, and lower technology-imposed limitations. If filmmakers actually think that stuttering and blurs improve a movie, they can still add them! That's no reason to limit the technology, though.

For the record, my experience was similar. It was hard to shake the "home movie" feeling as I was watching it, and suspension of disbelief was a little harder. However, I recognized this as a personal limitation, and I was able to enjoy the visuals and the experience regardless. I don't think that seeing more movies like this could be anything but an improvement.

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

#64

Post by anonymous »

I wonder if we can fix the "too little motion blur" problem by creating a camera that doesn't have a shutter - one that's continuously filming with a sensor that has the same excitability properties as our eyes, and you can read off the sensor at whatever speed you choose.

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

#65

Post by icki »

__alexs wrote: post #53
simonh wrote: post #25

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…

I really liked the 48fps version too. It has so many advantages over 24fps, especially in 3D. I would quite like to see a 48fps 3D version if only for the increased brightness but that doesn't appear to be a thing yet :( I guess they had to cut it down from the already ridiculous number of variations though.

I though the 48FPS version was only available in 3D?

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

#66

Post by HelloMcFly »

Osmium wrote: post #3
ghshephard wrote: post #2

Certainly 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'd agree if you were trying to display reality, like in a documentary, or a reality TV show. But when it comes to fictional settings, people wearing prosthetics, props made of plastic, etc. I think exposing the whole of reality certainly has potential downsides.

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

#67

Post by HelloMcFly »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #41

I think this is one of those "problems" where the only rational response is to deal with it and get over it. If movies had always been shown at 48 FPS and somebody came along in 2012 arguing that they should instead be projected at 24 for a more "cinematic" look, they'd be laughed out of town.

Good grief, it's a significant change to the way movies are made and displayed, and movies are huge part of the entertainment culture. It's got a fascinating technological component which HN tends to love, and a fascinating artistic component as well. Further, the implementation seems to be pretty divisive, though the tech-savvy HN crowd seems more forgiving/accepting of the technology than the public at large.

I think it's OK if we discuss it for a little while.

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

#68

Post by jejones3141 »

tl;dr version: movie critics are now experiencing what audiophiles once did, and are longing for the days of pleasant distortion. (Can't come up with an analogue of "euphonic" this early in the day.) Yes, it's true that directors took advantage of the limitations--but now they can learn to take advantage of what HFR provides, and eventually audiences will learn the new conventions.
Post reply on HN