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

81–90 of 146 posts

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

#81

Post by flyinRyan »

4ad wrote: post #58

After I saw The Hobbit at 48fps, I'm having a hard time watching 24fps movies. Yesterday I watched The Shining by Kubrik. It was jittery, and that's a slow film. HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. I suppose color and sound were not considered "cinematic" back in the day just like HFR now. 3D on the other hand... I wish it would die. You have to converge at a distance and focus at another, and that's r…

Not to mention that in true 3D you would be able to look anywhere you wanted in the picture instead of what's in focus. 3D will (hopefully!) go down as one of the most ridiculous fads ever conceived.

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

#82

Post by jamesrcole »

Quite interesting, but he didn't convince me that there are inherent, insurmountable problems with 48FPS or 3D 48FPS, even though that seemed to be implied.

It's early days, and there may be ways to work around the problems.

For example, with it showing too much sharp detail (too much for the viewer to take in at once), there may be ways to keep certain sharp detail while reducing the rest of it.

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

#84

Post by MrScruff »

4ad wrote: post #58

After I saw The Hobbit at 48fps, I'm having a hard time watching 24fps movies. Yesterday I watched The Shining by Kubrik. It was jittery, and that's a slow film. HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. I suppose color and sound were not considered "cinematic" back in the day just like HFR now. 3D on the other hand... I wish it would die. You have to converge at a distance and focus at another, and that's r…

HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way.

Film makers have a wide variety of creative tools available to them to help them tell a story, of which HFR is one. We're talking about art, not a technical quest to reproduce reality as closely as possible.

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

#85

Post by Shivetya »

4ad wrote: post #58

After I saw The Hobbit at 48fps, I'm having a hard time watching 24fps movies. Yesterday I watched The Shining by Kubrik. It was jittery, and that's a slow film. HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. I suppose color and sound were not considered "cinematic" back in the day just like HFR now. 3D on the other hand... I wish it would die. You have to converge at a distance and focus at another, and that's r…

Another annoying aspect of 3D movies is that when you watch the non 3D version it usually is apparent the gimmicky shots only made because of the 3D version.

One very sore point I have with this film is just that.

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

#86

Post by grhino »

icki wrote: post #65
__alexs wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, the 48FPS is only available in 3D.

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

#87

Post by JshWright »

Jabbles wrote: post #55

At the risk of drawing this thread off-topic, I saw it in 24FPS and didn't think much of it. No amount of HD or FPS can make up for a mediocre film, in the same way that fantastic graphics don't make a good game. (Spoilers ahead.) Bilbo and the dwarves were caricatures - overdoing their roles as a surprised hobbit and a fat, funny disney character with a single personality. (Seriously - there's a fat one, a stupid on…

The point of The Hobbit wasn't defeating Smaug, it was the adventure along the way...

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

#88

Post by marknutter »

So I hear a lot of people saying that they really enjoyed the higher frame rate during the action scenes, but not so much during the quiet scenes. Would it be feasible for directors to switch between the frame rates as needed? For action scenes, let it roll at 48fps but for all other scenes, simply chop out half the frames and display one duplicate frame per frame to simulate 24fps. I wonder if the transition would be too jolting.. perhaps you could ease into it by ratcheting down the frame rate over a period of a few seconds. At any rate, it seems like you might get the best of both worlds.

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

#89

Post by addlepate »

MrScruff wrote: post #84
4ad wrote: post #58

After I saw The Hobbit at 48fps, I'm having a hard time watching 24fps movies. Yesterday I watched The Shining by Kubrik. It was jittery, and that's a slow film. HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. I suppose color and sound were not considered "cinematic" back in the day just like HFR now. 3D on the other hand... I wish it would die. You have to converge at a distance and focus at another, and that's r…

HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. Film makers have a wide variety of creative tools available to them to help them tell a story, of which HFR is one. We're talking about art, not a technical quest to reproduce reality as closely as possible.

Incidentally, this is also the reason why Instagram-style photo filters are not necessarily a bad thing. Photography is not (only) an effort to, as you say, reproduce reality as closely as possible.
Post reply on HN