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

111–120 of 146 posts

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

#111

Post by acuozzo »

Osmium wrote: post #36
objclxt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

It's actually Wizard of Oz I had in mind when I was saying that. I appreciate for its time it was a huge advance, but I always thought it looked considerably less beautiful than black and white films of the same era, but perhaps this was as much because people didn't really understand how to use colour properly then as much as the technology itself. Anyway, thanks for the info :) I consider myself enlightened.

Directors of that time were accustomed to choosing oversaturated colors to help viewers distinguish between different elements in black & white productions. This practice continued well into the 1960s. Look at a color set photograph of "I Love Lucy" for an example of this.

3-strip Technicolor, by its own nature, tends to oversaturate colors as well.

These two facts help explain the garish colors seen in The Wizard of Oz and other 3-strip Technicolor films of the era.

With that being said, I find The Wizard of Oz (and most other 3-strip Technicolor films) to be indescribably beautiful.

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

#113

Post by afterburner »

valuegram wrote: post #101
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…

I had the same feeling about 3D until I saw "Life of Pi" in 3D. They managed to provide imagery that wouldn't have been possible in a two-dimensional format. As with all other "tools" 3D can be used poorly, and it can be used well. As the technology matures, I have a feeling we'll see it skew more towards the latter.

Yes; Life of Pi is one of the most beautiful 3D movies I've seen, and a good story (based on an award winning book). I'm having trouble convincing people to go see it though...

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

#114

Post by drcube »

I think in general, more realism is a challenge for the director. I've seen many HD movies and television shows where it feels like I'm really on the set, rather than really in the place the movie is set in.

Anyway, I haven't seen the Hobbit or any HFR movie. But I do think that while extra realism in the filming process will ultimately be a boon to the art form, currently there are a lot of challenges. The realism just makes me feel like I'm on a set with a bunch of costumed actors and props rather than in the film's universe with its characters.

Realism currently makes the suspension of disbelief harder rather than easier. But when they finally figure out how to overcome that, watch out, because it will be awesome.

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

#115

Post by Someone »

I haven's seen the movie, but I think this is a case of history repeating itself.

http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Talkie_Town_USA.pdf (apologies for the low quality of the scan):

"Only last winter an extensive poll of film fans showed them relatively unsatisfied with sound pictures and desirous of once more seeing silent pictures."

We also have Aldous Huxley (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/sound.cfm, about halfway down):

Silence is Golden

I have just been, for the first time, to see and hear a picture talk. "A little late in the day," my up-to-date readers will remark, with a patronizing and contemptuous smile. "This is 1930; there isn't much news in talkies now. But better late than never."

Better late than never? Ah, no! There, my friends, you're wrong. This is one of those cases where it is most decidedly better never than late, better never than early, better never than on the stroke of time....

I bet I could find similar reaction to the introduction of color movies, colour television, GUIs for personal computers, etc. (did anybody ever critique Gutenberg for 'form over function' on his bibles?)

In all cases, we had to discover how and when to properly use new technologies. This will not be different.

Also, I expect we will eventually go beyond 48 Hz, as 48 Hz is slightly below human perception thresholds. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Flicker_fusion gives limits around 60Hz. Those are for bright lights, large areas, and peripheral. You will not normally see that with old-syle television sets and won't see it in most homes, either, but in cinemas, one can easily get there.

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

#116

Post by afterburner »

Shish2k wrote: post #49
Osmium wrote: post #3

Earlier 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…

> Personally, I can't see how anything that replicates reality better can be intrinsically bad Books have the best graphics (followed closely by nethack) (Relatedly, my disappointment started when they pronounced the dragon's name as Smah-oog, and I've been calling him Smorg for years. The version of the story that happened in my imagination with my personal tastes taken into account FTW)

Funny, since British/Canadian accents tend to separate series of vowels like that more than American accents. (Similar to "about".) Maybe that played a part? :)

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

#117

Post by acuozzo »

bencoder wrote: post #22

I saw it in HFR this weekend. At first it felt "wrong" or "cheap" somehow but by the end I didn't notice the HFR except that the movie looked great. So it's something I think we'll get used to.

The reason it appears "cheap" to some is that many associate the smooth motion of high(er) framerates with crappy shot-on-video productions, such as Soap Operas.

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

#118

Post by greedo »

pezz wrote: post #79

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet, in any format. But I did see the clip of the Bilbo and Gollum scene played on Colbert the other week. Martin Freeman (who I've loved in other stuff, like Sherlock) was fucking terrible. If the calibre of delivery is like that, I'm expecting unexpected rubbish. Even one of the scenes from McKellen Colbert played was pretty shit. Maybe I'm expecting too much from what is meant…

I loved Freeman as Bilbo. I don't know the scene that Colbert showed, but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

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

#119

Post by fr0sty »

martinced wrote: post #104
MrScruff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure... And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps. So anything that 24fps can do, 48fps can do too. And I don't buy the crazy idea that someone using 24fps during an entire movie would someone be the achievement of some visual art perfection. This is wrong, wrong and wrong. Also I have to laugh quite a bit at you describing a movie called "The hobbit" which shows dragon, trolls, elfes,…

> And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps.

Not quite. Shooting at 48fps requires a faster shutter speed than 24fps (1/48 vs 1/96) which gives you less motion blur.

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

#120

Post by nvarsj »

rquirk wrote: post #37

I imagine that in 5-10 years all films will be higher resolution and 48fps. The youth of tomorrow will look back at the low-res, fuzzy films of today the same way we look at black and white flicks from the past, "Did people really like this crud?!". The Hobbit - good or bad, it doesn't matter - is really just the first of the next generation. It means makeup artists and prop creators have to step up the quality based…

> The youth of tomorrow will look back at the low-res, fuzzy films of today the same way we look at black and white flicks from the past, "Did people really like this crud?!".

Speak for yourself... there is a certain art form in black and white movies that can never be reproduced in color (for example, great use of shadows). Many people enjoy watching the great classic masterpieces. It's a shame more movies are not made this way.

Post reply on HN