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

121–130 of 146 posts

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

#121

Post by objclxt »

Someone wrote: post #115

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/sou…

I think you'll be far more likely to see a split, in the same way today we have films shot in CinemaScope (2.35:1) and widescreen (1.85:1). The complement, rather than replace, one another.

48 FPS is probably analogous to 3D, rather than talkies. When the talkies came along there was a rapid transition: the big five studios were exclusively shooting talkies about two years after the Jazz Singer was released. Whereas 3D is more prevalent today, but some film-makers choose not to use it. There is not quite the same demand by the audience.

I mentioned this earlier, but I'd love to see a screening of The Hobbit with 24fps for dialog and 48fps for action.

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

#122

Post by ender7 »

objclxt wrote: post #121
Someone wrote: post #115

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/sou…

I think you'll be far more likely to see a split, in the same way today we have films shot in CinemaScope (2.35:1) and widescreen (1.85:1). The complement, rather than replace, one another. 48 FPS is probably analogous to 3D, rather than talkies. When the talkies came along there was a rapid transition: the big five studios were exclusively shooting talkies about two years after the Jazz Singer was released. Whereas…

To take it a step further, they could use an adaptive framerate. Have an algorithm (or, more likely, this being Hollywood, a person) select specific shots or pieces of shots with too much lateral movement and ratchet them up to 48fps.

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

#123

Post by jaredcwhite »

Waa waa waa. I saw the HFR 3D version of The Hobbit by choice. Yes, for the first few minutes my brain was thinking "what am I seeing????" but then I forgot to think about how I was watching an HFR 3D movie and just started to enjoy the story, the acting, the visuals, the humor -- you know, the actual movie.

I believe Jackson is onto something here, and I bet in a few years HFR 3D will be the gold standard of movie presentation in theaters. We may begin to see HFR take off in the home theater, but that's a less certain prospect. In terms of cinema, though, this is the future. And goofs like this article writer can protest all they want but audiences are used to the frame rates of games and it's only natural to wonder "why can I play Halo at 60+ fps and then I have to watch a movie at 24fps?" 24fps is a relic of a bygone age. Kids won't have the nostalgia factor here to cloud their judgement.

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

#124

Post by lucian1900 »

fr0sty wrote: post #119
martinced wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is great! Motion blur sucks ass.

And if the film maker wants blur sometimes, they can still add it, without compromising the entire film.

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

#125

Post by antiterra »

jws wrote: post #91
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…

And the movie industry needs this. There are only so many stories to tell. If the back catalog was still first tier entertainment there wouldn't be nearly as many new movies. Timeline: • Silent movies: Tell all the stories. • Sound!: Tell al the stories again, no one will watch a silent movie. • Color: Tell all the stories again. • Style change: Never look like a play. Look "real". Tell all the stories again. • Decen…

The assertion that new movies exist and are watched because they are higher tier than older movies seems completely ridiculous. There are movies made before the 70s with absolutely amazing cinematography on beautifully detailed film stock; "Lawrence of Arabia" comes to mind as one that stands up quite well, perhaps with the exception of modern pacing. Do you really think people watch "The Hangover," "The Hobbit," or "The Avengers" because they are higher tier entertainment or more realistic than "Lawrence of Arabia?" I'd also counter that "The Bicycle Thief" feels more heartbreakingly realistic than anything I've seen recently from a major studio. Of course there's no multi-million dollar ad campaign/media blitz or major studio release for it.

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

#126

Post by FredFredrickson »

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,…

His point was that the motion of the video doesn't need to look like it's happening in person for the film to be entertaining. Just like the story doesn't have to explain why there are elves, trolls, etc. for you to accept their presence and move on. It's an artistic decision.

It reminds me of video games, in a way. GPU's are constantly being improved, and we get closer and closer to producing real-time photo-realistic graphics every day... and yet there is still plenty of room for games like Super Mario or Team Fortress 2, which don't want or need to look realistic to be fun.

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

#127

Post by NullXorVoid »

drcube wrote: post #114

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 j…

This is exactly what watching The Hobbit in HFR felt like to me. It was something of a cross between a play and a video game. There were some scene that felt more cinematic, but especially scenes without much camera movement felt like watching actors on a set.

Like the author, this pretty much ruined the movie for me, but I'm not prepared to totally write off HFR. I think directors will just need to learn how to properly adjust filming techniques to keep HFR feeling like a movie, similarly to how they had to learn to incorporate green screens without having an obvious separation between the actors and the CGI (which a lot of directors still get wrong).

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

#128

Post by Flenser »

antiterra wrote: post #125
jws wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the movie industry needs this. There are only so many stories to tell. If the back catalog was still first tier entertainment there wouldn't be nearly as many new movies. Timeline: • Silent movies: Tell all the stories. • Sound!: Tell al the stories again, no one will watch a silent movie. • Color: Tell all the stories again. • Style change: Never look like a play. Look "real". Tell all the stories again. • Decen…

The assertion that new movies exist and are watched because they are higher tier than older movies seems completely ridiculous. There are movies made before the 70s with absolutely amazing cinematography on beautifully detailed film stock; "Lawrence of Arabia" comes to mind as one that stands up quite well, perhaps with the exception of modern pacing. Do you really think people watch "The Hangover," "The Hobbit," or…

I think the problem is that any film made before those that the viewer was first introduced to the film format with (or is used to watching) is going to seem old and be judged as less appealing. This mostly unconscious judgement made in a a few seconds based primarily on the 'look' of the film (b/w vs color, film stock, lenses etc.) and secondarily on it's pacing and editing style.

There may be older films that have good cinematography but the viewer is still going to judge it as 'old' before they get to appreciate that.

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

#129

Post by Abundnce10 »

afterburner wrote: post #113
valuegram wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I'm in the same boat (pun intended). Hardly any of my friends have seen it and I'm considering it in my list of top 10 movies of all time! It was moving, although I'm not sure if I would have enjoyed it as much if I saw it in 2D...
Post reply on HN