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

131–140 of 146 posts

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

#131

Post by ricardobeat »

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.

In theory you could shoot 48fps at 1/48.

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

#132

Post by theturtle32 »

I'm wondering what it will look like in 2D because not only was it shot at 48fps, but it was presumably also shot with a shutter speed of 1/96th of a second. 24fps films are shot with a 1/48th second shutter speed, so the motion blur helps to compensate for the lack of temporal accuracy. Showing a film shot at 48fps, 1/96th shutter at 24fps by presumably throwing away every other frame would result in much more "choppy" and stark motion than a film that was shot for 24fps to begin with. I'm wondering if they used some kind of process to generate fake motion blur for the 24fps version, sort of the opposite of what our 240hz TVs do?

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

#133

Post by MrScruff »

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,…

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.

I'm not sure what your point is. If a film maker frame doubled 24fps and projected it using a HFR system nobody would regard it as HFR.

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.

I didn't say that.

Also I have to laugh quite a bit at you describing a movie called "The hobbit" which shows dragon, trolls, elfes, magicians, etc. as "trying to reproduce reality".

I didn't say this either.

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

#134

Post by astrodust »

ender7 wrote: post #122
objclxt wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's have some scenes with talking and others dead silent!

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

#135

Post by CamperBob2 »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #67
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 thi…

I'm not saying that higher frame rates aren't an interesting subject for discussion and further refinement. I'm saying that the move to higher frame rates in general is a pointless thing to fight, and I've provided a trivial proof.

The objective fact is that the existing 24 fps standard blows goats. What can/should be done to improve upon it?

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

#136

Post by HelloMcFly »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #135
HelloMcFly wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

I'm not saying that higher frame rates aren't an interesting subject for discussion and further refinement. I'm saying that the move to higher frame rates in general is a pointless thing to fight, and I've provided a trivial proof. The objective fact is that the existing 24 fps standard blows goats. What can/should be done to improve upon it?

I don't find your objective fact objective at all, especially if the alternative is what I saw in The Hobbit, or 90% of what is implemented in 3D movies.

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

#137

Post by antiterra »

Flenser wrote: post #128
antiterra wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Plenty of films do seem dated in a negative way to me, and I can get that someone expects carefully mastered soundtracks with impressive thumpy sound. But I think there are some films were well made that stand the test of time.

The LA Times ran an article[1] arguing lack of interest in old movies stems largely from new films having a social function that is similar to fashion. I'm inclined to agree. Therefore, while 48+fps might become the fashion, I doubt it's required to retain interest in new movies as referenced in the great-grandparent post.

I certainly wasn't around when The Seventh Seal was filmed, yet I find it astonishingly beautiful and impressive (which makes the parody film De Düva even better.) Of course, I can't talk about it the way one talks about the weather or of theater run films-- "Did you see Argo yet? I want to check it out, the trailer looked cool."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/14/entertainment/la-ca-...

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

#138

Post by CamperBob2 »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #136
CamperBob2 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that higher frame rates aren't an interesting subject for discussion and further refinement. I'm saying that the move to higher frame rates in general is a pointless thing to fight, and I've provided a trivial proof. The objective fact is that the existing 24 fps standard blows goats. What can/should be done to improve upon it?

I don't find your objective fact objective at all, especially if the alternative is what I saw in The Hobbit, or 90% of what is implemented in 3D movies.

We can both be right, of course. 24 FPS is not OK, and maybe the current implementation of 48 FPS isn't, either. As has been noted, increasing the frame rate demands changes throughout the production process... everything from better makeup to better lighting.

The porn producers already had to confront similar issues to some extent, when HD started to ramp up. Nobody wants to go back to fuzzy porn, do they? :-P

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

#139

Post by brazzy »

lucian1900 wrote: post #124
fr0sty wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Um, no. Motion blur is absolutely essential for smooth movements. Showing 48fps material by displaying every other frame at 24fps will look, much much choppier than 24fps material.

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

#140

Post by brazzy »

objclxt wrote: post #42
durzagott wrote: post #14

Odd, my experience was exactly the opposite. For me, 3D HFR was a totally immersive experience. It felt like the action was happening right in front of me, on a stage. Bear in mind, I cannot stand those TVs that double the frame rate to make everything look like a cheap soap opera. I've heard this comparison, or ones like it, in almost every negative review I've read. In my opinion, this is false comparison. Imagine…

What's interesting to me (for background, before I ended up programming I trained in traditional film/animation) is that a lot of the 24/48fps discussion on HN tends to be around technical concerns, whereas a lot of film developments come out of artistic needs. HFR is really interesting when contextualized in the history of cinema: frame rate was never a problem until directors started changing how they shot action s…

> And this makes sense: why shouldn't dialog scenes be in 48fps? There's no technical or artistic reason for them not to be.

Fixed that for you.

Post reply on HN