Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

kk.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 213 posts

Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

#71

Post by dllthomas »

chc wrote: post #15

I hear writers moan and wring their hands about the high-framerate version of The Hobbit, how it doesn't look "cinematic" or what have you — but anecdotally, nobody I know had the kind of complaints you hear from film insiders. Nobody I know complains about it looking like a PBS show; nobody feels like they can see the actors' makeup. Those who saw both versions unanimously liked the HFR version better (a common reas…

The only person I know who mentioned having seen the HFR version complained about it. There's obviously a selection bias toward extreme reactions there, though. I've not seen either version yet...

Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

#72

Post by rdl »

cwilson wrote: post #19

According to the article, the outdoor scenes were awesome in 48FPS. It was the indoor scenes that looked fake and weird, due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used, because they had unnatural light blasting on the actors (where as there was no extra light added to outdoor scenes, obviously). Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going…

I liked the goblin and Orc battles (indoor or dark, and thus probably sets or lighted) in HFR. I didn't get much benefit during the walking around New Zealand scenes.

By far the best part of the movie was New Zealand, though. I would have been happier with a 3h IMAX of NZ nature. Maybe with LOTR music.

Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

#73

Post by [deleted] »

cwilson wrote: post #19

According to the article, the outdoor scenes were awesome in 48FPS. It was the indoor scenes that looked fake and weird, due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used, because they had unnatural light blasting on the actors (where as there was no extra light added to outdoor scenes, obviously). Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going…

[deleted]

Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

#75

Post by calciphus »

PaperclipTaken wrote: post #63

"48fps is just above the threshold that the human eye/brain can detect changes" No, it's not. The actual threshold is unknown, but it's generally assumed to be around 100fps. Like the threshold for color, it's a complex question. You don't see stuttering in a movie (usually) because each frame has an exposure time that is almost the full duration of how long the frame will appear on screen. The result is that anythin…

48fps was chosen because it was compatible with a certain type of 3D projector that most digital theaters had used. Thus theaters didn't need to invest in an entirely new projector just to show the HFR version. The IMAX-certified 3D projectors (note: not IMAX domes) that RealD was pushing around the time Avatar came out was capable of this.

Technically, I think those projectors can go up to 60fps in 3D, but I can't remember/easily find where I read it so I'm not that confident about that figure.

Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

#76

Post by pilgrim689 »

snogglethorpe wrote: post #44
cwilson wrote: post #19

According to the article, the outdoor scenes were awesome in 48FPS. It was the indoor scenes that looked fake and weird, due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used, because they had unnatural light blasting on the actors (where as there was no extra light added to outdoor scenes, obviously). Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going…

Why would 48FPS have any particular effect on lighting or any other detail other than movement? Why would makeup stand out more? [I've only seen the Hobbit in 24FPS (unfortunately the 48FPS is only available in conjuction with 3D which I won't watch).]

I'm not an expert so someone please correct me, but I believe the answer is roughly: if the frame rate is lower than the "rate that your eye sees", then your brain replaces the frames that are missing with a blur so that the motion still looks fluid (hence why video at 24 fps still looks kinda fine to us, even though the frame rate is less than reality). This blur that your brain adds in would probably also cause your brain to have difficulty following details, since the details -- of the makeup, for example -- are constantly moving. However, if the frame rate is 48 fps, then your brain does not add the blur between frames since all the necessary data is available and it can more easily perceive details (like makeup).

Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

#77

Post by scottoller »

chc wrote: post #15

I hear writers moan and wring their hands about the high-framerate version of The Hobbit, how it doesn't look "cinematic" or what have you — but anecdotally, nobody I know had the kind of complaints you hear from film insiders. Nobody I know complains about it looking like a PBS show; nobody feels like they can see the actors' makeup. Those who saw both versions unanimously liked the HFR version better (a common reas…

Disclosure: I'm a cinematographer. Prior to seeing the film, I was excited because I had read interviews with PJ about how HFR makes 3D so much better and cleaner. Looking back now, I don't know why I was fooled into thinking that there is something wrong with 3D. The supposed benefit of HFR is that it reduces headaches for people who get them from 3D. I don't get these headaches so there was nothing wrong with 3D for me before. Is it worth shooting all 3D films in HFR for the percentage of people who get headaches from 3D?

Regarding what you said about the "old guard" effect: It would be interesting to see some polls of audiences who have seen both versions. Unlike you, my non-film friends didn't have polarized reactions, they just thought it seemed different. The question I'm getting to is: Will the public fall in love with HFR enough for an industry shift in the way films are shot, despite the fact that many of the people in the film industry feel that the look of HFR cheapens the story?

All that aside, it's pretty interesting that we've gotten to the point where when single big films like "Avatar" and "The Hobbit" come out, it spurs conversations about huge industry shifts.

Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

#78

Post by anigbrowl »

tokenadult wrote: post #17
anigbrowl wrote: post #2

A cogent argument, well explained and articulated. However, I don't agree with the conclusion - that what audiences want is ever more realism. Realism diminishes things; the 'film look' adds a dream like quality which is highly desirable for narrative work.

That's a very interesting opinion about what people like about film. To me, the one take-away point I remember from a film-making class I took in high school days with my best friend was the teacher quoting some eminent film-maker's idea that the essence of film is montage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montage_(filmmaking) (that is, editing), and since then I've been very aware of the director's and editor's joint cho…

That's certainly true. Film buffs and insiders lovelong complex single-take shots (the opening of Orson Welles' Touch of Evil is still a high-water-mark of technical craft), but over the length of a whole film (eg Russian Ark, where magazine changes in the camera were done when ducking behind actors or furniture) it become exhausting.

Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

#79

Post by brodney »

Swizec wrote: post #14
mbrubeck wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly audiences might come to reject some new techniques and accept others. But what current generations think of as "film look" will eventually be a historical curiousity, just as past generations' "film look" is a curiousity today. Future generations will have their own "film look" that will probably be more realistic and high-fidelity in at least some ways. Though there are a few exceptions, generally people t…

And yet, the movie that took the most oscars in 2012 was a silent black&white film.

"The Artist" may have won oscars, but it didn't even make the top 10 in the box office that year.

Re: Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

#80

Post by mturmon »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #20

Word. One reason however that some CDs really did sound cold and clinical in the early days was because the transfers to CD were using EQ curves that toned down bass and heightened treble frequencies for pressing vinyls. It made the vinyl records more even, but it made the CDs sound weak and harsh. My brother has been spending time in his home studio remastering some of his 80's CDs with normalization and EQ changes…

Lighting is so extraordinarily important to film shooting. Visit a set (not in a studio) and see the rumbling generators, the giant lights everywhere, and the cranes, diffusers, and reflectors needed to get the light into the scene.
Post reply on HN