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

81–90 of 213 posts

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

#81

Post by untog »

georgemcbay wrote: post #30
pud wrote: post #16

Humans like flaws. When CDs first came out, people argued that they sounded "cold," even though they're near-perfect recreations of the music that was recorded. People like the hiss and compression of records and tapes. This is also the same reason why people like Instagram filters. Normal iPhone pics are too good. Let's fuzz em up a bit. Also, look at v1 of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other popular sites - they…

"There's a lesson here. Somewhere." The lesson is: just summarize the main points of the article (even reusing the article's own analogies) to get the top post on HN.

The most recent posts appear at the top and rapidly decay downwards. So unless it was from three hours ago, it isn't likely to be the top post for long.

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

#82

Post by aufreak3 »

I did this as well - watched both 48fps and 24fps, both in 3d and the former in imax. I didnt talk to Knoll, of course, but some notes follow -

1. The imax hfr 3d was on the whole awesome and I got a glimpse of where cinetech is heading. I was surprised by how good it was 'cos I expected it to be visually a lot more "soap opera"ish, iykwim. Peter Jackson has done some really good compromises so the film would look good in either format. It could've been a lot worse!

2. I was left with a craving to watch the 48fps again after I saw the 24fps. The craving was not for the outdoor scenes, but the indoor scenes which felt a lot more intimate in imax hfr 3d.

3. The outdoor scenes felt a bit bland compared to the 24fps! However, i think it was not the lighting that made it feel bland, but a feeling like i was moving through vacuum along with the camera. There is air out there in the scene and i was not breathing it or feeling the wind as the camera moves. These scenes worked in 24fps. Perhaps adding some sound indicating the air and wind might help during the sweeping outdoor shots.

4. Some cinematic techniques felt "old". The "zoom in on character and fly around" effect (on oakenshield) didnt work for me at all in hfr, but was spectacular in 24fps.

5. Slow motion needs to be reinvented. The slomo battle scenes between orcs and dwarves (iirc) had feeling to them in 24fps, but I thought "why are they moving so slowly? .... oh its slow motion!" during the hfr. It really needs something more to indicate that it is for emotional effect.

6. High resolution hfr 3d graphics totally rocks! The trolls were real and alive for me, as were the orcs and goblins. I think the digital team might've broken some new ground here rgd compositing scenes that's in some way different from what you see in games at 60fps. (Or maybe not!) At least, i cant wait to see Cars or WallE in imax hfr 3d!

7. Some 3d oddities (parallax) were disorienting in both. Ex as the camera pans to the young Bilbo letting off smoke rings, it looked like someone was pushing the bush behind him into place. But overall, 3d rocked in hfr for me compared to 24fps.

8. Traditional background score didnt work as well for me i hfr compared to 24fps. The scenes being more intimate and lively, i continuously had a feeling that the orchestra felt out of place. I'd much rather just have the sounds necessary for just the scene. Also the 3d placement of the sounds need to be more faithful to the geometry in the expansive shots. Some sounds just felt too loud for the distance.

Edit: minor bugfixes and clarifications plus new point on sound.

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

#83

Post by shashashasha »

mcphilip wrote: post #52
ginko wrote: post #36

>Knoll asked me, "You probably only noticed the odd lighting in the interior scenes, not in the outdoors scenes, right?" And once he asked it this way, I realize he was right. The scenes in the HFR version that seemed odd were all inside. The landscape scenes were stunning in a good way. "That's because they didn't have to light the outside; the real lighting is all that was needed, so nothing seemed amiss." I would…

>Starting with The New World, Malick has instituted “rules” in his filmmaking, including using only natural light, no cranes, no big rigs, and handheld cameras only [1]. You might want to checkout New World if natural lighting interests you. Malick is known as the "director's director" and has done a lot of very interesting work. He loves trying to capture "unrepeatable moments", like how he used a clip of an in-cost…

There's also the films of the Dogme 95 group (ie, Lars von Trier) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95

Notable rules for them being avoiding music that doesn't exist in the environment, shooting only handheld, only the barest of lighting.

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

#84

Post by Florin_Andrei »

pm90 wrote: post #32
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #26

> Those high frame rates are great for reality television, and we accept them because we know these things are real. We’re always going to associate high frame rates with something that’s not acted, and our brains are always going to associate low frame rates with something that is not. If they’re seeing something artificial and it starts to approach something looking real, they begin to inherently psychologically re…

I'm genuinely curious: in cases like this, how do we differentiate between what is truly not pretty and what we don't like just because we're habituated to something else? Does the former even mean anything, since we humans are the only ones experiencing the technology?

Apparently, this is a difficult question to answer.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/

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

#85

Post by encoderer »

jspthrowaway2 wrote: post #29
ChuckMcM wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This captures it concisely. There is years and years of experience lighting things to make them look good in the theatre. There is also years of experience in lighting things to make them look good on video. Unfortunately the video lighting people and the cinema lighting people aren't the same people. On a related note, I saw a clip of Patton running on a television that was doing active motion compensation filtering…

That motion compensation that TVs do is the most egregious sin of all, and makes 48fps film pale in comparison. It's the first thing I turn off.

It is god awful.

I have a sibling who seems to have, somehow, adjusted. Probably out of bias: He just dropped $1600 on that fancy 240hz TV. This is just the new new thing. I HATE watching movies at his house. It ruins them.

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

#86

Post by anigbrowl »

flxmglrb wrote: post #58

From now on, frame rate will be just like aspect ratio: another choice for the filmmaker. Some movies will still be in 24fps, some will be 48fps (or some other value), and eventually some will probably be variable from scene to scene. As for the Hobbit, I think HFR could certainly have used a better "ambassador" film. Maybe James Cameron (who has also talked about 48fps from time to time) will do a better job of it i…

I'm guessing you'll only see 48Khz employed for recordings of real events, like musical performances, that Cirque de Soleil film they're pushing just now, and lavish documentaries in exotic locations such as nature films.

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

#87

Post by krg »

enneff wrote: post #56
ginko wrote: post #36

>Knoll asked me, "You probably only noticed the odd lighting in the interior scenes, not in the outdoors scenes, right?" And once he asked it this way, I realize he was right. The scenes in the HFR version that seemed odd were all inside. The landscape scenes were stunning in a good way. "That's because they didn't have to light the outside; the real lighting is all that was needed, so nothing seemed amiss." I would…

> I would love to see cinematographers experiment with natural lighting for shots. What are you talking about? Many films are made with natural light. Kubrick wasn't alone.

I think it is interior shots filmed using only candlelight, as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Cinematography

This was/is unusual.

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

#88

Post by hexagonc »

I don't have much to add to the discussion except to say that I don't think the cd vs vinyl debate that we had in the 90s is a good comparison for the current controversy with 48FPS. Even if you accept that the first cds really did sound more accurate than their vinyl counterparts -- and some posters are contesting this -- the underlying points of contention are different for 48FPS vs 24FPS. Cds, in theory, brought you closer to the ideal situation which would be listening to the music in its purest form, unadulterated (perhaps, live?). But this is not what 48FPS does. Although 48FPS brings you closer to reality, it is the wrong reality. As pointed out in the article and by others, 48FPS makes you more aware of the artificial contrivances of the set -- the extra makeup, harsh lighting and the fake props. This is not what movies are supposed to do! The thing to strive for in movies is the fantasy realm that you're trying to depict. 48FPS puts a much greater burden on the filmmaker to live up to this fantasy expectation and when he or she falls short, as many are claiming PJ did, you have people complaining.

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

#90

Post by chc »

scottoller wrote: post #77
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 fo…

That's really interesting. Have you gone to watch both versions? I did just to make the comparison for myself. I don't usually get headaches from 3D, but I definitely found the HFR 3D do be much more attractive than the 24FPS version. I mean, no, it's not as mind-blowing as Peter Jackson might lead one to imagine, but I found (for example) a lot of the "geography porn" shots look nicer in the HFR version.

> 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.

I may not have expressed that well if that's the impression you got. They didn't all love it. Some loved it, some expressed mild approval along the lines of, "Huh, it was weird, but I think I like it." I was just saying that I didn't get a single "Ugh, I saw makeup!" or anything along those lines.

Post reply on HN