Live data from Hacker News

Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

kk.org

151–160 of 213 posts

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

#151
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…

So I'm not a cinematographer but I find watching 3D at 24 FPS pretty annoying whenever the camera moves to quickly because you get a painful strobing effect. I had noticed it since the first 3D movie I saw and it has bothered me since. The Hobbit in 48 FPS was markedly better here (not perfect, but an incredible improvement).

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

#152
post #80

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.

A good illustration of the importance of lighting (even though it is in a virtual world) is "How to Train Your Dragon". One of the big reasons that looked so damned good was the lighting. They brought in Roger Deakins, cinematographer for most of the Coen brother's films and many other well known films, as a visual consultant.

On Deakins' forum on his web site, a puzzled reader posted asking what a cinematographer does on an animated film. Here was part of Deakins' answer:

---------

My role on 'How to Train Your Dragon' was as a consultant and very much as part of a team. It is, for sure, a less personal involvement if only because of the numbers of people involved in the process. However, from an early stage I was involved in discussions about the 'look' of the film with the directors, designer and effects super. This involved all aspects of the production from the choice of lens lengths to our approach to 3D. Following that we created a template of images to reflected the arc of the film. Next we created a number of animated reference shots, which depicted the characters in various lighting situations such as a candlelit room, a foggy day in a forest and in moonlight. For the next 12 months I was working with the layout artists (who set the camera) and the lighters (who light the rendered images) to follow through on the whole process. During part of that 12 months I was shooting a (live action) film but I was kept in touch with the production through a dedicated work station.

---------

Full thread here: http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1...

See also this NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/movies/21dragon.html?_r=0

The 12 months Deakins spent on this is a bigger fraction of the film's production time than you might expect. Normally animated movies can take 3 or 4 years, but after a couple of years production the producers of HTTYD decided that the story and characters they had would not work. They were doing a faithful reproduction of the book (in which dragons and humans have long been at peace...and the kids are 10), but that was aimed at a younger audience. They needed something that could also appeal to teens and adults, so they replaced the director with Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois, and told them they needed to write a new story and new script, with older characters--AND they had stick to the release date, which was something like 16 months away. So, that 12 months Deakins was involved was effectively pretty much the entire development time of the film we actually got.

In one of those weird twists you'd expect to find in the movies, not real life, the reason Sanders was at Dreamworks is that when John Lasseter took over Disney animation, he suggested a bunch of changes to the movie Sanders was writing and directing for Disney, "American Dog". Sanders didn't like the changes, and ended up leaving. (Some reports say Lasseter fired him). "American Dog" got a new director and writer and story and a new name, "Bolt". What it did NOT get was a new release date.

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

#153
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…

> 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?

I'm guessing they will. 24fps action scenes end up as a blurry numbing mess if there's too much motion. The 48fps action scenes were exciting and easy to follow. The landscape shots were also improved.

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

#155
When I viewed the film in 48 fps, I noticed some visible "stuttering" in some scenes, like a video file being first stuck because of CPU load and then played too fast. This happened a couple of times in the early scenes. Did others see this? What could be the reason for it? Theater specific problem or some production time effect?

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

#156

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 go…

I don't think there's an "imax 3d hfr" version of the film -- IMAX just happens to be one of the venues that's showing the 3D HFR version. They also show a different IMAX 3D version, but that's at 24fps.

Here in the Netherlands, only one of the five IMAX cinemas actually showed the IMAX 3D HFR version. The other four only showed IMAX 3D and 3D HFR.

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

#157
"Because 48 frames per second is just above the threshold that a human eye/brain can detect changes" - Sure about that? Did you try 60, 100, 120, 200 fps too?

These comments are so funny. I think that all video games that have other than 10 fps CGA graphics are "unreal" and very distracting. Praise to alley cat and sopwith 2. ;)

Latest 3D games are super distracting, you can't even always tell if it's about movie, video film, or game.

Every new Windows version is really bad, but after a while everybody is asking, who's still using the old version?

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

#158
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…

"Don’t allow yourself to fall in love with the camera. Keep it in its place and keep your eye open for those little moments you didn’t plan for. It’s my definition of what it is to be a movie director: A man who presides over accidents." -Orson Welles

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

#159
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…

if by "flaws" you really mean "unique qualities" that give a medium its character.

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

#160
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…

> Kubrick (in)famously did this in Barry Lyndon[1] 37 years ago. To do this he used f/0.7 Carl Zeiss lenses

And about 250 candles (not exaggerating). There is nothing "natural" about that. Normal humans use maybe 10 candles in a room that size, the camera needed way more.

I never understood what made candles so much better than electric lights with a color filter for that scene. The number of candles made it completely unnatural.

Post reply on HN