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

171–180 of 213 posts

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

#171

Post by dagw »

kayoone wrote: post #166

I have not watched the Hobbit in HFR but i felt something very similiar when watching The Dark Knight on a new 3D LED 200hz whatever TV at my friends house. It almost felt like a documentary, so clear that you could feel the filming set instead of being transported into the movies world. It felt very strange and after reading this its exactly how it felt. Can say i like it or not yet, but it concerns me that because…

I remember several people saying exactly the same thing after seeing a DVD on an HD TV for the first time. 10 years later, nobody has that complaint anymore.

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

#172

Post by __david__ »

anigbrowl wrote: post #145
r0s wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most people just don't want beats coming at them that fast. I'm sure people used to say this about Rock & Roll, or Jazz. The revolution in speed is probably just a decade away, judging by past acceptance. I want increasing information content ad nausium, because it's simply a pale shadow of real experience. When we actually achieve comparable bandwidth with real life, we'll talk. The day the holodeck is seamlessly…

The revolution in speed is probably just a decade away, judging by past acceptance. I wouldn't be so sure of that. This is about 15 years old: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0-BWdABmhY

Or Moby's Thousand [1,2], released 20 years ago.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Ld-3YZ8bQ

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Feel_It/Thousand

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

#173

Post by michaelgrafl »

stan_rogers wrote: post #59
michaelgrafl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDs sounded cold because converters were bad and engineers didn't have much experience mastering for it, not because they sounded too perfect. Early CDs still sound bad, and I would take the respective vinyl over the CD any day still. Modern CDs sound amazing, if we leave the loudness wars aside for a moment. I suppose there are two reasons why people use Instagram filters. Firstly, because most phone cameras aren't…

It wasn't so much that engineers didn't know how to master, but that the analog-to-digital sampling was done at the CD bit rate (44.1Khz). That meant that the analogue signal needed to be brick-wall filtered to remove any information above 20KHz, and analogue brick-wall (hi-Q) filtering does really, really bad things to time and phase. Since the late '80s, the sampling rate on conversion has been much higher and the…

Yes. That's the reason why I put converters first, engineers second. I shouldn't have said engineers though. What I really meant was the peripheral equipment they didn't have at hand to provide a proper transfer to the digital domain.

Steve Albini explains it succinctly here: http://www.electricalaudio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&...

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

#174

Post by galaktor »

mbrubeck wrote: post #7
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.

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…

Thanks for the link. The parallels are interesting.

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

#175

Post by ohwp »

The first movie I saw in HD was Bond's Casino Royale. And somehow I noticed something I've never seen before. Every new shot I had the feeling you could read the expression on the actors face of an "aaand action!".

So maybe too real isn't fun to watch unless it's an documentary?

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

#177

Post by kayoone »

dagw wrote: post #171
kayoone wrote: post #166

I have not watched the Hobbit in HFR but i felt something very similiar when watching The Dark Knight on a new 3D LED 200hz whatever TV at my friends house. It almost felt like a documentary, so clear that you could feel the filming set instead of being transported into the movies world. It felt very strange and after reading this its exactly how it felt. Can say i like it or not yet, but it concerns me that because…

I remember several people saying exactly the same thing after seeing a DVD on an HD TV for the first time. 10 years later, nobody has that complaint anymore.

a DVD does not offer any HD resolution, you will need bluray for that

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

#179

Post by lucian1900 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #13
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…

To be honest, we have already been doing this with video for a long time. The two biggest things you do to video for a 'film look' are to shoot at 24 fps (or fake it in post) and set your shutter speed to 1/48 second to mimic the behavior of a film shutter. this gives a particular kind of motion blur that can be dispensed with on video (and film, incidentally, since many film cameras have adjustable shutters), but wh…

I've pretty much stopped watching "action" films because they're too blurry to make out anything. A clear not-blurry image actually helps my suspension of disbelief.

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

#180

Post by pinaceae »

Why is it unthinkable that not everything new is also better? 3D is pretty much the same thing.

In animation you have the same issue with the uncanny valley - people accept a certain realism, but once you cross a realism threshold, you suddenly need to deliver perfection, or people notice something is off.

HFR, for me, plays into the uncanny valley.

I think the future is in adaptive framerates. HFR shines in the big sweeping shots and when quick movements or panning is required. but it absolutely sucks for close ups and dialogue heavy scenes.

another example for this are music videos - notice how they could have been HFR for a long time already, but aren't? they are being filmed sped up on purpose and then slowed down for the final product. just to make them appear larger than life.

Post reply on HN