Live data from Hacker News

Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps

kk.org

201–210 of 213 posts

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

#201
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This sounds more like "hipsters like flaws." CDs absolutely ROFLstomped both vinyl and cassette very quickly once they became affo…

> People had the option of buying vinyl, CD or cassette in the mid-'90s, and they generally preferred CDs. While agree with you, you haven't proved that this is due to a CD's objectively better sound quality. CDs are also more convenient than either tapes or vinyl: vinyl is bulky and much easier than a CD to damage. Tapes are smaller but also easy to damage. Both wear out with use faster than digital media. Case in p…

> While agree with you, you haven't proved that this is due to a CD's objectively better sound quality.

I hadn't intended to, as that would be impossible. My point was more that "people preferred records and tapes for their flaws" is only clearly true of some early enthusiasts.

And it was not my experience that tapes were much easier to damage. Tapes were relatively durable unless you pulled the actual tape out of the cassette — and even then you usually got away with just minor signal degradation. CDs were extremely vulnerable to scratching, any scratch could render them pretty much unlistenable, and they were fairly brittle with a wide, thin surface area.

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

#202
I must concede that neither my eyes nor my brain is good at processing visual information. The 48fps effect probably flew right over my head, and I struggled to interpret it the best I could.

I interpreted it to look like washed out, transparent videotape. Contrary to the article, I had a worse impression of outdoor scenes than indoor scenes; the outdoor scenes all looked cheap and cheesy and washed out to me.

Perhaps I was seeing too much. Perhaps the increased realism failed to mask the flaws in the special effects, as though we were back to the primitive CGI days of "Jurassic Park." The various nonhuman creatures all looked like laughable rubber monsters from an old "Dr. Who" episode.

But I recognize this as just one experience with 48fps, and I look forward to trying it again. I had far more trouble with the film's script and editing than I did with the cinematography.

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

#203
> "Instead of the romantic illusion of film, we see the sets and makeup for what they are. The effect is like stepping into a diorama alongside the actors, which is not as pleasant as it might sound… Never bet against innovation, but this debut does not promise great things to come." – C. Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune

As a fan of the off-Broadway immersive theater production, Sleep No More, I have "stepped into a diorama alongside the actors" several times in the last year. It is a phenomenal experience.

Artistic expression does not require "romantic illusion", and even if it did, heightening the audiences sense of realism doesn't preclude it. I haven't seen The Hobbit yet, but I welcome the innovation.

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

#204
Are we dealing with an uncanny valley situation here? At hfr and high res, are films just short of being good enough in such a way that they are freaky? Will another decade push it over the edge into real-realism and then it comes into it's own?

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

#205
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.

People don't like change but they'll probably get used to it.

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

#206
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From personal experience that is far too low, I'd like to see the source for this.

I've read it in Cinefex long time ago, might be there is something online too. Douglas Trumbull did some sort of a controller experiment in front of a crowd with 70mm projection. Which shot images have you seen played faster than 72 fps? I've seen one test played back at 120 fps, but it was in a camera r&d lab in germany. 72 fps is really more than enough. Consider that 3D projection actually projects 3 frames per ea…

They project each frame 3 times so that your eye can't pick up flicker from the light going on and off. I'd imagine that at the full 72fps it would not be necessary to flash each frame 3 times.

Finding a 'framerate' for the eye is difficult. Under certain conditions, 60hz (think florescent lighting) can be enough that your eyes won't notice a flicker. (your eyes hold a residual for some period of time, and you never see the darkenss). But if you are flashing a series of super-crisp photos, your eye is much more likely to pick up on stuttering because each photo has just as much light.

And then, if you have some action sequence in a movie where parts of the scene are really bright and fast-motion, and others are dim, the minimum amount of frames per second you need to create a 'perfect' experience for the eye is anybodies guess. It would probably also make a difference if you were a person used to looking for flaws in a picture, vs a person who is just trying to enjoy a movie and doesn't know anything technical about framerates, etc.

Regardless, all forms of currently available cinema have framerates with room for improvement.

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

#207
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People had the option of buying vinyl, CD or cassette in the mid-'90s, and they generally preferred CDs. While agree with you, you haven't proved that this is due to a CD's objectively better sound quality. CDs are also more convenient than either tapes or vinyl: vinyl is bulky and much easier than a CD to damage. Tapes are smaller but also easy to damage. Both wear out with use faster than digital media. Case in p…

> While agree with you, you haven't proved that this is due to a CD's objectively better sound quality. I hadn't intended to, as that would be impossible. My point was more that "people preferred records and tapes for their flaws" is only clearly true of some early enthusiasts. And it was not my experience that tapes were much easier to damage. Tapes were relatively durable unless you pulled the actual tape out of th…

CDs are not all that vulnerable. If they're either in the case or the machine, they're fine. You can wipe dust off with a lot more vigour than with vinyl.

I've had tape machines that would pull the tape out and scrunch it up. Strands of tape everywhere is more than "minor signal degradation". CDs are not prone to repeated signal degradation or to turning into spaghetti.

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

#208
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…

My impression is that the popularity of Instagram filters is to cover up for the fact that 1) the image sensors for the iPhone (and other brands) are inferior to those found in DSLR cameras, 2) that the average user is an untrained photographer, 3) most photos are taken indoors with poor lighting, and 4) the average photo is boring.

Instagram filters quickly add interest to photos and mask poor lighting and noise.

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

#209
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…

My impression is that the popularity of Instagram filters is to cover up for the fact that 1) the image sensors for the iPhone (and other brands) are inferior to those found in DSLR cameras, 2) that the average user is an untrained photographer, 3) most photos are taken indoors with poor lighting, and 4) the average photo is boring.

Instagram filters quickly add interest to photos and mask poor lighting and noise.

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

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kubrick would have loved the high sensitivity of current senros, which makes it practical to shoot without artificial light* though it has to be said that film stocks have improved a great deal since Barry Lyndon was shot. But I'm much less certain about whether he would have embraced 48 FPS (not Hz, because we're not modulating a coherent beam). He had such technology fully available to him as far back as the 60s an…

The unit Hz is used for frequency, per definition "per second". If "frames" are implied, surely 48Hz is acceptable?

It doesn't bother me, but it's not the standard nomenclature in the film industry.
Post reply on HN