The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical • Hacker News Board

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#141

Post by lewispollard » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 1:22 PM UTC

kh_hk wrote: post #50

ghshephard wrote: post #2

Certainly captures a lot of my experience with The Hobbit. I saw it in HD/HFR, and I'm planning on going back to see it in 2D just so I can enjoy the Movie. I was distracted, and distressed at the experience - my entire "suspension of disbelief" was never engaged, and I constantly felt like I was watching a TV Show - one exception being where the Orcs where chasing everyone down inside the mountain, when I felt like…

I did see the movie in 2D (the parallax effect in 3D movies distract and give me headache). My experience was that for the first half hour, I felt that some scenes were there just to please the 3D movie. A tree that goes into the screen, a big rock on top of the characters to give perspective, a bird that goes to the depth of view... Also, the first part (will avoid spoilers), all the CGI was noticeable, and also fel…

Interestingly I thought roughly the same while watching the 3D HFR version - the first half of the movie felt awkwardly paced and didn't engage me much, the second half was much more enjoyable.

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#142

Post by aufreak3 » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:23 PM UTC

MrScruff wrote: post #84

4ad wrote: post #58

After I saw The Hobbit at 48fps, I'm having a hard time watching 24fps movies. Yesterday I watched The Shining by Kubrik. It was jittery, and that's a slow film. HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. I suppose color and sound were not considered "cinematic" back in the day just like HFR now. 3D on the other hand... I wish it would die. You have to converge at a distance and focus at another, and that's r…

HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. Film makers have a wide variety of creative tools available to them to help them tell a story, of which HFR is one. We're talking about art, not a technical quest to reproduce reality as closely as possible.

It'll be interesting to compare this situation with what people thought colour film did to movies compared to monochrome. I can imagine people moaning eloquently about the loss of poetry in film, about how its not about the realism offered by colour, etc. ... though I do not know whether that happened. The state of 3D technology might be comparable to the realism of eastman colour.

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#143

Post by HelloMcFly » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 5:38 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #138

HelloMcFly wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find your objective fact objective at all, especially if the alternative is what I saw in The Hobbit, or 90% of what is implemented in 3D movies.

We can both be right, of course. 24 FPS is not OK, and maybe the current implementation of 48 FPS isn't, either. As has been noted, increasing the frame rate demands changes throughout the production process... everything from better makeup to better lighting. The porn producers already had to confront similar issues to some extent, when HD started to ramp up. Nobody wants to go back to fuzzy porn, do they? :-P

That's true, and I'm not averse to change. I'm hard-pressed to believe that scenes involving dialogue and little movement will seem improved by any framerate increase, but I would be the first to applaud the movie that shoves that in my face.

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#144

Post by lurkinggrue » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 10:55 PM UTC

I don't agree with this article. I was a sceptic but the Hobbit won me over.

>In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR – I don’t recall hearing a single sigh, or laugh. Not one.

He wasn't at the screening I was at as I did all of those things... oh and muttering "Fuck!"

The one things people are not mentioning is how the high frame rate fixes the 3d dimming problem.

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#145

Post by lucian1900 » Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 12:07 AM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #139

lucian1900 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is great! Motion blur sucks ass. And if the film maker wants blur sometimes, they can still add it, without compromising the entire film.

Um, no. Motion blur is absolutely essential for smooth movements. Showing 48fps material by displaying every other frame at 24fps will look, much much choppier than 24fps material.

Of course, but that's not what I mean. Shoot at 48fps and blur each frame as appropriate, just like games do. It's not exactly hard.

Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical

#146

Post by swah » Fri, Dec 21, 2012, 4:15 PM UTC

4ad wrote: post #58

After I saw The Hobbit at 48fps, I'm having a hard time watching 24fps movies. Yesterday I watched The Shining by Kubrik. It was jittery, and that's a slow film. HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. I suppose color and sound were not considered "cinematic" back in the day just like HFR now. 3D on the other hand... I wish it would die. You have to converge at a distance and focus at another, and that's r…

I don't want to be a hater of something everyone around seems to love, but I really didn't enjoy the experience of Hobbit 3D HFR, it was like seeing a God of War game at times, and I felt no connection to the characters, and no emotion at all.

And I really like the LoTR saga, having seen it several times.