I think this is one of those "problems" where the only rational response is to deal with it and get over it. If movies had always been shown at 48 FPS and somebody came along in 2012 arguing that they should instead be projected at 24 for a more "cinematic" look, they'd be laughed out of town.
The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
41–50 of 146 posts
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#42Odd, my experience was exactly the opposite. For me, 3D HFR was a totally immersive experience. It felt like the action was happening right in front of me, on a stage. Bear in mind, I cannot stand those TVs that double the frame rate to make everything look like a cheap soap opera. I've heard this comparison, or ones like it, in almost every negative review I've read. In my opinion, this is false comparison. Imagine…
What's interesting to me (for background, before I ended up programming I trained in traditional film/animation) is that a lot of the 24/48fps discussion on HN tends to be around technical concerns, whereas a lot of film developments come out of artistic needs.
HFR is really interesting when contextualized in the history of cinema: frame rate was never a problem until directors started changing how they shot action scenes in the 1980s. It was realised that if you made the action fast and blurry you could get away with a lot more: what from a wide shot would look like a slow moving car chase could become a very dramatic action scene.
I think this is being reflected in a lot of the reviews coming out for The Hobbit (I haven't seen it yet): it seems a lot of people don't mind it during action sequences, but it becomes distracting during dialog and less frenetic moments. And this makes sense: why should dialog scenes be in 48fps? There's no technical or artistic reason for them to be.
I'd be really interested in watching a cut of The Hobbit which moves between 24 and 48 fps for dialog/action: people are happy to accept aspect ratio shifts (like moving from full-frame IMAX to CinemaScope in the Dark Knight, etc, and more artistically moving to Academy for a particular scene in Life of Pi), perhaps they'd be willing to accept frame rate shifts too?
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#43The first and only movie I saw in 3D before was Avatar and it was almost painful. I avoided 3D since then.
Last weekend I saw Hobbit in HFR 3D by accident: we thought it was in 2D, but got handed the 3D glasses at the entrance.
And what can I say: I enjoyed it, to the point where I think that seeing it in 2D would be a lesser experience. Some fast moving action scenes were still uncomfortable, but nature shots were simply gorgeous.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine you wouldn't notice first, but when the scene changes half through the movie you would say "hey, somethings different now"
I suppose you could use that for stylistic effect. Like a change of mood in the story, or a changed attitude of the character.
That would be really interesting. I could imagine that being used in something like Requiem for a Dream to make things feel slightly off.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#45I take fault in the post's back & forth collusion of 48/3D being responsible for the bad story & acting. It seemed like Jackson directed on the same level he left off with from the previous series, but the cast wasn't in the same place and weren't operating from that level of experience and familiarity with their characters. They ended up just "acting".
The 48p/3D was memorizing. I think it will take another 2 years to work out the kinks and a decade or more to really explore what can be done with it.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#46Maybe it's somehow like uncanny valley? It gets too realistic, but is not real, so it's disturbing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
I came here to say something like this.
I think that sometimes, the fact that the medium you are using is not perfect/too realistic makes your imagination do a lot of the work, and that makes it easier to be immersed in the experience you are having.
That is why I jump into immersion really quickly when playing Mario or even more so reading a book, but a game like Skyrim has a really hard time hooking me in.
I think realism may in some cases be a kind of a red herring when striving for immersion.
For example, I, as a programmer, can be completely immersed in what I am doing without my text editor being "realistic" (whatever a realistic text editor could be :) ).
I think that the state of "flow" and the immersion in some kind of experience (movie, game, book) go hand-in-hand.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#47Is it only me that finds this ironical to be on the HN front page along with the one where Carmack laments games being only 30 fps?
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#48I haven't seen the movie, but I had a very similar experience going from 25fps PAL CRT to full hd LED 100hz - all TV shows just looked amateurish and home made! That's how I would describe it. Eventually after a few months my eyes adjusted and now everything is back to normal.
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#49Certainly 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…
> distressed at the experience I think this is interesting. Like yourself, and the author of the article, I applaud Peter Jackson for having the courage to try, and reserve judgement until I have the chance to see it myself next week. That said, I still think it's very much an open question whether people's responses to this are due to the intrinsic nature of 48fps or just due to how alien it feels. Personally, I can…
> Personally, I can't see how anything that replicates reality better can be intrinsically bad
Books have the best graphics (followed closely by nethack)
(Relatedly, my disappointment started when they pronounced the dragon's name as Smah-oog, and I've been calling him Smorg for years. The version of the story that happened in my imagination with my personal tastes taken into account FTW)
Re: The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical
#50Certainly 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 felt the gamma filters were way too high (fake HDR ?).
For the rest of the movie I did not feel it, so I either forgot about it and decided to enjoy the movie, or maybe they did stop using the tricks.