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

41–50 of 213 posts

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

#41

Post by jpdoctor »

cwilson wrote: post #19

According to the article, the outdoor scenes were awesome in 48FPS. It was the indoor scenes that looked fake and weird, due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used, because they had unnatural light blasting on the actors (where as there was no extra light added to outdoor scenes, obviously). Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going…

> due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used

How does better temporal resolution (higher frame rate) enable better spacial resolution (see makeup detail)? In no or low motion, there can be no difference.

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

#42

Post by clinth »

cwilson wrote: post #19

According to the article, the outdoor scenes were awesome in 48FPS. It was the indoor scenes that looked fake and weird, due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used, because they had unnatural light blasting on the actors (where as there was no extra light added to outdoor scenes, obviously). Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going…

And shoot every indoor scene twice?

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

#43

Post by anigbrowl »

pud wrote: 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…

CDs sounded terrible when they first came out, because hardly anyone knew how to master for digital and the recordings/mixes were demonstrably inferior. Tape is a lot more forgiving when you overdrive it it sounds quite nice because it distorts in linear fashion. Overdriving a digital recorder results in clipping, which sounds hideous.

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

#44

Post by snogglethorpe »

cwilson wrote: post #19

According to the article, the outdoor scenes were awesome in 48FPS. It was the indoor scenes that looked fake and weird, due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used, because they had unnatural light blasting on the actors (where as there was no extra light added to outdoor scenes, obviously). Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going…

Why would 48FPS have any particular effect on lighting or any other detail other than movement? Why would makeup stand out more?

[I've only seen the Hobbit in 24FPS (unfortunately the 48FPS is only available in conjuction with 3D which I won't watch).]

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

#45

Post by SeanLuke »

> The text-book reason filmmakers add makeup to actors and then light them brightly is that film is not as sensitive as the human eye, so these aids compensated for the film's deficiencies of being insensitive to low light and needing the extra contrast provided by makeup. These fakeries were added to "correct" film so it seemed more like we saw. But now that 48HFR and hi-definition video mimic our eyes better, it's like we are standing on the set, and we suddenly notice the artifice of the previously needed aids. When we view the video in "standard" format, the lighting correctly compensates, but when we see it in high frame rate, we see the artifice of the lighting as if we were standing there on the set.

This sounds entirely wrong to me, regardless of his appeal to experts.

There was no "film" versus "high definition". So far as I know, the Hobbit was not filmed in both 48 and 24, nor both in film and in digital: I think it was filmed on RED in 48fps HD digital and converted to 24 HD digital in post, by adding motion blur. Thus there was only one sensor type, aperture, shutter speed (likely 1/96), and ISO setting for both film versions. The blogger's description above seems to make assumptions which are simply not true.

If this guy saw some difference in lighting, this difference must be solely due to the 24fps motion blur conversion.

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

#46

Post by metatation »

chc wrote: 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…

My wife and I saw the HFR version and we were both put off by it. We're not exactly movie snobs or hard to please either...we've been to a theatre like 5 times since we had our first child 10 years ago.

I was completely unimpressed. It was painfully obvious that we were on a set instead of in some fantasy world. If this really is the future, then I hope that Knoll is correct that it will be solved by improved sets, props and lighting.

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

#47

Post by anigbrowl »

masklinn wrote: post #40
pud wrote: 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…

> People like the hiss and compression of records and tapes. I'd argue that they don't. People like what they know, and a different reproduction creates an annoying cognitive dissonance, like hearing a new interpretation of your favorite piece after having listened to the original for decades. It's pretty much the source of the Uncanny Valley issue

Did you know a lot of contemporary music is still recorded onto tape in the studio because engineers and musicians like the character it adds to the signal? Consumer tapes sound hissy partly because the tape is so narrow that they have a low signal:noise ratio. Recording onto larger-size tape reels eliminates that issue, but the distortion/compression from deliberate overdriving of the inputs still sounds pleasing.

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

#48

Post by mars »

after my eyes were actually adapting to the 48 frames/s i really liked the experience. what i found strange though was, that when displaying landscapes there was actually a depth-of-field in the movie - which did not make it a fully "real" visual experience. i guess this is rather a technical limit of the cameras the movie was shot with than intended. anyone got some details on this?

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

#49

Post by sliverstorm »

jpdoctor wrote: post #41
cwilson wrote: post #19

According to the article, the outdoor scenes were awesome in 48FPS. It was the indoor scenes that looked fake and weird, due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used, because they had unnatural light blasting on the actors (where as there was no extra light added to outdoor scenes, obviously). Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going…

> due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup being used How does better temporal resolution (higher frame rate) enable better spacial resolution (see makeup detail)? In no or low motion, there can be no difference.

The HFR camera uses a notably different lens, I believe as a result of the faster shutter rate. When you double the fps, you halve the exposure time, which calls for a different lens.

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

#50

Post by micampe »

SeanLuke wrote: post #45

> The text-book reason filmmakers add makeup to actors and then light them brightly is that film is not as sensitive as the human eye, so these aids compensated for the film's deficiencies of being insensitive to low light and needing the extra contrast provided by makeup. These fakeries were added to "correct" film so it seemed more like we saw. But now that 48HFR and hi-definition video mimic our eyes better, it's…

> If this guy saw some difference in lighting, this difference must be solely due to the 24fps motion blur conversion.

And to the fact that you are seeing half as many frames in the same time span.

Post reply on HN