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 was watching a video game.
Like the OP, I applaud Peter Jackson's experiment - without courage like this, you won't be able to advance the technology of the art. But, in this case, it just didn't work for me. I'm interesting in hearing what other's thought.
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't see how anything that replicates reality better can be intrinsically bad. When I was a very young child and watching films for the first time I remember being distracted by its artifice: the depth of field, the way camera perspectives changed, and the motion blur, though I couldn't have put a name to these back then.
I think the bad reaction to 48 fps is largely for three reasons: legacy associations, with home video and the like, a lack of experience making films at 48 fps (could Peter Jackson have made a better 48 fps film had the industry had more experience doing it? probably), and sheer alienation (if every single film you've ever seen is 24 fps, and you've acquired a suspension of disbelief for 24 fps, then you're going to lose that at 48 fps). I think this last point is worth emphasising: I don't think we innately are capable of a suspension of disbelief for film. I think it's something we learn over time, like I did as a child, and it's something we haven't yet done for 48 fps.
So I'm optimistic. And sad too, because perhaps next week I won't enjoy The Hobbit as much as I should. I think back to Technicolor films and how crappy they looked at the time compared to how beautiful black and white films looked (and continue to look) at the same time. Yet here we are now, and we'd never go back these days.
But who knows. Maybe I'm wrong and there's something intrinsically bad about too-fast a frame rate. Perhaps, as the author alludes, filmmaking is as much a decision of what information to lose as it is what to keep. But I can't help but ask the question: the author says that certain scenes looked like a video game to him, but I ask what would it look like if you'd never played games in your life? If you lacked that association...? Maybe it'd be something a little bit magical.
There are lots of people out there (me included) that can see the "home video" effect and HATE it. For me, the 120 & 240HZ features on LCD TVs drive me absolutely batty when trying to watch a movie. It's fine for sports but completely ruins the movie experience for me.
MCFI is awful, yes. But that's because it's really hard to interpolate frames that aren't there to begin with, not because 24 fps is somehow the ideal framerate for video.
As for me, 24 fps is incredibly noticeable, especially during panning scenes. To the point that it often takes me out of the movie; I've been wishing for higher FPS movies for years.
Of course, I'm also one of the very few people that can see phosphor decay in plasma TVs, so...
> Personally, I can't see how anything that replicates reality better can be intrinsically bad.
I think a potential problem with replicating reality better is that the reality is that the set/props/makeup/etc are all fake. Unless you really take some exceptional care, and probably do way more post-processing work than you would normally have to, replicating reality better means revealing reality better.
> "I think back to Technicolor films and how crappy they looked at the time"
Technicolor films looked fantastic when they were first released. There are a lot of bad transfers that have been done since, but three-strip technicolor (the kind used on the Wizard of Oz, where you shoot using three separate film strips) had incredible saturation.
There were other, considerably less expensive alternatives that you might be thinking of, but Technicolor was the process to use for color: the problem was that to do so required a huge budget (unsurprisingly shooting on three film strips simultaneously requires three times the processing budget), and lots of light (the film speed was very low). One-strip Eastman became the dominant format for reasons of cost, but most people would agree the Technicolor 'look' was in most cases superior.
A lot of film stock from the 30s/40s has deteriorated significantly, and studios do not always take the greatest care when transferring (especially for films not so well known or renowned) - but I personally think three-strip Technicolor films like the Wizard of Oz have great, vivid color.
It's actually Wizard of Oz I had in mind when I was saying that. I appreciate for its time it was a huge advance, but I always thought it looked considerably less beautiful than black and white films of the same era, but perhaps this was as much because people didn't really understand how to use colour properly then as much as the technology itself. Anyway, thanks for the info :) I consider myself enlightened.
Directors of that time were accustomed to choosing oversaturated colors to help viewers distinguish between different elements in black & white productions. This practice continued well into the 1960s. Look at a color set photograph of "I Love Lucy" for an example of this.
3-strip Technicolor, by its own nature, tends to oversaturate colors as well.
These two facts help explain the garish colors seen in The Wizard of Oz and other 3-strip Technicolor films of the era.
With that being said, I find The Wizard of Oz (and most other 3-strip Technicolor films) to be indescribably beautiful.
> 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)
Funny, since British/Canadian accents tend to separate series of vowels like that more than American accents. (Similar to "about".) Maybe that played a part? :)
> Personally, I can't see how anything that replicates reality better can be intrinsically bad.
I'd agree if you were trying to display reality, like in a documentary, or a reality TV show. But when it comes to fictional settings, people wearing prosthetics, props made of plastic, etc. I think exposing the whole of reality certainly has potential downsides.
I saw it in 2D because I didn't want to wait until next weekend for a seat in the local IMAX and I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised - I was delighted by the whole film and looking forward to the next episode in pretty much the same expectant way that I used to look forward to the next LotR episode.
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.
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.
I saw it at the weekend, and I guess I am in a minority judging by reviews, but I honestly didn't think the HFR was that bad. (Maybe my opinion will change when I re-watch in 2d?)
Firstly, I normally come away from a 3D film with my eyes feeling extremely strained, but the Hobbit was the first film where this wasn't the case, which was a refreshing change.
There were a couple scenes, particularly at the start, that somehow felt weird as described in the article thanks to the HFR, but to say it stopped people laughing at the jokes seems pretty extreme, that wasn't the case with the audience I was sat in.
In other scenes, the benefits were clear:
Panning landscape style shots were judder free. You could actually see what was happening in action scenes, rather than the usual mess of blur. (Made worse in many films by their insistence on making things more "exciting" by going into shaky-cam mode)
Ultimately, I think what we will settle on is a variable frame rate set-up, where talking heads, indoor scenes with little action can be shown in 24fps to prevent the "soap opera" look that people hate, and action/high motion scenes can reap the benefits of 48fps.
Reminds me: during the transition from 8 bit color images to 24 bit color images in early 90s, some were complaining that 24 bit images looked worse than 8 bit images.
I agree. After watching Avatar, I was arguing that this 3D thing will be over really soon because no one would want to wear those cumbersome glasses and tolerate the eye-strain. But then I got used to it and it doesn't bother me at all.
It's quite possible the 3D film-making is going to see more advances both in the theater and during filming.
Actually, any TV/software with motion interpolation feature makes any 24fps video feel like 'cheap TV show', its not new.
From my experience the effect disappears over time, and you regain the ability to pay attention to the story.
That's exactly the approach that Douglas Trumbull wanted to use in Brainstorm where the replayed experiences of others would have been displayed using his 60fps Showscan techbology:
My experience is the opposite of the author’s. The only really different thing I noticed while watching The Hobbit in 3D at 48fps was that panning shots weren’t distractingly jittery. The film was enjoyable and didn’t feel fake or unconvincing. I can only guess that, being younger than Vincent, my familiarity with 2D is simply less ingrained than his.
Odd, 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 if soap operas were filmed in colour, and proper films shot in black and white. Then a film maker comes along and releases a colour film. Suddenly everyone says it looks like a cheap soap opera. To me this is the psychological effect that is hindering the acceptance of HFR and thus the negative reviews.
Ten years from now our children will scoff at our luddism.
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?
I watched it both in the 3D HFR and 2D version. I prefer the HFR version since the action was more fluid. But that could just be the crude conversion. I really didn't noticed the 48 fps after 30 mins or so, I just enjoyed the movie instead.
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.
I saw it in HFR this weekend. At first it felt "wrong" or "cheap" somehow but by the end I didn't notice the HFR except that the movie looked great. So it's something I think we'll get used to.
The reason it appears "cheap" to some is that many associate the smooth motion of high(er) framerates with crappy shot-on-video productions, such as Soap Operas.
I think this comes down purely to opinion..I watched it at 48 fps and thought it looked great. The story line was interesting and well developed from the book - the frame rate and quality weren't issue because I was engrossed in the film.
Had the film been a run-of-the-mill hollywood action flick reliant on the latest HD and VFX to mask a reptitive and overdone plot, then I would likely be complaining about 48 fps and why it looked dull.
This is a natural step forward in terms of quality of medium and before long will seem normal.
I saw it last night in HFR 3D. It's actually the first proper feature film I've seen in 3D and I enjoyed it a lot.
There definitely were moments where it looked like you were looking at actors on a set. The fidelity was so good that it was obvious the characters were wearing prosthetics and makeup. However there were plenty of scenes where the increased detail and clarity were a huge advantage, especially some of the CGI scenes. The flight of the eagles was gorgeous and the feeling of actually being there you got from the combination of HFR and 3D added a lot to the experience.
It very much is a question of trade-offs. I'm very glad I saw it in HFR 3D because for a lot of the scenes it gives you an experience you couldn't get any other way, but if I were to see it in a cinema again I'd go for 2D, and I look forward to seeing it on TV at home. I'll quite happily watch the next film in HFR 3D.
I guess it's due to the extra work they have to do to put the proper amount of color on the sensor, as the Red EPIC they used tends to mute them a little bit.
I really liked the 48fps version too. It has so many advantages over 24fps, especially in 3D. I would quite like to see a 48fps 3D version if only for the increased brightness but that doesn't appear to be a thing yet :( I guess they had to cut it down from the already ridiculous number of variations though.
Considering he's focusing on the fact that it's a 48FPS movie when watching it, a second time no less, doesn't that kind of detract from the conclusion that it's a bad thing?
I thought it was pretty magical for a movie to flow like this, I felt the 3D was well focused and in many cases hard to notice (As it should be), and not just a layer slapped on.
All in all I'd rather watch it in 3DHFR first, and 2D later, to make a fair judgement on whether it's a good thing.
I agree that in the start I was a bit focused on the looks of it all, but after a few minutes it added to my immersion rather than detract from it.
Isn't it possible that the reason you're distracted by this new way of doing things, is because it is in fact new, and different from other movies? If everything looked like this, we can focus on the right things instead.
There is a small cynical part of me that thinks that being the first to use HFR could be very profitable if everyone is so curious that they pay to see the same film several times in different formats.
This guys full of it. There's no way you can see the same movie and tell me you "connected" more when it was just 2D. If he wants to be a film purist he should say so, I'm fine with people preferring one format but I bet he'll be watching the film when it comes out on Blu-Ray and NOT his VHS...
Also, I saw it in 3D HFR and thought it looked amazing! Everything was so clear and I could see the pores on peoples faces and the battle scenes flowed much more smoothly. The only thing that bugged me was the glasses which wrapped the head too tightly.
I remember when we bought our first flatscreen full HD TV (I think full HD - honestly I lost track of what means what, I guess it has a somewhat higher resolution than the old tube). Everything looked shocking at first, too - like HFR is described here, suddenly lighting and makeup were painfully obvious.
After a while we didn't really notice that anymore, so I could imagine we will adjust to HFR, too. Also I suppose film making will have to adjust (lighting, makeup and so on).
A problem could be that we get to watch a lot of TV, but not that much HFR movies in the cinema. The Hobbit will be the second movie I'll watch in the cinema in two years...
Anyways, I will watch it in HFR 3d in the cinema because I don't have the opportunity to watch it like that at home.
The immersion was amazing. I was flinching every time something flew at the screen. I can't say I ever did that for Avatar.
Furthermore, the audience and myself were all gasping and laughing etc unlike what the author states with his anecdotal 'proof,' clouded by preconceived notions and order bias.
I imagine that in 5-10 years all films will be higher resolution and 48fps. The youth of tomorrow will look back at the low-res, fuzzy films of today the same way we look at black and white flicks from the past, "Did people really like this crud?!".
The Hobbit - good or bad, it doesn't matter - is really just the first of the next generation. It means makeup artists and prop creators have to step up the quality based on complaints like those in TFA, but that's technology for you.
And the movie industry needs this. There are only so many stories to tell. If the back catalog was still first tier entertainment there wouldn't be nearly as many new movies.
Timeline:
• Silent movies: Tell all the stories.
• Sound!: Tell al the stories again, no one will watch a silent movie.
• Color: Tell all the stories again.
• Style change: Never look like a play. Look "real". Tell all the stories again.
• Decent CGI: Tell all the stories using special effects again.
• High frame rate? 3D? HD?: If one of these hits the industry is set for the next decade.
␄
[1] This is where I came in. Movies from before the '70s have either a video sitcom or musical theater look that does not engage me as "real".
[2] My 18 year old daughter can't really engage in a movie filmed before about 2000 if it has special effects. They are just too campy looking to her. She can tolerate some cinematography from the mid '90s, but before that it looks cheap and fake to her.
The assertion that new movies exist and are watched because they are higher tier than older movies seems completely ridiculous. There are movies made before the 70s with absolutely amazing cinematography on beautifully detailed film stock; "Lawrence of Arabia" comes to mind as one that stands up quite well, perhaps with the exception of modern pacing. Do you really think people watch "The Hangover," "The Hobbit," or "The Avengers" because they are higher tier entertainment or more realistic than "Lawrence of Arabia?" I'd also counter that "The Bicycle Thief" feels more heartbreakingly realistic than anything I've seen recently from a major studio. Of course there's no multi-million dollar ad campaign/media blitz or major studio release for it.
I think the problem is that any film made before those that the viewer was first introduced to the film format with (or is used to watching) is going to seem old and be judged as less appealing. This mostly unconscious judgement made in a a few seconds based primarily on the 'look' of the film (b/w vs color, film stock, lenses etc.) and secondarily on it's pacing and editing style.
There may be older films that have good cinematography but the viewer is still going to judge it as 'old' before they get to appreciate that.
Plenty of films do seem dated in a negative way to me, and I can get that someone expects carefully mastered soundtracks with impressive thumpy sound. But I think there are some films were well made that stand the test of time.
The LA Times ran an article[1] arguing lack of interest in old movies stems largely from new films having a social function that is similar to fashion. I'm inclined to agree.
Therefore, while 48+fps might become the fashion, I doubt it's required to retain interest in new movies as referenced in the great-grandparent post.
I certainly wasn't around when The Seventh Seal was filmed, yet I find it astonishingly beautiful and impressive (which makes the parody film De Düva even better.) Of course, I can't talk about it the way one talks about the weather or of theater run films-- "Did you see Argo yet? I want to check it out, the trailer looked cool."
Much like a local news anchor that really should retire with the advent of the evening news in HD... (I suspect every market has at least one of those)
> The youth of tomorrow will look back at the low-res, fuzzy films of today the same way we look at black and white flicks from the past, "Did people really like this crud?!".
Speak for yourself... there is a certain art form in black and white movies that can never be reproduced in color (for example, great use of shadows). Many people enjoy watching the great classic masterpieces. It's a shame more movies are not made this way.
Not to go TLDR on Hacker news, but if 48fps was too much for the author, he did in noway attempt to limit his own output to get down to the core of the matters, or "magic of telling a story" if you like.
I'm seeing this in 3D HFR tomorrow (and incidentally my first 3D movie as well). Will be interesting to see if I share his sentiment.
I think there is a place for high frame-rate: stories that are aiming for fly-on-the-wall realism (I'm thinking particularly of The Wire, or Paranormal Activity). I could also see new film-making styles built around the tech. Unfortunately, epic fantasy is exactly the wrong type of film for the HFR effect.
In addition to looking lifeless and flat, everything seemed to move too quickly, and human movement looked cartoonishly fluid (curiously, CGI creatures looked more real, and people looked like CGI creatures). I found the scenes that looked best were the ones in slow-motion, and I can't help but feel the whole movie would have been improved through using effects to slow down everything.
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.
Good grief, it's a significant change to the way movies are made and displayed, and movies are huge part of the entertainment culture. It's got a fascinating technological component which HN tends to love, and a fascinating artistic component as well. Further, the implementation seems to be pretty divisive, though the tech-savvy HN crowd seems more forgiving/accepting of the technology than the public at large.
I think it's OK if we discuss it for a little while.
I'm not saying that higher frame rates aren't an interesting subject for discussion and further refinement. I'm saying that the move to higher frame rates in general is a pointless thing to fight, and I've provided a trivial proof.
The objective fact is that the existing 24 fps standard blows goats. What can/should be done to improve upon it?
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.
145 comments
[ 7.7 ms ] story [ 236 ms ] threadLike the OP, I applaud Peter Jackson's experiment - without courage like this, you won't be able to advance the technology of the art. But, in this case, it just didn't work for me. I'm interesting in hearing what other's thought.
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't see how anything that replicates reality better can be intrinsically bad. When I was a very young child and watching films for the first time I remember being distracted by its artifice: the depth of field, the way camera perspectives changed, and the motion blur, though I couldn't have put a name to these back then.
I think the bad reaction to 48 fps is largely for three reasons: legacy associations, with home video and the like, a lack of experience making films at 48 fps (could Peter Jackson have made a better 48 fps film had the industry had more experience doing it? probably), and sheer alienation (if every single film you've ever seen is 24 fps, and you've acquired a suspension of disbelief for 24 fps, then you're going to lose that at 48 fps). I think this last point is worth emphasising: I don't think we innately are capable of a suspension of disbelief for film. I think it's something we learn over time, like I did as a child, and it's something we haven't yet done for 48 fps.
So I'm optimistic. And sad too, because perhaps next week I won't enjoy The Hobbit as much as I should. I think back to Technicolor films and how crappy they looked at the time compared to how beautiful black and white films looked (and continue to look) at the same time. Yet here we are now, and we'd never go back these days.
But who knows. Maybe I'm wrong and there's something intrinsically bad about too-fast a frame rate. Perhaps, as the author alludes, filmmaking is as much a decision of what information to lose as it is what to keep. But I can't help but ask the question: the author says that certain scenes looked like a video game to him, but I ask what would it look like if you'd never played games in your life? If you lacked that association...? Maybe it'd be something a little bit magical.
There are lots of people out there (me included) that can see the "home video" effect and HATE it. For me, the 120 & 240HZ features on LCD TVs drive me absolutely batty when trying to watch a movie. It's fine for sports but completely ruins the movie experience for me.
As for me, 24 fps is incredibly noticeable, especially during panning scenes. To the point that it often takes me out of the movie; I've been wishing for higher FPS movies for years.
Of course, I'm also one of the very few people that can see phosphor decay in plasma TVs, so...
I think a potential problem with replicating reality better is that the reality is that the set/props/makeup/etc are all fake. Unless you really take some exceptional care, and probably do way more post-processing work than you would normally have to, replicating reality better means revealing reality better.
Technicolor films looked fantastic when they were first released. There are a lot of bad transfers that have been done since, but three-strip technicolor (the kind used on the Wizard of Oz, where you shoot using three separate film strips) had incredible saturation.
There were other, considerably less expensive alternatives that you might be thinking of, but Technicolor was the process to use for color: the problem was that to do so required a huge budget (unsurprisingly shooting on three film strips simultaneously requires three times the processing budget), and lots of light (the film speed was very low). One-strip Eastman became the dominant format for reasons of cost, but most people would agree the Technicolor 'look' was in most cases superior.
A lot of film stock from the 30s/40s has deteriorated significantly, and studios do not always take the greatest care when transferring (especially for films not so well known or renowned) - but I personally think three-strip Technicolor films like the Wizard of Oz have great, vivid color.
3-strip Technicolor, by its own nature, tends to oversaturate colors as well.
These two facts help explain the garish colors seen in The Wizard of Oz and other 3-strip Technicolor films of the era.
With that being said, I find The Wizard of Oz (and most other 3-strip Technicolor films) to be indescribably beautiful.
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)
It's not intrinsically bad, it's just harder to use.
If people liked realistic Instagram would be dead.
I'd agree if you were trying to display reality, like in a documentary, or a reality TV show. But when it comes to fictional settings, people wearing prosthetics, props made of plastic, etc. I think exposing the whole of reality certainly has potential downsides.
Simple. People don't watch movies for reality.
Just like how people prefer photos with bokeh in shots where in real life it would never appear.
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.
Firstly, I normally come away from a 3D film with my eyes feeling extremely strained, but the Hobbit was the first film where this wasn't the case, which was a refreshing change.
There were a couple scenes, particularly at the start, that somehow felt weird as described in the article thanks to the HFR, but to say it stopped people laughing at the jokes seems pretty extreme, that wasn't the case with the audience I was sat in.
In other scenes, the benefits were clear: Panning landscape style shots were judder free. You could actually see what was happening in action scenes, rather than the usual mess of blur. (Made worse in many films by their insistence on making things more "exciting" by going into shaky-cam mode)
Ultimately, I think what we will settle on is a variable frame rate set-up, where talking heads, indoor scenes with little action can be shown in 24fps to prevent the "soap opera" look that people hate, and action/high motion scenes can reap the benefits of 48fps.
The 'unwashed masses' seems to be at least indifferent, and in many cases, positive about it.
It's quite possible the 3D film-making is going to see more advances both in the theater and during filming.
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_%281983_film%29
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 if soap operas were filmed in colour, and proper films shot in black and white. Then a film maker comes along and releases a colour film. Suddenly everyone says it looks like a cheap soap opera. To me this is the psychological effect that is hindering the acceptance of HFR and thus the negative reviews.
Ten years from now our children will scoff at our luddism.
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?
Fixed that for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
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.
This is a natural step forward in terms of quality of medium and before long will seem normal.
There definitely were moments where it looked like you were looking at actors on a set. The fidelity was so good that it was obvious the characters were wearing prosthetics and makeup. However there were plenty of scenes where the increased detail and clarity were a huge advantage, especially some of the CGI scenes. The flight of the eagles was gorgeous and the feeling of actually being there you got from the combination of HFR and 3D added a lot to the experience.
It very much is a question of trade-offs. I'm very glad I saw it in HFR 3D because for a lot of the scenes it gives you an experience you couldn't get any other way, but if I were to see it in a cinema again I'd go for 2D, and I look forward to seeing it on TV at home. I'll quite happily watch the next film in HFR 3D.
I thought it was pretty magical for a movie to flow like this, I felt the 3D was well focused and in many cases hard to notice (As it should be), and not just a layer slapped on.
All in all I'd rather watch it in 3DHFR first, and 2D later, to make a fair judgement on whether it's a good thing.
I agree that in the start I was a bit focused on the looks of it all, but after a few minutes it added to my immersion rather than detract from it.
Isn't it possible that the reason you're distracted by this new way of doing things, is because it is in fact new, and different from other movies? If everything looked like this, we can focus on the right things instead.
I thought it was pretty damn magical.
After a while we didn't really notice that anymore, so I could imagine we will adjust to HFR, too. Also I suppose film making will have to adjust (lighting, makeup and so on).
A problem could be that we get to watch a lot of TV, but not that much HFR movies in the cinema. The Hobbit will be the second movie I'll watch in the cinema in two years...
Anyways, I will watch it in HFR 3d in the cinema because I don't have the opportunity to watch it like that at home.
Furthermore, the audience and myself were all gasping and laughing etc unlike what the author states with his anecdotal 'proof,' clouded by preconceived notions and order bias.
The Hobbit - good or bad, it doesn't matter - is really just the first of the next generation. It means makeup artists and prop creators have to step up the quality based on complaints like those in TFA, but that's technology for you.
Timeline:
• Silent movies: Tell all the stories.
• Sound!: Tell al the stories again, no one will watch a silent movie.
• Color: Tell all the stories again.
• Style change: Never look like a play. Look "real". Tell all the stories again.
• Decent CGI: Tell all the stories using special effects again.
• High frame rate? 3D? HD?: If one of these hits the industry is set for the next decade.
␄
[1] This is where I came in. Movies from before the '70s have either a video sitcom or musical theater look that does not engage me as "real".
[2] My 18 year old daughter can't really engage in a movie filmed before about 2000 if it has special effects. They are just too campy looking to her. She can tolerate some cinematography from the mid '90s, but before that it looks cheap and fake to her.
There may be older films that have good cinematography but the viewer is still going to judge it as 'old' before they get to appreciate that.
The LA Times ran an article[1] arguing lack of interest in old movies stems largely from new films having a social function that is similar to fashion. I'm inclined to agree. Therefore, while 48+fps might become the fashion, I doubt it's required to retain interest in new movies as referenced in the great-grandparent post.
I certainly wasn't around when The Seventh Seal was filmed, yet I find it astonishingly beautiful and impressive (which makes the parody film De Düva even better.) Of course, I can't talk about it the way one talks about the weather or of theater run films-- "Did you see Argo yet? I want to check it out, the trailer looked cool."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/14/entertainment/la-ca-...
Speak for yourself... there is a certain art form in black and white movies that can never be reproduced in color (for example, great use of shadows). Many people enjoy watching the great classic masterpieces. It's a shame more movies are not made this way.
I'm seeing this in 3D HFR tomorrow (and incidentally my first 3D movie as well). Will be interesting to see if I share his sentiment.
In addition to looking lifeless and flat, everything seemed to move too quickly, and human movement looked cartoonishly fluid (curiously, CGI creatures looked more real, and people looked like CGI creatures). I found the scenes that looked best were the ones in slow-motion, and I can't help but feel the whole movie would have been improved through using effects to slow down everything.
I think it's OK if we discuss it for a little while.
The objective fact is that the existing 24 fps standard blows goats. What can/should be done to improve upon it?
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