• 165 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by Zuldim (288 posts) -

So for those who haven't heard, Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" Trilogy will be shot in 48 frames per second, as opposed to the traditional 24fps. There will still be 24fps versions of the film shown, as only some projectors can handle 48fps movies, but the result is people are getting really angry about it! I keep hearing comments like "48fps looks like a bad soap opera" or "48fps will be one of the biggest financial mishaps in the history of cinema"... And I don't get it. I get that our brains have been trained to see movies at 24fps and like how that looks, but isn't this just an example of people catching up with the times?

I've been playing games a 30-60 fps for years, and games look absolutely gorgeous like that, to the point where, when it drops to around 24, I think it looks horrible, and really reduces my enjoyment. (Of course, when I've brought this point up, I've gotten the response "Only a gamer would say games look great.", which is absolutely moronic.) How is this situation any different from that? Is it? Are these people just being stupid? Do they have a valid point I'm not seeing?

#2 Posted by JasonR86 (9581 posts) -

You're a little late with this duder.

Online
#3 Posted by laserbolts (5309 posts) -

Because people are dumb. I think there's already a thread on this dude.

#4 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

I intend to find out at the midnight next week.

#5 Posted by Zuldim (288 posts) -

Crap, sorry, I didn't think there was one.

#6 Edited by Counterclockwork87 (573 posts) -

I haven't seen it...but I don't see how a 48 fps movie could ever look good. Maybe it's because I was a film student and work in the industry, but 24 fps is the sweet spot for film...it feels so natural and tangible. This isn't the same as video games...video games at 60 looks great because its super smooth...with movies 60fps is smooth but it also looks cheap, and 24 offers a really beautiful aesthetic. Now, I haven't seen this movie at 48 so I can't say anything, but I don't see HOW it could come across as anything but cheap and inorganic.

#7 Posted by JerichoBlyth (1044 posts) -

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

#8 Posted by HaltIamReptar (2029 posts) -

Look around the net. There has been zero positive reaction to early 48fps screenings. Some neutral, mostly negative, but most certainly none excited about it.

It might have some use in the future, though, as directors learn how to use it properly instead of just swapping it in for 24fps.

#9 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7240 posts) -
@JerichoBlyth

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

I'm sick of people saying this, The Hobbit can easily make 3 films without being stretched out.
#10 Posted by Lukeweizer (2584 posts) -

People are mad because it's different. Welcome to Human Nature.

#11 Posted by Dallas_Raines (2130 posts) -

You just said it in your post, it makes it look like a soap opera. I've already read reviews that have stated how phony everything looks once you take away the 'filmic' look of 24FPS. It looks like an epic film in 24FPS and a stage production in 48FPS.

#12 Posted by Roger778 (953 posts) -

The Tinseltown Theater I work at in Medford, Oregon, won't be showing this new 48fps technology for the film. Instead The Hobbit will be shown in standard 2D showings, and Real3D (Our technology for the 3D movies). As such, I won't be able to see why this 48fps is generating so much controversy, and I'm kinda disappointed about that.

#13 Edited by Ducksworth (659 posts) -

There's nothing else to argue about at the moment.

#14 Posted by killacam (1284 posts) -

high frame rates are better suited for games because gaming requires interaction and response from the player.

for me, film really isn't about realism. a lower frame rate lets the viewer fill in more with their mind.. it kind of.. makes up for the lack of interactivity in film by giving you more to process yourself.

these smoother frame rates just make things look more like real life, but unless it's used in some sort of nature doc or some really slice-of-lifey thing (i have to assume this is why soap operas use higher frame rates - to make them feel more realistic) it just feels out of place. a FANTASY film is the type least of all suited for 48 fps.

#15 Edited by Ares42 (2555 posts) -

I'm gonna use the worst analogy, but it fits pretty well. It's the same exact thing as when HD ruined porn. Basically with the improved videoquality you start seeing the details that you don't want to see. Movies are all about imagining a fictional world, and the clearer it is to you that it is all fictional the worse it becomes. It's the same reason they use actual crafted metal weapons in those movies, because it looks more real. If it was obvious that everyone was swinging around plastic swords (like in some bad Sinbad tv series or something) the movie becomes less engaging.

Ofc over time moviemakers will adapt to the new fidelity, but in the meantime you're left with a bunch of movies using old techniques looking like shit because of the improved videoquality.

#16 Posted by HaltIamReptar (2029 posts) -

Film is all about disguising reality or heightening it, not showing it as accurately as possible. Any director worth their mettle could tell you that.

#17 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -
@JerichoBlyth said:

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

"linear" story?
#18 Edited by JadeDog (14 posts) -

"I've been playing games a 30-60 fps for years, and games look absolutely gorgeous like that, to the point where, when it drops to around 24, I think it looks horrible, and really reduces my enjoyment. "

Although another poster answered this, I wanted to as well. Video games don't look life-like so they can run at 60fps. I am completely against the 48fps. Seriously, this is a big issue to me. To try to make it understandable, take some personal HD cam footage. See how sharp it is? Even if you apply filters it still does look as good as 24fps. It looks like the crap filling up Netflix.

“People are mad because it's different. Welcome to Human Nature.”

Great informed post.

"a FANTASY film is the type least of all suited for 48 fps."

killacam, exactly.

#19 Posted by Skytylz (4025 posts) -

@NekuSakuraba said:

@JerichoBlyth

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

I'm sick of people saying this, The Hobbit can easily make 3 films without being stretched out.

Are you serious? You actually think they can make 9 hours of movies based purely on the Hobbit? Its a pretty short book, that I love, but even I think it's ridiculous that it is being made into three films.

Also, haha at linear story when talking about a movie.

#20 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -
@Skytylz said:

@NekuSakuraba said:

@JerichoBlyth

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

I'm sick of people saying this, The Hobbit can easily make 3 films without being stretched out.

Are you serious? You actually think they can make 9 hours of movies based purely on the Hobbit? Its a pretty short book, that I love, but even I think it's ridiculous that it is being made into three films.

Also, haha at linear story when talking about a movie.

It's including stuff from the Simarilion and that other compendium book. 
 
And yes, it could easily be 9 hours if they did replicate every little thing in the book, but they won't.
#21 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@Ares42 said:

HD ruined porn.

That depends on your point of view and what you're watching ;)

#22 Posted by Jrinswand (1695 posts) -
@Zuldim said:

Crap, sorry, I didn't think there was one.

Did you look? Actually, you know, looking helps.
#23 Posted by FengShuiGod (1478 posts) -

@Skytylz said:

@NekuSakuraba said:

@JerichoBlyth

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

I'm sick of people saying this, The Hobbit can easily make 3 films without being stretched out.

Are you serious? You actually think they can make 9 hours of movies based purely on the Hobbit? Its a pretty short book, that I love, but even I think it's ridiculous that it is being made into three films.

Also, haha at linear story when talking about a movie.

But it's not like Peter Jackson in going to make nine hours of the Hobbit. He is going to excise a bunch of stuff from the book, and insert a bunch of dumb Peter Jackson stuff, just like in the LotR.

And yeah, the Hobbit is too linear. It should have been an anfractuous choose your own adventure. Tolkien screwed up big time with that one.

#24 Posted by Skytylz (4025 posts) -

@FengShuiGod: I never said he was and I'm not saying that Neku thought that either, but Neku was implying that the Hobbit could be that long if Jackson wanted.

#25 Edited by LikeaSsur (1487 posts) -

@killacam said:

high frame rates are better suited for games because gaming requires interaction and response from the player.

for me, film really isn't about realism. a lower frame rate lets the viewer fill in more with their mind.. it kind of.. makes up for the lack of interactivity in film by giving you more to process yourself.

these smoother frame rates just make things look more like real life, but unless it's used in some sort of nature doc or some really slice-of-lifey thing (i have to assume this is why soap operas use higher frame rates - to make them feel more realistic) it just feels out of place. a FANTASY film is the type least of all suited for 48 fps.

Wait, couldn't this logic be applied to video games? Video games aren't really about realism either, but I think it's pretty unanimous that if one played at 24fps, we wouldn't like it. But suddenly for a movie, we're okay with less than 30 fps? There's no way the sole facet of "interactivity" could completely change our perception.

#26 Posted by Dallas_Raines (2130 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

@killacam said:

high frame rates are better suited for games because gaming requires interaction and response from the player.

for me, film really isn't about realism. a lower frame rate lets the viewer fill in more with their mind.. it kind of.. makes up for the lack of interactivity in film by giving you more to process yourself.

these smoother frame rates just make things look more like real life, but unless it's used in some sort of nature doc or some really slice-of-lifey thing (i have to assume this is why soap operas use higher frame rates - to make them feel more realistic) it just feels out of place. a FANTASY film is the type least of all suited for 48 fps.

Wait, couldn't this logic be applied to video games? Video games aren't really about realism either, but I think it's pretty unanimous that if one played at 24fps, we wouldn't like it. But suddenly for a movie, we're okay with less than 30 fps? There's no way the sole facet of "interactivity" could completely change our perception.

Have you ever actually watched a daytime soap opera? Do you think Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight would be better films if they looked more like General Hospital?

#27 Posted by WonderboyCoz (153 posts) -

To me, this is dumb. Its like saying SD is better than HD, that isn't true. Therefore, 48 fps > 24 fps. Maybe.

I think people just need to get used to it and seeing as how the early indications seem to point to younger people dealing with it better than older people it will probably be ok. Right?

#28 Posted by mazik765 (2315 posts) -

@NekuSakuraba said:

@JerichoBlyth

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

I'm sick of people saying this, The Hobbit can easily make 3 films without being stretched out.

This so much. They cut huge chunks out of LotR to make it fit three films. Frankly each of those books could have made 3 films, just as the hobbit could easily.

#29 Posted by totaboy (44 posts) -

If movies had been 48 fps from the start no one would be arguing for the "superior" 24 fps today.

Also, stop comparing movies to computer games. Film cameras blur movement, AND all panning shots are controlled and planned with the frame rate in mind.

And HD porn is awesome. If only it were 60 fps...

Online
#30 Edited by LikeaSsur (1487 posts) -

@Dallas_Raines: No, they'd be the same films with a higher frame rate. I still don't see why that's considered a terrible, heinous thing.

#31 Posted by Dallas_Raines (2130 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

@Dallas_Raines: No, they'd be the same films with a higher frame rate. I still don't see why that's considered a terrible, heinous thing.

There's no way in hell that Star Wars would be nearly as fondly remembered if it looked like a low-rate tv production.

#32 Edited by Ares42 (2555 posts) -

@Ravenlight said:

@Ares42 said:

HD ruined porn.

That depends on your point of view and what you're watching ;)

hehe, ofc. There definitely was a period where it was a big issue in that industry though. But as I said producers will adapt and now we have good HD porn =D

#33 Posted by Winternet (8000 posts) -

This just enforces the idea that The Hobbit movie shouldn't even exist. But hey, Peter Jackson has to have those dollars again, that studio in New Zealand has to do something, or all the people there go unemployed and Del Toro doesn't have anywhere to put his ridiculous ideas and weird monsters, so I guess The Hobbit makes some sense.

#34 Edited by HaltIamReptar (2029 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

@Dallas_Raines: No, they'd be the same films with a higher frame rate.

I will leave it to somebody with an actual film degree to explain the technical bits in detail, but I can assure you this is definitely not true.

EDIT: I mean in the sense that films would look crazy different.

#35 Posted by JadeDog (14 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

@Dallas_Raines: No, they'd be the same films with a higher frame rate. I still don't see why that's considered a terrible, heinous thing.

Because it will look like a handi-cam. Same reason there is a disco ball in a dance club.

#36 Posted by LikeaSsur (1487 posts) -

@Dallas_Raines: And yet no one is willing to explain, other than "IT JUST WOULDN'T WORK. GAH SOAP OPERAS." Which, I think the problem in soap operas is their super even, non-natural lighting, but I'm digressing.

Again I ask: What is wrong with a higher frame rate?

#37 Edited by uniform (1832 posts) -

This sounds similar to my experience watching Iron Man 2 on a friend's higher Hz television. Soap Opera, or camcorder look pretty much sums up my experience. He and his wife said you just need time to get used to it.

#38 Posted by killacam (1284 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

@killacam said:

high frame rates are better suited for games because gaming requires interaction and response from the player.

for me, film really isn't about realism. a lower frame rate lets the viewer fill in more with their mind.. it kind of.. makes up for the lack of interactivity in film by giving you more to process yourself.

these smoother frame rates just make things look more like real life, but unless it's used in some sort of nature doc or some really slice-of-lifey thing (i have to assume this is why soap operas use higher frame rates - to make them feel more realistic) it just feels out of place. a FANTASY film is the type least of all suited for 48 fps.

Wait, couldn't this logic be applied to video games? Video games aren't really about realism either, but I think it's pretty unanimous that if one played at 24fps, we wouldn't like it. But suddenly for a movie, we're okay with less than 30 fps? There's no way the sole facet of "interactivity" could completely change our perception.

i don't think so, no. these days, video games ARE about realism.. better graphics and physics and whatnot. playing mario 3 at 30 fps is wayyy more enjoyable than playing mass effect 3 at the same frame rate, because you don't NEED the screen to refresh that often in order to see what is there in a simpler game.

The exception may be action films, and maybe this is where the video game/movie analogy makes the most sense, as the points where games really benefit from high frame rates are during heavy action sequences.

the fact is that 24 fps is a sweet spot for allowing our brains to string these pictures together and perceive them as moving images, and contrary to what common sense might tell you, something isss actually lost upon increasing the amount of visual information thrown at you per second while watching a film. the dialogue between the viewer and the film becomes unbalanced and we become even more passive in the exchange.

#39 Edited by Ares42 (2555 posts) -

@LikeaSsur: You haven't been reading the thread have you ? Improved videoquality makes it more apparent that what you're watching is fake. Let's say you have a counterfeit painting, if I show a picture of the painting to you taken with a crappy camera with a blurring filter on top it's really hard for you to see if it's authentic or not. However if I show you a crisp clear HD picture where you can see every detail it's much easier to spot the flaws in the painting.

#40 Posted by Blastroid (257 posts) -

@Jack268 said:

@JerichoBlyth said:

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

"linear" story?

Wait, let us get back to this "linear story" comment for a movie. We need more open world movies.

#41 Posted by VisariLoyalist (2990 posts) -

@HaltIamReptar said:

Look around the net. There has been zero positive reaction to early 48fps screenings. Some neutral, mostly negative, but most certainly none excited about it.

It might have some use in the future, though, as directors learn how to use it properly instead of just swapping it in for 24fps.

I've seen reactions that are extremely positive. Stephen Colbert on his program recently said the 48 fps 3d was like looking through a window. He's the biggest hobbit geek there is and he liked it, of course his show has been sponsored by the hobbit this week but still. I for one have always been frustrated with the motion jitters and general inability to see things clearly in movies. It may artistically be better to have 24fps in SOME cases. Then again as many people have said, a lot of the effects of blurring etc can be achieved digitally afterwards. I would like to see for myself how it looks.

And personally I have always wanted a more real experience from movies. It seems odd people want the illusion of something being real up to a point but are unwilling to increase the resolution of the movement so that your brain believes what it sees is real. I'm all for imagination but if you can trick your brain to the point where it fully buys into the experience being real doesn't that increase immersion.

I feel like a significant portion of the people who don't like the look of it are movie lovers, and that's fine but they really need to be open to a new paradigm in experiencing modern entertainment products because they are moving into the realm of virtual reality more and more.

Also people should note that not all of the screens will be 48fps 3d or HFR as they are calling it. Here's a link to a list of places that are showing it in HFR 3D http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/index.html

#42 Edited by VisariLoyalist (2990 posts) -

@JadeDog said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@Dallas_Raines: No, they'd be the same films with a higher frame rate. I still don't see why that's considered a terrible, heinous thing.

Because it will look like a handi-cam. Same reason there is a disco ball in a dance club.

why do you assume that!

The director of a movie isn't using a handi cam he's using very specific techniques for framing as per usual just happens to have better motion resolution. Which can be worked around to suit people's tastes... but realize those tastes are completely arbitrary and you should be open to new experiences.

#43 Edited by Counterclockwork87 (573 posts) -

I said it before but 60fps in a video game and higher frame rates in movies are NOT the same thing.

There's this little phenomenon called "persistence of vision" and its what 24fps is based on. Film projection is nothing but still images shown very quickly, in the case of film, at 24 frames per second. In between those 24 frames are moments of darkness. At a certain speed the human brain cannot "see" these dark frames. These moments of darkness are what give 24fps films they're fantastic look, because our brain fills in the blanks. Higher frame rates technically show more detail, but are less aesthetically pleasing because it takes away the creamy, deep movement the camera and actors have and puts a harder, more defined edge on everything.

Basically a film shot and running at 43 fps would normally look super cheap, like you bought a cheap camcorder at a store and made a movie, nothing beautiful about it, no creaminess and texture to that movement.

NOW that said I have no idea how these theaters are set up. It's POSSIBLE that they are introducing extra moments of darkness or some "strobing" into this picture to make it look more filmic. So, without seeing it I can't judge, but it sounds like an awful idea for film.

#44 Posted by LikeaSsur (1487 posts) -

@Ares42: Nope, I haven't read the thread at all. I just jumped in here and started typing, kind of like what I'm doing now. I didn't even read what you wrote!

I understand the analogy, but if that's the only complaint, it seems pretty minor. No matter what movie I'm watching, I know it's fake because I'm sitting in a seat watching all of these things happen. That doesn't change the quality of the storytelling, the sounds, the dialogue, the musical underscore, etc. It's still going to have the same impact whether it's at 24, 48, or 930 fps.

@killacam said:

i don't think so, no. these days, video games ARE about realism.

Uhhhhhhhh, what? I know graphics and physics have improved, and some of them try really hard to sell you on that "This is all real stuff," but they're still complete and total fiction, and are definitely unrealistic. But according to you, the more unrealistic it becomes, the lower framerate that is allowed/should be used?

#45 Posted by huser (1017 posts) -

@mazik765 said:

@NekuSakuraba said:

@JerichoBlyth

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

I'm sick of people saying this, The Hobbit can easily make 3 films without being stretched out.

This so much. They cut huge chunks out of LotR to make it fit three films. Frankly each of those books could have made 3 films, just as the hobbit could easily.

Admittedly each one of the LoTR books is actually two.

#46 Posted by VisariLoyalist (2990 posts) -

@Counterclockwork87 said:

I said it before but 60fps in a video game and higher frame rates in movies are NOT the same thing.

There's this little phenomenon called "persistence of vision" and its what 24fps is based on. Film projection is nothing but still images shown very quickly, in the case of film, at 24 frames per second. In between those 24 frames are moments of darkness. At a certain speed the human brain cannot "see" these dark frames. These moments of darkness are what give 24fps films they're fantastic look, because our brain fills in the blanks. Higher frame rates technically show more detail, but are less aesthetically pleasing because it takes away the creamy, deep movement the camera and actors have and puts a harder, more defined edge on everything.

Basically a film shot and running at 43 fps would normally look super cheap, like you bought a cheap camcorder at a store and made a movie, nothing beautiful about it, no creaminess and texture to that movement.

NOW that said I have no idea how these theaters are set up. It's POSSIBLE that they are introducing extra moments of darkness of some "strobing" into this picture to make it look more filmic. So, without seeing it I can't judge, but it sounds like an awful idea for film.

can I just say, I have no idea what you're talking about with this creaminess stuff, I guess this is the differing perspectives. Like if you and I tasted a wine and I noticed the sweetness and you noticed the hint of nutmeg. This is why I think people who are way into movies are going to have problems with the new framerate idea. I for one find the general blurry nature of most films somewhat aggravating. Differing tastes I suppose.

#47 Posted by sonicrift (293 posts) -

When you view a videogame at 24 FPS, it looks choppy. In some cases, frame rate dips also slow time. I've been watching the Game Grumps Sonic '06 stuff, and you see a lot of that there.

Have you ever felt that all Hollywood/studio produced films look choppy?

Earlier film was shot at 15 FPS. At that speed, the human eye is successfully fooled into perceiving a series of moving pictures as being actual motion. The reason the film industry adopted 24 FPS was to allow greater flexibility in sound editing when working with film. The difference between 24 and 30 FPS is hard to explain in film and video. We say 24 FPS film looks more "dreamlike", but that's gonna go over most people's heads. The higher the frame rate gets, the more we are taken out of the illusion. Human subjects shot at higher frame rates such as 48 FPS or especially 96FPS will move more fluidly that humans appear to move in reality. It's creepy and irksome, because people don't move like that. I've shot a 96 FPS film test of a person walking backwards out of a scene with the intention of running it forwards, and the result was extremely creepy.

As videogames work their way out of the uncanny valley, it'll be interesting to see how frame rate plays into believability.

I went to college for film and currently work for a large independent television company managing in-house camera rentals.

#48 Posted by JadeDog (14 posts) -

Thanks sonicrif. The discussion should end there. People go to the movies to see stars, not ordinary people.

#49 Posted by sonicrift (293 posts) -

@Counterclockwork87: Well said, but now I want a Twix for some reason...

#50 Posted by Counterclockwork87 (573 posts) -

@VisariLoyalist said:

@Counterclockwork87 said:

I said it before but 60fps in a video game and higher frame rates in movies are NOT the same thing.

There's this little phenomenon called "persistence of vision" and its what 24fps is based on. Film projection is nothing but still images shown very quickly, in the case of film, at 24 frames per second. In between those 24 frames are moments of darkness. At a certain speed the human brain cannot "see" these dark frames. These moments of darkness are what give 24fps films they're fantastic look, because our brain fills in the blanks. Higher frame rates technically show more detail, but are less aesthetically pleasing because it takes away the creamy, deep movement the camera and actors have and puts a harder, more defined edge on everything.

Basically a film shot and running at 43 fps would normally look super cheap, like you bought a cheap camcorder at a store and made a movie, nothing beautiful about it, no creaminess and texture to that movement.

NOW that said I have no idea how these theaters are set up. It's POSSIBLE that they are introducing extra moments of darkness of some "strobing" into this picture to make it look more filmic. So, without seeing it I can't judge, but it sounds like an awful idea for film.

can I just say, I have no idea what you're talking about with this creaminess stuff, I guess this is the differing perspectives. Like if you and I tasted a wine and I noticed the sweetness and you noticed the hint of nutmeg. This is why I think people who are way into movies are going to have problems with the new framerate idea. I for one find the general blurry nature of most films somewhat aggravating. Differing tastes I suppose.

I see what your saying, maybe for you higher frames rates are right up your alley