
The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical - aaronbrethorst
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/
======
4ad
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 really hard for some people. There
are a huge number of cues[1] that are important in depth perception, but 3D
movies make use only of parallax confusing the brain. The depth of field is
usually shallow, and that's great for 2D, but catastrophic for 3D. In real
life, objects that I make an explicit effort to focus to are not blurry, but
in 3D they are.

Another annoying aspect of 3D movies is that they artificially augment the
parallax to make the 3D effect more extreme. That's equivalent to objects
being really close. Apart from strain on the eyes, that's really annoying for
wide outdoor shots, where things should effectively be at infinity. It's like
you are looking at a miniature, not at a vast valley.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception>

~~~
MrScruff
_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.

~~~
martinced
Sure... And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get
24fps.

So _anything_ that 24fps can do, 48fps can do too.

And I don't buy the crazy idea that someone using 24fps during an entire movie
would someone be the achievement of some visual art perfection.

This is wrong, wrong and wrong.

Also I have to laugh quite a bit at you describing a movie called "The hobbit"
which shows dragon, trolls, elfes, magicians, etc. as "trying to reproduce
reality".

; )

~~~
fr0sty
> And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps.

Not quite. Shooting at 48fps requires a faster shutter speed than 24fps (1/48
vs 1/96) which gives you less motion blur.

~~~
lucian1900
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.

~~~
brazzy
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.

~~~
lucian1900
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.

------
simonh
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.

~~~
__alexs
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.

~~~
icki
I though the 48FPS version was only available in 3D?

~~~
grhino
Yes, the 48FPS is only available in 3D.

------
durzagott
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.

~~~
objclxt
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?

~~~
brazzy
> And this makes sense: why shouldn't dialog scenes be in 48fps? There's no
> technical or artistic reason for them not to be.

Fixed that for you.

------
ghshephard
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.

~~~
Osmium
> 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'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.

~~~
objclxt
> _"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.

~~~
Osmium
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.

~~~
acuozzo
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.

------
Jabbles
At the risk of drawing this thread off-topic, I saw it in 24FPS and didn't
think much of it. No amount of HD or FPS can make up for a mediocre film, in
the same way that fantastic graphics don't make a good game.

(Spoilers ahead.)

Bilbo and the dwarves were caricatures - overdoing their roles as a surprised
hobbit and a fat, funny disney character with a single personality. (Seriously
- there's a fat one, a stupid one, an Irish one, an old one etc...)

That would be ok, since The Hobbit is a children's book, but this is certainly
not a children's film. I did not like the mixture of comedy and seriousness
that was attempted. Whereas LOTR (which I really enjoyed) had moments of Merry
and Pippin being funny, these dwarves never seemed to stop taking everything
as a joke (obviously apart from Mr. Serious Dwarf). Some bits were genuinely
funny (dwarves with Elrond), but they're in obviously safe environments.

If the overarching plot is to kill a dragon, there are some difficulties when
trying to stretch it out into 9 hours of films. Sauron had a command structure
and it was perfectly possible to kill mini-bosses (Saruman) and get some feel
that you're doing something useful. A dragon has no such web of power, so the
various evils they vanquish in the film appear disconnected and irrelevant to
the main plot.

Gandalf has seemingly random amounts of power at any given time. I guess this
also cropped up in LOTR, but it was much more obvious here.

Graphics for graphics sake. Rock battles?

Gollum was good.

~~~
JshWright
The point of The Hobbit wasn't defeating Smaug, it was the adventure along the
way...

~~~
pretoriusB
What adventure? Leaving one place and going to another, with so ho-hum
episodes in between?

~~~
bjustin
The title for The Hobbit (the book) is "The Hobbit or There and Back
Again"[1]. It is about the journey.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Hobbit-There-Back-
Again/dp/0618150...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Hobbit-There-Back-
Again/dp/061815082X) or see the end of Return of the King where Frodo adds the
"Lord of the Rings" title under Bilbo's title.

------
Someone
I haven's seen the movie, but I think this is a case of history repeating
itself.

<http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Talkie_Town_USA.pdf> (apologies for
the low quality of the scan):

 _"Only last winter an extensive poll of film fans showed them relatively
unsatisfied with sound pictures and desirous of once more seeing silent
pictures."_

We also have Aldous Huxley
(<http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/sound.cfm>, about halfway
down):

 _Silence is Golden_

 _I have just been, for the first time, to see and hear a picture talk. "A
little late in the day," my up-to-date readers will remark, with a patronizing
and contemptuous smile. "This is 1930; there isn't much news in talkies now.
But better late than never."_

 _Better late than never? Ah, no! There, my friends, you're wrong. This is one
of those cases where it is most decidedly better never than late, better never
than early, better never than on the stroke of time...._

I bet I could find similar reaction to the introduction of color movies,
colour television, GUIs for personal computers, etc. (did anybody ever
critique Gutenberg for 'form over function' on his bibles?)

In all cases, we had to discover how and when to properly use new
technologies. This will not be different.

Also, I expect we will eventually go beyond 48 Hz, as 48 Hz is slightly below
human perception thresholds.
<http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Flicker_fusion> gives limits around 60Hz.
Those are for bright lights, large areas, and peripheral. You will not
normally see that with old-syle television sets and won't see it in most
homes, either, but in cinemas, one can easily get there.

~~~
objclxt
I think you'll be far more likely to see a split, in the same way today we
have films shot in CinemaScope (2.35:1) and widescreen (1.85:1). The
complement, rather than replace, one another.

48 FPS is probably analogous to 3D, rather than talkies. When the talkies came
along there was a _rapid_ transition: the big five studios were exclusively
shooting talkies about two years after the Jazz Singer was released. Whereas
3D is more prevalent today, but some film-makers choose not to use it. There
is not quite the same demand by the audience.

I mentioned this earlier, but I'd _love_ to see a screening of The Hobbit with
24fps for dialog and 48fps for action.

~~~
ender7
To take it a step further, they could use an adaptive framerate. Have an
algorithm (or, more likely, this being Hollywood, a person) select specific
shots or pieces of shots with too much lateral movement and ratchet them up to
48fps.

~~~
astrodust
Let's have some scenes with talking and others dead silent!

------
rquirk
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.

~~~
jws
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.

~~~
antiterra
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.

~~~
Flenser
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.

~~~
antiterra
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."

[http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/14/entertainment/la-
ca-...](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/14/entertainment/la-ca-film-
novelty-20120715)

------
jrajav
This is a well-written article, but it seems to me like a lot of words to say,
"The association with other high-frame-rate media made me uncomfortable and
the movie harder to sit back and lazily process." The author says as much in
several places, but then does not seem to think that that should be considered
in their points about "magic," immersion, and art. I found very little
relevant evidence (even given that the premise is subjective and somewhat
abstract), and they make foggy points like this with no real assertion:

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

Okay? Correlation does not imply causation. Maybe the audience of the 3D HFR
show was more Tolkien and/or cinema fans that were taking the movie less
lightheartedly, or were more introverted. And what does this even mean to say?
The related point further on saying that the movie is too comedic - and in the
wrong places - doesn't serve his premise any better.

I hadn't read much from the perspective of those against HFR, but if this is
the only real argument, I think it's time to start pushing. There's no reason
not to have all the visual information we can, and lower technology-imposed
limitations. If filmmakers actually think that stuttering and blurs improve a
movie, they can still add them! That's no reason to limit the technology,
though.

For the record, my experience was similar. It was hard to shake the "home
movie" feeling as I was watching it, and suspension of disbelief was a little
harder. However, I recognized this as a personal limitation, and I was able to
enjoy the visuals and the experience regardless. I don't think that seeing
more movies like this could be anything but an improvement.

------
rcknight
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.

~~~
JshWright
It seems to me that most of the folks complaining about HFR are those with a
relatively deep experience with films and filmmaking.

The 'unwashed masses' seems to be at least indifferent, and in many cases,
positive about it.

------
webjunkie
Maybe 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>

~~~
phn
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.

------
marknutter
So I hear a lot of people saying that they really enjoyed the higher frame
rate during the action scenes, but not so much during the quiet scenes. Would
it be feasible for directors to switch between the frame rates as needed? For
action scenes, let it roll at 48fps but for all other scenes, simply chop out
half the frames and display one duplicate frame per frame to simulate 24fps. I
wonder if the transition would be too jolting.. perhaps you could ease into it
by ratcheting down the frame rate over a period of a few seconds. At any rate,
it seems like you might get the best of both worlds.

~~~
ctdonath
I watched some of King Kong on an HDTV that does the interpolated 48fps. It
switched between 48 and 24 fps depending on scene when it could. The switching
was quite irritating, going from very smooth motion to now-apparent jittery
"normal" motion. Jolting indeed.

------
evincarofautumn
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.

------
CamperBob2
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.

~~~
HelloMcFly
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.

~~~
CamperBob2
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?

~~~
HelloMcFly
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.

~~~
CamperBob2
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

~~~
HelloMcFly
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.

------
ColMustard
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.

I thought it was pretty damn magical.

------
jejones3141
tl;dr version: movie critics are now experiencing what audiophiles once did,
and are longing for the days of pleasant distortion. (Can't come up with an
analogue of "euphonic" this early in the day.) Yes, it's true that directors
took advantage of the limitations--but now they can learn to take advantage of
what HFR provides, and eventually audiences will learn the new conventions.

------
z92
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.

~~~
muhuk
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.

------
radley
I 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.

------
natmaster
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.

------
drcube
I think in general, more realism is a challenge for the director. I've seen
many HD movies and television shows where it feels like I'm _really_ on the
set, rather than _really_ in the place the movie is set in.

Anyway, I haven't seen the Hobbit or any HFR movie. But I do think that while
extra realism in the filming process will ultimately be a boon to the art
form, currently there are a lot of challenges. The realism just makes me feel
like I'm on a set with a bunch of costumed actors and props rather than in the
film's universe with its characters.

Realism currently makes the suspension of disbelief harder rather than easier.
But when they finally figure out how to overcome that, watch out, because it
will be awesome.

~~~
NullXorVoid
This is exactly what watching The Hobbit in HFR felt like to me. It was
something of a cross between a play and a video game. There were some scene
that felt more cinematic, but especially scenes without much camera movement
felt like watching actors on a set.

Like the author, this pretty much ruined the movie for me, but I'm not
prepared to totally write off HFR. I think directors will just need to learn
how to properly adjust filming techniques to keep HFR feeling like a movie,
similarly to how they had to learn to incorporate green screens without having
an obvious separation between the actors and the CGI (which a lot of directors
still get wrong).

------
lukifer
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_.

------
Devid2013
Why sound Makes Film Less Magical? Why colors Makes Film Less Magical?

In my opinion this will happens all the time new technology will be use in
Films. The peoples just need time to accept it. I hope that future Films
(especially 3D) will be made in with 60 FPS !

------
theturtle32
I'm wondering what it will look like in 2D because not only was it shot at
48fps, but it was presumably also shot with a shutter speed of 1/96th of a
second. 24fps films are shot with a 1/48th second shutter speed, so the motion
blur helps to compensate for the lack of temporal accuracy. Showing a film
shot at 48fps, 1/96th shutter at 24fps by presumably throwing away every other
frame would result in much more "choppy" and stark motion than a film that was
shot for 24fps to begin with. I'm wondering if they used some kind of process
to generate fake motion blur for the 24fps version, sort of the opposite of
what our 240hz TVs do?

------
Thrall
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.

------
heymishy
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.

------
pezz
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet, in any format.

But I did see the clip of the Bilbo and Gollum scene played on Colbert the
other week. Martin Freeman (who I've loved in other stuff, like Sherlock) was
fucking terrible.

If the calibre of delivery is like that, I'm expecting unexpected rubbish.
Even one of the scenes from McKellen Colbert played was pretty shit. Maybe I'm
expecting too much from what is meant to be a kids book.

My point is, forget FPS -- if the acting is shit, nothing will help.

~~~
greedo
I loved Freeman as Bilbo. I don't know the scene that Colbert showed, but I
think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

------
ronaldj
Is there no non-3d 48 fps version?

~~~
scotty79
Just take your own glasses to the movies that have same polariser in both
eyes.

------
rimantas
The 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.

------
polyfractal
Meh, I think it will just take time before people are A) used to HFR and B)
directors/producers are accustomed to working with the new framerate.

The porn industry thought HiDef was going to be the end of their career, since
suddenly everyone could see that the porn actresses were really just people
with makeup on. Porn certainly hasn't died yet. Cinema won't either.

 _(Sorry for comparing porn to cinema)_

------
svantana
Is 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?

------
jaredcwhite
Waa waa waa. I saw the HFR 3D version of The Hobbit by choice. Yes, for the
first few minutes my brain was thinking "what am I seeing????" but then I
forgot to think about how I was watching an HFR 3D movie and just started to
enjoy the story, the acting, the visuals, the humor -- you know, the actual
movie.

I believe Jackson is onto something here, and I bet in a few years HFR 3D will
be the gold standard of movie presentation in theaters. We may begin to see
HFR take off in the home theater, but that's a less certain prospect. In terms
of cinema, though, this is the future. And goofs like this article writer can
protest all they want but audiences are used to the frame rates of games and
it's only natural to wonder "why can I play Halo at 60+ fps and then I have to
watch a movie at 24fps?" 24fps is a relic of a bygone age. Kids won't have the
nostalgia factor here to cloud their judgement.

------
anonymous
I wonder if we can fix the "too little motion blur" problem by creating a
camera that doesn't have a shutter - one that's continuously filming with a
sensor that has the same excitability properties as our eyes, and you can read
off the sensor at whatever speed you choose.

------
Tichy
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.

------
upinsmoke
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.

------
cabirum
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.

------
bencoder
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.

~~~
acuozzo
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.

------
amorphid
For me movies are about escaping reality for a few hours and enjoying good
story. I didn't like the HFR, maybe because it looked too real or maybe
because I found the story lacking a bit, but the net result was I found it
hard to simply get whisked away to fantasy land.

Or maybe I just didn't like the movie that much and picking on HFR in 3D is
the easiest way to express my dislike.

------
jamesrcole
Quite interesting, but he didn't convince me that there are inherent,
insurmountable problems with 48FPS or 3D 48FPS, even though that seemed to be
implied.

It's early days, and there may be ways to work around the problems.

For example, with it showing too much sharp detail (too much for the viewer to
take in at once), there may be ways to keep certain sharp detail while
reducing the rest of it.

------
lurkinggrue
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.

------
josteink
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.

------
JacobIrwin
Thanks for writing on this topic.

Two questions I relevance:

1.) What was the order you watched the different [quality of] films in? 2.) Is
it possible that the 48fps version (with its inclusion of elements that do not
directly add to the story) was shot in such a manner specifically for the
substantial number of psychedelic-using filmgoers?

------
alayne
A lot of the CGI seemed bad to me. It would have been better if they had just
dropped the far away scenes.

------
tuxidomasx
When I saw The Hobbit 3d 48fps, I wasnt looking for any specific differences
from the status quo. And i didnt notice any. If someone has to really look for
the differences to notice them, then they are relatively unnecessary. I like
that they are trying to push the envelope tho.

------
frontier
I 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.

------
afishisafish
> "I’ve always preached that a director or photographer should INCLUDE
> elements in a frame or shots that add to the story, and EXCLUDE elements or
> shots that detract from it."

The genius of Tolkien is in the detail of his world, a detail no author I have
read is yet to emulate.

------
cousin_it
Maybe 3D HFR could be made to work if we had much more realistic lighting,
makeup and VFX?

------
dbcooper
The guy from Flat Panels HD (good Danish TV/monitor review site) enjoyed it
after adjusting:

[http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&...](http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1355734483)

------
jpdoctor
> _It’s like being on a film set in person: all of the magic is lost._

This is a common theme among HFR detractors: The fact that "It's too real"
when viewing _Middle Earth_ is a helluva left-handed insult.

------
feintruled
An interesting comparison with videogames, where higher FPS is striven for.
60FPS would be considered optimal (on consoles at least, PCs can go much
higher).

------
fdej
I'm really curious what the reactions would be if the movie started at 24 fps
and smoothly increased the framerate, to 48 fps at the end.

~~~
webjunkie
I would imagine you wouldn't notice first, but when the scene changes half
through the movie you would say "hey, somethings different now"

~~~
blots
I suppose you could use that for stylistic effect. Like a change of mood in
the story, or a changed attitude of the character.

~~~
arethuza
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:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_%281983_film%29>

------
Keyframe
Once DPs get a hang of exposure and motion blur to look the same as on slower
frame rates, this debate will be over.

------
tocomment
Is the Imax version of the hobbit also 48FPS? Aslo How do I know beforehand
which theaters have 48?

~~~
Zr40
In my country, only one of the 6 IMAX cinemas is showing the movie in IMAX 3D
HFR, the others only show IMAX 3D. All of them offer non-IMAX 3D HFR versions,
though.

------
coverband
Let's wait until the first 3D+48FPS porn movie comes along, and then we can
decide ;o)

------
sigzero
The Hobbit was just beautiful. I only watched the 2D version and it was
incredible.

------
bosch
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...

~~~
bosch
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.

------
splicer
I wonder if adding motion blur in post production would help.

------
russellallen
It's fascinating how many comments here seem almost offended that someone had
the affrontary to dislike a technical improvement on artistic grounds.

~~~
corresation
I would say that you must be offended that people have a differing opinions,
because I see little offense among others. Yes, other people disagree, as they
should.

Another poster hit on a point of contention that has always bothered me, which
is the "I can correlate it with something different (soap operas, football,
etc), therefore it is worse". That is not a credible position, yet it is
returned to again and again in the piece.

Better technology always has the capacity to present worse (48fps can be 24fps
if you want, and you can vaseline up high definition to the point of achieving
low definition), while the opposite is not true.

------
lhnn
It's unfortunate there is not a 2D HFR version; I'd like to sample future
technology without present anti-features.

