
Pain of the New: The Hobbit at 48 fps - mbrubeck
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2013/01/pain_of_the_new
======
ginko
>Knoll asked me, "You probably only noticed the odd lighting in the interior
scenes, not in the outdoors scenes, right?" And once he asked it this way, I
realize he was right. The scenes in the HFR version that seemed odd were all
inside. The landscape scenes were stunning in a good way. "That's because they
didn't have to light the outside; the real lighting is all that was needed, so
nothing seemed amiss."

I would love to see cinematographers experiment with natural lighting for
shots. Kubrick (in)famously did this in Barry Lyndon[1] 37 years ago. To do
this he used f/0.7 Carl Zeiss lenses that were designed for NASA.

Nowadays we are far less limited due to the incredible light-sensitivity of
modern image sensors. And if that doesn't work we can go for larger sensors,
which would still be far cheaper than doing the same with film.

I have a feeling Kubrick would be having a field day with current tech and
would have been one of the first supporters of 48Hz.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Cinematography>

~~~
mcphilip
>Starting with The New World, Malick has instituted “rules” in his filmmaking,
including using only natural light, no cranes, no big rigs, and handheld
cameras only [1].

You might want to checkout New World if natural lighting interests you. Malick
is known as the "director's director" and has done a lot of very interesting
work. He loves trying to capture "unrepeatable moments", like how he used a
clip of an in-costume Christian Bale taking a break smoking a corn cob pipe in
New World when Bale didn't even realize he was on camera.

[1][http://stillsearching.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/39-facts-
abou...](http://stillsearching.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/39-facts-about-
terrence-malick/)

~~~
jeremyswank
"Don’t allow yourself to fall in love with the camera. Keep it in its place
and keep your eye open for those little moments you didn’t plan for. It’s my
definition of what it is to be a movie director: A man who presides over
accidents." -Orson Welles

~~~
Hari_Seldon
Great quote, haven't heard this before, thanks.

------
chc
I hear writers moan and wring their hands about the high-framerate version of
The Hobbit, how it doesn't look "cinematic" or what have you — but
anecdotally, nobody I know had the kind of complaints you hear from film
insiders. Nobody I know complains about it looking like a PBS show; nobody
feels like they can see the actors' makeup. Those who saw both versions
unanimously liked the HFR version better (a common reason being that it's
"prettier").

They did agree that the first 10 minutes were painful, but I think that's a
combination of the fact that it's not what you were expecting and the fact
that the first 10 minutes of the movie were awkwardly shot and acted
("DRAAAAAGOOOON!"), which the burring effect of the lower framerate helps to
disguise.

Sure, I believe that some people probably didn't like it as much. Different
strokes for different folks and all that. But I can't help but feel like there
is something of an "old guard" effect at work here, where people fetishize the
incidental details of something they're heavily involved in, and those people
are responsible for a lot of the noise.

~~~
scottoller
Disclosure: I'm a cinematographer. Prior to seeing the film, I was excited
because I had read interviews with PJ about how HFR makes 3D so much better
and cleaner. Looking back now, I don't know why I was fooled into thinking
that there is something wrong with 3D. The supposed benefit of HFR is that it
reduces headaches for people who get them from 3D. I don't get these headaches
so there was nothing wrong with 3D for me before. Is it worth shooting all 3D
films in HFR for the percentage of people who get headaches from 3D?

Regarding what you said about the "old guard" effect: It would be interesting
to see some polls of audiences who have seen both versions. Unlike you, my
non-film friends didn't have polarized reactions, they just thought it seemed
different. The question I'm getting to is: Will the public fall in love with
HFR enough for an industry shift in the way films are shot, despite the fact
that many of the people in the film industry feel that the look of HFR
cheapens the story?

All that aside, it's pretty interesting that we've gotten to the point where
when single big films like "Avatar" and "The Hobbit" come out, it spurs
conversations about huge industry shifts.

~~~
chc
That's really interesting. Have you gone to watch both versions? I did just to
make the comparison for myself. I don't usually get headaches from 3D, but I
definitely found the HFR 3D do be much more attractive than the 24FPS version.
I mean, no, it's not as mind-blowing as Peter Jackson might lead one to
imagine, but I found (for example) a lot of the "geography porn" shots look
nicer in the HFR version.

> _Regarding what you said about the "old guard" effect: It would be
> interesting to see some polls of audiences who have seen both versions.
> Unlike you, my non-film friends didn't have polarized reactions, they just
> thought it seemed different._

I may not have expressed that well if that's the impression you got. They
didn't all _love_ it. Some loved it, some expressed mild approval along the
lines of, "Huh, it was weird, but I think I like it." I was just saying that I
didn't get a single "Ugh, I saw makeup!" or anything along those lines.

------
pud
Humans like flaws.

When CDs first came out, people argued that they sounded "cold," even though
they're near-perfect recreations of the music that was recorded. People like
the hiss and compression of records and tapes.

This is also the same reason why people like Instagram filters. Normal iPhone
pics are too good. Let's fuzz em up a bit.

Also, look at v1 of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other popular sites - they
were far from pretty.

There's a lesson here. Somewhere.

~~~
chc
> _Humans like flaws._

> _When CDs first came out, people argued that they sounded "cold," even
> though they're near-perfect recreations of the music that was recorded.
> People like the hiss and compression of records and tapes._

> _This is also the same reason why people like Instagram filters._

This sounds more like "hipsters like flaws." CDs absolutely ROFLstomped both
vinyl and cassette very quickly once they became affordable for normal people.
People had the option of buying CD or cassette in the mid-'90s, and they
generally preferred CDs. MP3 did the same thing despite similar complaints.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> People had the option of buying vinyl, CD or cassette in the mid-'90s, and
> they generally preferred CDs.

While agree with you, you haven't proved that this is due to a CD's
objectively better sound quality. CDs are also more convenient than either
tapes or vinyl: vinyl is bulky and much easier than a CD to damage. Tapes are
smaller but also easy to damage. Both wear out with use faster than digital
media.

Case in point: MP3 also took off massively despite objectively worse sound
quality due to lossy compression. Because they were more convenient than CDs,
and this convenience was boosted each time hard drive sizes and internet
speeds increased.

~~~
chc
> _While agree with you, you haven't proved that this is due to a CD's
> objectively better sound quality._

I hadn't intended to, as that would be impossible. My point was more that
"people preferred records and tapes for their flaws" is only clearly true of
some early enthusiasts.

And it was not my experience that tapes were much easier to damage. Tapes were
relatively durable unless you pulled the actual tape out of the cassette — and
even then you usually got away with just minor signal degradation. CDs were
extremely vulnerable to scratching, any scratch could render them pretty much
unlistenable, and they were fairly brittle with a wide, thin surface area.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
CDs are not all that vulnerable. If they're either in the case or the machine,
they're fine. You can wipe dust off with a lot more vigour than with vinyl.

I've had tape machines that would pull the tape out and scrunch it up. Strands
of tape everywhere is more than "minor signal degradation". CDs are not prone
to repeated signal degradation or to turning into spaghetti.

------
jaredcwhite
Word.

One reason however that some CDs really did sound cold and clinical in the
early days was because the transfers to CD were using EQ curves that toned
down bass and heightened treble frequencies for pressing vinyls. It made the
vinyl records more even, but it made the CDs sound weak and harsh. My brother
has been spending time in his home studio remastering some of his 80's CDs
with normalization and EQ changes mainly, and they sound tons better.

Like the article says, HFR may require similar "mastering" to suit the newer
format better, changing filmmaking techniques that no longer apply like they
did in the 24fps era.

~~~
ChuckMcM
This captures it concisely. There is years and years of experience lighting
things to make them look good in the theatre. There is also years of
experience in lighting things to make them look good on video. Unfortunately
the video lighting people and the cinema lighting people aren't the same
people.

On a related note, I saw a clip of Patton running on a television that was
doing active motion compensation filtering. It made the movie look like it was
shot on video, and in that mode the various prop items stood out. In one scene
the jeep in the background, and the background in general, is clearly painted
on a flat surface. Without the motion compensation on that jeep looked like it
could be a real jeep in the scene. Very weird effect.

~~~
jspthrowaway2
That motion compensation that TVs do is the most egregious sin of all, and
makes 48fps film pale in comparison.

It's the first thing I turn off.

~~~
encoderer
It is god awful.

I have a sibling who seems to have, somehow, adjusted. Probably out of bias:
He just dropped $1600 on that fancy 240hz TV. This is just the new new thing.
I HATE watching movies at his house. It ruins them.

------
PaperclipTaken
"48fps is just above the threshold that the human eye/brain can detect
changes"

No, it's not. The actual threshold is unknown, but it's generally assumed to
be around 100fps. Like the threshold for color, it's a complex question.

You don't see stuttering in a movie (usually) because each frame has an
exposure time that is almost the full duration of how long the frame will
appear on screen. The result is that anything moving will blur on the film
(instead of getting a crisp shot), and so motion sequences are much more
natural.

I'm not entirely sure why 48fps was chosen, but I know that too much more and
many of the projectors that are currently showing the HFR film would be unable
to. It's also worth noting that in 3D, each eye only gets a new frame at half
of the rate (because each eye only sees half of the frames), so each eye is
getting refreshed at the rate of a regular movie.

I know that there were lots of other technical obstacles when filming in
48fps, such as color muting by the camera. This could have also played a role
in the choice of keeping it at just 48fps instead of something higher.

I'm not entirely sure why 48fps was chosen,

~~~
superdude
48fps was chosen because it was a direct multiple of 24. You can cut the
framerate in half and project it in all the old 24fps projectors.

~~~
mbell
More importantly you have an entire video and audio editing/production
pipeline built for the timings of 24 fps. If your going to increase the rate
of all those systems, its far easier to double the rate than increase by some
arbitrary fractional amount.

------
marquis
I saw this last night so it's fresh in my mind: the first few minutes were
strange and new, I had to adjust and also there was the general curiosity
about how HFS was going to look. I spent quite a lot of time looking at
Bilbo's face (young and old) and marvelling how I could tell that they were
completely hairless and questioning if they had to wax their beards off to get
that look. You could see every pore and the clean clean makeup. After I got
used to it it was similar to what the article says: the indoor shots were like
watching live theatre and the outdoor shots looked spectacular. I came out of
it thinking, there is massive scope here for artistry given time and
expertise.

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

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

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

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

~~~
mattebb
There was no motion blur conversion, the 24fps version was made by taking
every second frame.

The film was shot at 48fps with a 270 degree shutter angle, which is
equivalent to a shutter speed of 1/72s. This was done to balance the look of
the motion blur midway between the look that you'd get shooting 24 and 48 with
a standard 180 degree shutter angle (1/48s and 1/96s respectively). So the
motion blur should still be a bit sharper than a usual film, when watching the
24fps version, but not as extremely sharp as it would be at 1/96s since it
would cause more stuttering and strobing.

I believe the author's point is not that the lighting was different, but that
it 'appeared' different, which I agree with. The difference in the appearance
I put down to getting twice as much visual information per second. Even though
the spatial resolution is the same for each frame, you're getting twice as
much. For example a small detail like a facial pore may not resolve between
two 24fps frames, but you can see it in the 'in-between' extra frame. This
could be especially an issue since the original plates were shot at 5k,
resized down to 2k, potentially 'anti-aliasing' away details.

This is probably having a similar effect to when HD spatial resolution came in
for television, everything looked more 'real' and productions had to adjust
makeup and lighting techniques.

(disclaimer: I work in the visual effects industry)

~~~
mattebb
Edit, messed up frame rate calc, it's not 1/72s, it's 1/64s: 48/(270/360)=64

------
Florin_Andrei
> _Those high frame rates are great for reality television, and we accept them
> because we know these things are real. We’re always going to associate high
> frame rates with something that’s not acted, and our brains are always going
> to associate low frame rates with something that is not. If they’re seeing
> something artificial and it starts to approach something looking real, they
> begin to inherently psychologically reject it._

Translation:

I learned to do things in this particular way, and I cannot unlearn it.

~~~
pm90
I'm genuinely curious: in cases like this, how do we differentiate between
what is truly not pretty and what we don't like just because we're habituated
to something else? Does the former even mean anything, since we humans are the
only ones experiencing the technology?

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Apparently, this is a difficult question to answer.

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/>

------
stiff
As we should have learnt from the audiophile business, unless you are doing a
blind study, people will write all kinds of BS about their impressions that
tells you nothing about whether they really are able to perceive difference
and whether the impression itself is positive or do they just like the feeling
of trying something new.

Much of this sounds just like the people describing the "warm" sound they get
after changing their cables to golden ones.

~~~
taligent
Yeh no. 48fps is the new 3D.

Some people will like it even love it. The majority of people won't and its
use will be restricted to 'blockbuster' movies only.

------
aufreak3
I did this as well - watched both 48fps and 24fps, both in 3d and the former
in imax. I didnt talk to Knoll, of course, but some notes follow -

1\. The imax hfr 3d was on the whole awesome and I got a glimpse of where
cinetech is heading. I was surprised by how good it was 'cos I expected it to
be visually a lot more "soap opera"ish, iykwim. Peter Jackson has done some
really good compromises so the film would look good in either format. It
could've been a lot worse!

2\. I was left with a craving to watch the 48fps again after I saw the 24fps.
The craving was not for the outdoor scenes, but the indoor scenes which felt a
lot more intimate in imax hfr 3d.

3\. The outdoor scenes felt a bit bland compared to the 24fps! However, i
think it was not the lighting that made it feel bland, but a feeling like i
was moving through vacuum along with the camera. There is air out there in the
scene and i was not breathing it or feeling the wind as the camera moves.
These scenes worked in 24fps. Perhaps adding some sound indicating the air and
wind might help during the sweeping outdoor shots.

4\. Some cinematic techniques felt "old". The "zoom in on character and fly
around" effect (on oakenshield) didnt work for me at all in hfr, but was
spectacular in 24fps.

5\. Slow motion needs to be reinvented. The slomo battle scenes between orcs
and dwarves (iirc) had feeling to them in 24fps, but I thought "why are they
moving so slowly? .... oh its slow motion!" during the hfr. It really needs
something more to indicate that it is for emotional effect.

6\. High resolution hfr 3d graphics totally rocks! The trolls were real and
alive for me, as were the orcs and goblins. I think the digital team might've
broken some new ground here rgd compositing scenes that's in some way
different from what you see in games at 60fps. (Or maybe not!) At least, i
cant wait to see Cars or WallE in imax hfr 3d!

7\. Some 3d oddities (parallax) were disorienting in both. Ex as the camera
pans to the young Bilbo letting off smoke rings, it looked like someone was
pushing the bush behind him into place. But overall, 3d rocked in hfr for me
compared to 24fps.

8\. Traditional background score didnt work as well for me i hfr compared to
24fps. The scenes being more intimate and lively, i continuously had a feeling
that the orchestra felt out of place. I'd much rather just have the sounds
necessary for just the scene. Also the 3d placement of the sounds need to be
more faithful to the geometry in the expansive shots. Some sounds just felt
too loud for the distance.

Edit: minor bugfixes and clarifications plus new point on sound.

~~~
aphexairlines
I don't think there's an "imax 3d hfr" version of the film -- IMAX just
happens to be one of the venues that's showing the 3D HFR version. They also
show a different IMAX 3D version, but that's at 24fps.

~~~
Zr40
Here in the Netherlands, only one of the five IMAX cinemas actually showed the
IMAX 3D HFR version. The other four only showed IMAX 3D and 3D HFR.

------
mark_l_watson
A bit of nonsense. I was just in San Diego visiting family and my Dad, brother
and I went to an IMAX theater and saw the 48fps 3d version.

SPECTACULAR

A long time ago I did some entertainment dev for Nintendo and Disney. Both
companies provided me with high end SGI Reality Engines that were good for 64
fps. Not being able to detect new frames really adds a lot to the experience.

------
cwilson
According to the article, the outdoor scenes were awesome in 48FPS. It was the
indoor scenes that looked fake and weird, due to the fact that 48FPS made it
very apparent there was lots of makeup being used, because they had unnatural
light blasting on the actors (where as there was no extra light added to
outdoor scenes, obviously).

Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS
was going to pick up more detail?

~~~
jpdoctor
> _due to the fact that 48FPS made it very apparent there was lots of makeup
> being used_

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

~~~
femto
More updates per second to each pixel means each pixel is more faithfully
tracking the real-life image, which in turn allows the eye to more accurately
interpolate spatial details in the displayed picture.

As you say, for a truly static scene there is no difference. In practise there
is always noise in the picture, so even in static scenes a higher frame rate
will tend to reduce noise by averaging.

------
gambiting
I am one of these people who were REALLY excited about this technology. I was
fully, 100% prepared to walk out of the cinema, happily proclaiming that HFR
video is the best thing ever and that every single film from now on should be
shot and shown in this technology. More frames per second MUST mean that it
will be better for the viewers,right?

And then I went to a cinema,and could not get used to this effect. Everything
the characters did, seemed accelerated. I did not think that the video looked
amateurish or home-made - no, absolutely not. But each scene in Biblo's House
or generally all inside scenes looked like they were playing at 2x the normal
speed - the characters moved too fast, it was unnatural. But I know that it
couldn't have been really moving at 2x the speed - the sound was in sync,so
there was nothing wrong with the cinema. I have no idea,how this could happen
- I have seen plenty of videos shot in 60fps and never noticed anything so
disturbing. Sorry,but Hobbit in 48fps was unwatchable for me.

~~~
Lockyy
I also experienced this effect, but only for the scenes where Bilbo was
writing with a quill. Everything else was fine for me.

------
anigbrowl
A cogent argument, well explained and articulated. However, I don't agree with
the conclusion - that what audiences want is ever more realism. Realism
diminishes things; the 'film look' adds a dream like quality which is highly
desirable for narrative work.

~~~
mbrubeck
Certainly audiences might come to reject some new techniques and accept
others. But what current generations think of as "film look" will eventually
be a historical curiousity, just as past generations' "film look" is a
curiousity today. Future generations will have their own "film look" that will
probably be more realistic and high-fidelity in at least some ways.

Though there are a few exceptions, generally people today don't spend a lot of
time watching black-and-white 35mm silent films. When color film was first
introduced it disrupted the look of film, but eventually filmmakers tamed
color and found ways to make it as real or unreal as needed.

Maybe high-frame-rate video will be similar. Some scenes might demand
different interpolation or blurring than others, and I think we've hardly
begun exploring that space of possibilities.

EDIT: I can't resist this link: _"Screen realism may be a little too real"_
\-- newspaper review of Citizen Kane from February 1942.
<http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/8231805>

~~~
anigbrowl
To be honest, we have already been doing this with video for a long time. The
two biggest things you do to video for a 'film look' are to shoot at 24 fps
(or fake it in post) and set your shutter speed to 1/48 second to mimic the
behavior of a film shutter. this gives a particular kind of motion blur that
can be dispensed with on video (and film, incidentally, since many film
cameras have adjustable shutters), but which people in the audience strongly
prefer in most cases. The alternative is the HD look of sports and
entertainment programming. It's boring, because it's too similar to real life.

~~~
lucian1900
I've pretty much stopped watching "action" films because they're too blurry to
make out anything. A clear not-blurry image actually helps my suspension of
disbelief.

------
bryanh
I think a key take away is that film isn't _supposed_ to be hyper realistic.
When there are dragons on the screen, a slightly slower refreshed image for
your eyes simply aids in the suspension of disbelief.

Of course, its easy to say "you ain't used to it so it's odd" but that seems
dismissive. Film is manufactured fantasy, so imperfect reproduction is totally
acceptable and perhaps preferred.

------
pinaceae
Why is it unthinkable that not everything new is also better? 3D is pretty
much the same thing.

In animation you have the same issue with the uncanny valley - people accept a
certain realism, but once you cross a realism threshold, you suddenly need to
deliver perfection, or people notice something is off.

HFR, for me, plays into the uncanny valley.

I think the future is in adaptive framerates. HFR shines in the big sweeping
shots and when quick movements or panning is required. but it absolutely sucks
for close ups and dialogue heavy scenes.

another example for this are music videos - notice how they could have been
HFR for a long time already, but aren't? they are being filmed sped up on
purpose and then slowed down for the final product. just to make them appear
larger than life.

------
kayoone
I have not watched the Hobbit in HFR but i felt something very similiar when
watching The Dark Knight on a new 3D LED 200hz whatever TV at my friends
house. It almost felt like a documentary, so clear that you could feel the
filming set instead of being transported into the movies world. It felt very
strange and after reading this its exactly how it felt.

Can say i like it or not yet, but it concerns me that because of this
production budgets will have to rise because you can literally see every
detail. It will make every process of film making more costly, the same that
has happened to video games in the last 10 years.

~~~
dagw
I remember several people saying exactly the same thing after seeing a DVD on
an HD TV for the first time. 10 years later, nobody has that complaint
anymore.

~~~
kayoone
a DVD does not offer any HD resolution, you will need bluray for that

------
hexagonc
I don't have much to add to the discussion except to say that I don't think
the cd vs vinyl debate that we had in the 90s is a good comparison for the
current controversy with 48FPS. Even if you accept that the first cds really
did sound more accurate than their vinyl counterparts -- and some posters are
contesting this -- the underlying points of contention are different for 48FPS
vs 24FPS. Cds, in theory, brought you closer to the ideal situation which
would be listening to the music in its purest form, unadulterated (perhaps,
live?). But this is not what 48FPS does. Although 48FPS brings you closer to
reality, it is the _wrong_ reality. As pointed out in the article and by
others, 48FPS makes you more aware of the _artificial_ contrivances of the set
-- the extra makeup, harsh lighting and the fake props. This is not what
movies are supposed to do! The thing to strive for in movies is the fantasy
realm that you're trying to depict. 48FPS puts a much greater burden on the
filmmaker to live up to this fantasy expectation and when he or she falls
short, as many are claiming PJ did, you have people complaining.

------
dsl
This article does a good job of explaining that "different" thing you see.

The best way I could describe it to people was "remember the first time you
saw porn shot in HD?"

------
peterhajas
> Because 48 frames per second is just above the threshold that a human
> eye/brain can detect changes

This is false. A human eye can detect changes at 60Hz, for sure.

~~~
zanny
I ctrl-fed this. Only 2 paragraphs in and tremendous factual inaccuracy there.
90 or 120 hz would be appropriate where _average_ people can't detect the
change anymore, but some people can distinguish minute frame changes even
beyond that because different people have different eye characteristics.

I'm sure some people can't distinguish 48. I'm sure some can distinguish 120.
People are different. I personally don't notice the difference beyond 90, but
I can easily notice a difference between 120 and 60.

------
salem
From one extreme to the other. It's actually interesting that the Hobbit has
gone to 48HDR, considering that image mastering of Lord of the Rings was very
poorly done for it's theatrical releases. The digital master used for the
final prints seemed to be bit-rate limited, causing very noticeable (for me
anyway) compression artifacts when I saw the final installment.

------
akosner
There is a larger point here about technology in general. The things that are
supposed to make us happier are not, in fact, making us happier. To the
technologist, more pixels and faster frame rates are an undisputed good. As
Kevin Wines from THX tells me, “When film was the only medium for cinema,
using lower frame rates was based on economics. With film, directors and
producers would have had to use more film, making it cost prohibitive to use
high frame rates, but now that we use digital data, there’s no fiscal reason
not to use high frame rates.” No reason, of course, other than that the impact
on viewers may be different than what the technologists were expecting. To
people in the user-centered practices, every product, and every feature of
every product, is a proposition, a question we ask users. Like the
ophthalmologist giving an eye exam, “better now, or now?”

<http://onforb.es/VPE5u2>

------
brownbat
I also felt that the shots, now full of visual information, moved too quickly
between scenes. I wanted to spend some time staring at the shot, taking it all
in (especially in an early shot of a marketplace), had no chance to.

I felt like someone was making me sprint through a museum.

I'm in favor of HFR, but agree, we really need visionary directors to bring
out the full potential.

------
baby
I don't get all the fuss around it but I'm reassured to read such a blog. I
was really scared at first that directors would drop the >24fps because of the
reception of The Hobbit.

In my mind The Hobbit was a persistant slap in the face, like everyone else I
had to adapt, I felt like it was going fastforward the first minutes of the
movie. But once I got used to it, it was like I was in the movie. I usually
have a problem with action movies because of the lag that I can see. I've
noticed I can see it really well due to me twitching my fps when playing FPS
competitively. The Hobbit was different, I don't think I can go back to 24fps
movies. Maybe for normal movies but not for CGI or action movies that requires
a high FPS so it displays in a smooth way.

And now the bad thing I'm thinking about is that I'll have to buy a new TV so
I can watch that kind of movie again. I thought that full HD and 3D were just
some small evolutions, but HFR is a revolution.

------
rdl
I just saw the movie (HFR 3d at Metreon), and while I mainly disliked that it
seems to be a single solid 2.5-3h movie split into two badly edited 3h movies,
the HFR was pretty good.

Not a fan of 3d, though; everything good about 3d seems to be handled just as
well through depth of field, and once a lot of viewers will be on 2d, there is
never non redundant 3d; it is either pointless in a scene, or backed up with
depth of field, composition, color, or other ways of indicating depth and
importance.

The HFR really sucked, IMO, in the early Shire scenes, which were boring
indoor things. I've seen HFR before so I don't think it was adjustment. It
worked well in battle or action scenes. A movie like Black Hawk Down or maybe
sci-fi would do really well with HFR I think; not drama or fantasy.

What did seem to work in 3d were some of the 30 minutes of text and graphics
beforehand. I am excited about 4k or 8k realtime rendered graphics for user
interfaces.

------
kyberias
When I viewed the film in 48 fps, I noticed some visible "stuttering" in some
scenes, like a video file being first stuck because of CPU load and then
played too fast. This happened a couple of times in the early scenes. Did
others see this? What could be the reason for it? Theater specific problem or
some production time effect?

------
issa
The frame rate was the least of The Hobbit's problem. If the movie had been
good, I don't think anyone would be discussing this. When a movie's opening
half hour is as utterly dull as the scene at Bilbo's house, what else can the
audience do but take the time to closely examine every little detail of makeup
and lighting.

------
erlkonig
I found the 48 fps aspect of the Hobbit to be the most significant improvement
to realism since 3D. The lighting looked a bit stylized in some scenes, but
since I interpreted it that way (and hadn't seen the slow, jumpy version
first), it didn't trouble me, and otherwise the whole film was a wonderful
smooth glide that provided the best suspension of disbelief I've had in a long
time.

I'm really puzzled by people clinging by habit to slow FPS as making a film
more epic - even more so by the tendency in anime to use an even slower frame
rate. Both are now just obsolete cultural idioms, much like an audiophile who
only believes in his high fidelity experience if he can hear the snap and pop
of dust in the record groove. Baffling.

------
mattmillr
> "Instead of the romantic illusion of film, we see the sets and makeup for
> what they are. The effect is like stepping into a diorama alongside the
> actors, which is not as pleasant as it might sound… Never bet against
> innovation, but this debut does not promise great things to come." – C.
> Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune

As a fan of the off-Broadway immersive theater production, Sleep No More, I
have "stepped into a diorama alongside the actors" several times in the last
year. It is a phenomenal experience.

Artistic expression does not require "romantic illusion", and even if it did,
heightening the audiences sense of realism doesn't preclude it. I haven't seen
The Hobbit yet, but I welcome the innovation.

------
jcrites
I thought that most scenes in The Hobbit 48 fps were fine, but a few scenes
/seemed to be playing in fast forward/. Especially in the opening scenes,
Bilbo was walking through his hobbit-hole at faster than natural speeds. I
have a distinct memory of feeling like the speed of motion was out of sync
with the sound.

This effect was only apparent in a few scenes in the film, but I'm pretty sure
it was real, as I watched the film twice, once at each speed, and only noticed
it in 48 fps. It almost seemed like the producers didn't film certain scenes
at 48fps natively, and sped up their 24 fps film to double speed instead. Did
anyone notice similar artifacts?

~~~
gambiting
Yes I had the same thing. It looked like the film was playing at 2x the speed,
but the sound was in sync,so I don't know what was going on.

------
scotty79
So basically Peter Jackson's crew did a bad job with lightning, makeup and
sets. Faced with new medium they failed mastering it at first try.

I wonder how long we'll have to wait for a movie that does the same for 48fps
that Avatar did for 3d.

------
taylorbuley
One of the most interesting aspects of the HFR debate -- and basically the
main reason for it -- is the brightness, which as Kottke notes seems to make
makeup and internal lighting look fake.

I don't believe the film itself is any brighter. What happens is that with
48fps your eye works less hard compensating for motion blur and is freed up to
perceive each frame more brightly.

From what I've read, the effect is limited only by how fast projectors can
change an image, so I suspect we're only at the precipice of discovering the
ups and downs of HFR.

------
Sami_Lehtinen
"Because 48 frames per second is just above the threshold that a human
eye/brain can detect changes" - Sure about that? Did you try 60, 100, 120, 200
fps too?

These comments are so funny. I think that all video games that have other than
10 fps CGA graphics are "unreal" and very distracting. Praise to alley cat and
sopwith 2. ;)

Latest 3D games are super distracting, you can't even always tell if it's
about movie, video film, or game.

Every new Windows version is really bad, but after a while everybody is
asking, who's still using the old version?

------
stcredzero
_> I was surprised though that the movie in 48HFR looked so different. (The 3D
did not have an effect.)_

Strange, but I saw it in 2D 24fps then in 3D at 24fps, and the 3D made a huge
difference to me. Asok and the Goblin King looked fake and didn't work for me
in 2D. An animator friend of mine tells me that most of the emotion portrayed
in animation is through body language, so maybe this was optimized by the
artists to work in 3D, but not quite perfect when translated to 2D.

------
JungleGymSam
A slight bit off topic from the article here but was the 3D version the only
one shown in 48fps? I saw the 3D version a fews days ago and was actually
disappointed that I wasn't able to experience the 48fps experience.

To me the 3D effect seemed to cause a lot of jitter and poor fps so I was a
bit ticked the whole time. But now having read this article I'm even more
ticked off that I didn't even realize I was watching 48fps.

...and that makes me wonder why I couldn't tell the difference.

~~~
mwilcox
There's three versions: 24FPS 2D, 24FPS 3D, and 48FPS 3D.

You most likely saw the 24FPS 3D version, unless it was specifically
advertised as "HFR". The main aim of HFR is to make the 3D work better and not
give the usual headaches, etc. people get when watching 3D.

I haven't actually seen the 24FPS version yet, but I imagine there's a
possibility the 24FPS version has a much faster shutter speed than would
typically be seen in a 24FPS movie, which could give it a 'poor fps'/jittery
feel like that you experience in a PC game with low FPS.

~~~
Firehed
Ironically, I saw the 48FPS 3d and that made it far worse. Any scene with
motion was literally unwatchable with both eyes open - and this was true for
every one of my friends that went that night. We suspect it was something
wrong with the projector itself, as the 3d previews at 24fps looked fine. I'd
really like to see it again properly if the operators get things straightened
out, as the low-motion scenes looked incredible.

Contrast that to Avatar, for example, which was an awful 3d experience for me
as well, but mostly because I was stuck in the front row (I arrived "only" an
hour early)

------
flxmglrb
From now on, frame rate will be just like aspect ratio: another choice for the
filmmaker. Some movies will still be in 24fps, some will be 48fps (or some
other value), and eventually some will probably be variable from scene to
scene.

As for the Hobbit, I think HFR could certainly have used a better "ambassador"
film. Maybe James Cameron (who has also talked about 48fps from time to time)
will do a better job of it in his next movie.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm guessing you'll only see 48Khz employed for recordings of real events,
like musical performances, that Cirque de Soleil film they're pushing just
now, and lavish documentaries in exotic locations such as nature films.

------
jpb0104
48fps trailer:
[http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_...](http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4)

edit: Actually a lot of great information on that site:
<http://www.48fpsmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-videos/>

------
technotony
I think the authors main points can be summarised by the 'Uncanny valley' -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley>

The key point is that as an artificial situation gets closer to reality we
actually experience a perceptual drop in comfort level of our response to it.

------
damoncali
I'm a little confused. I saw the movie last night in 2D. From the article, it
seems that that was at 24fps.

But one of my biggest gripes was that the makeup seemed noticeable and
unbelievable, and axes and hammers looked painted. Doesn't this have more to
do with the quality of the images than the frame rate? Is it even worse at
48fps?

------
danielpal
Here you can download the original trailer in 48FPS. Watch it at 2X Speed on
VLC to see what 48FPS looks like.

[https://rapidshare.com/#!download|931p5|868604620|The_Hobbit...](https://rapidshare.com/#!download|931p5|868604620|The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_-
_Trailer_1080p_48FPS.avi|251122|0|0)

~~~
scotty79
Looks cool to me. Except the part when Bilbo is on the horse. And 2 seconds
before and after that. That part looks like cheap TV.

------
ohwp
The first movie I saw in HD was Bond's Casino Royale. And somehow I noticed
something I've never seen before. Every new shot I had the feeling you could
read the expression on the actors face of an "aaand action!".

So maybe too real isn't fun to watch unless it's an documentary?

------
codex
Presumably both the 24 and 48 fps versions were shot with the same cameras,
with the 48 fps raw being mixed down to 24. Why would that affect sensitivity?
Shouldn't both versions be equally sensitive? If not, couldn't this effect be
compensated for in post?

------
sopooneo
Are we dealing with an uncanny valley situation here? At hfr and high res, are
films just short of being good enough in such a way that they are freaky? Will
another decade push it over the edge into real-realism and then it comes into
it's own?

------
agumonkey
I've to try it, but I fail to see how linear improvement in frame rate will
buy anything. Movies are impressionist experiences, not data sampling. I don't
wanna see reality, I want someone to make my imagination dance and trip.

------
eslaught
I'd really like to know the technical reasons why the lighting appears
different in 48 fps than 24 fps. His paraphrase from John Knoll was
interesting, but didn't entirely satisfy my desire to know what really is
going on here.

------
rcthompson
The lighting explanation makes sense to me, but the one thing I'm not clear on
is how a computational frame rate reduction magically adjusts the lighting
back to what it would have been if it was originally shot in 24 fps.

------
shocks
I don't get it, have none of you played video games?

I saw The Hobbit in 3D (HFS) on an IMAX screen and I didn't notice anything
amazingly different. Perhaps because I am used to playing computer games at
60FPS or more??

------
Tichy
I saw it in HFR 3D and it looked great. No idea what the fuss is about.

------
mtgx
Why 48 FPS? Just because it's double the typical 24 FPS? Still it seems pretty
arbitrarily chosen. They should just go with 60 FPS, which is what every
screen has.

~~~
keeperofdakeys
While 60 makes sense in the US, Europe wants 50 (because they use PAL, with 25
fps). In this case, since film has always been done in 24 fps, 48 was chosen
for compatibility with that (and cinema projectors).

Frame rate conversion has always been strange though, to make 24fps content
30fps they perform something called 'telecining'. This mixes up different rows
of frames to get the new frames. For PAL, they actually just speed up the
video (and audio) to 25fps; so shows actually go for less time.

For modern TVs, the screen usually has a rather high refresh rate (60+ Hz). So
it can show older framerates (24, 25, 30) quite well by timing frames across
multiple refreshes of the screen. These newer framerates can cause trouble,
but to compensate you even have some 120 Hz TVs showing up. A lot of modern
TVs even have some form of motion compensation, to add new frames into the
video. The techniques used for this try to make an approximation of between
frames, and usually look 'too smooth', due to the motion blur not being
correct.

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

~~~
wahnfrieden
What makes you think filmmakers are interested chiefly in visual "realness"?
There's very little in the medium of cinematography that your mind accepts
readily as "real" besides sound, depending.

------
ilaksh
A more accurate digital format reveals more flaws or approximations in art and
so requires more refined art.

------
lucian1900
Are all film critics snobby gits? They sure sound that way from the quotes.

------
TommyDANGerous
I thoroughly enjoyed the Hobbit at its frames per second.

------
niggler
minor niggle: the word is Kodachrome, not kodakchrome

------
Mordor
tl;dr too much makeup

------
dakimov
I know what's wrong with high FPS: with quality being improved, including the
time domain, you more clearly see the scene being filmed, but that scene is
actors, decorations and computer graphics, as in your video game, but higher
quality, and it is not so convincing anymore. The films, the movements in
them, are not used to be so polished in the time domain. With the new time
resolution you see all the motion more precise, and it just sucks, it is not
as good as you used to think of it when it was in 24 FPS. Despite the stupid
myth, the 24 FPS is way below what you need to feel the picture as realistic.
Now the moving picture starts looking realistic, but what you realistically
see is actors, decorations, and CG, the old approaches are not convincing
anymore. The film makers just need to adapt to the high-definition time
domain, to make films look cool again with the new level of precision.

