5 ms·

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

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 14y ago
> 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.
- newman314 14y ago
  I doubt it's "legacy association" as you say. There are lots of people out there (me included) that can see the "home video" effect and HATE it. For me, the 120 & 240HZ features on LCD TVs drive me absolutely batty when trying to watch a movie. It's fine for sports but completely ruins the movie experience for me.
  - brigade 14y ago
    MCFI is awful, yes. But that's because it's really hard to interpolate frames that aren't there to begin with, not because 24 fps is somehow the ideal framerate for video. As for me, 24 fps is incredibly noticeable, especially during panning scenes. To the point that it often takes me out of the movie; I've been wishing for higher FPS movies for years. Of course, I'm also one of the very few people that can see phosphor decay in plasma TVs, so...
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > Personally, I can't see how anything that replicates reality better can be intrinsically bad. I think a potential problem with replicating reality better is that the reality is that the set/props/makeup/etc are all fake. Unless you really take some exceptional care, and probably do way more post-processing work than you would normally have to, replicating reality better means revealing reality better.
- objclxt 14y ago
  > "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.
arethuza 14y ago
I saw it in 2D because I didn't want to wait until next weekend for a seat in the local IMAX and I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised - I was delighted by the whole film and looking forward to the next episode in pretty much the same expectant way that I used to look forward to the next LotR episode.
kh_hk 14y ago
I did see the movie in 2D (the parallax effect in 3D movies distract and give me headache). My experience was that for the first half hour, I felt that some scenes were there just to please the 3D movie. A tree that goes into the screen, a big rock on top of the characters to give perspective, a bird that goes to the depth of view... Also, the first part (will avoid spoilers), all the CGI was noticeable, and also felt the gamma filters were way too high (fake HDR ?). For the rest of the movie I did not feel it, so I either forgot about it and decided to enjoy the movie, or maybe they did stop using the tricks.
- lewispollard 14y ago
  Interestingly I thought roughly the same while watching the 3D HFR version - the first half of the movie felt awkwardly paced and didn't engage me much, the second half was much more enjoyable.

Osmium 14y ago

> 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.

newman314 14y ago
I doubt it's "legacy association" as you say. There are lots of people out there (me included) that can see the "home video" effect and HATE it. For me, the 120 & 240HZ features on LCD TVs drive me absolutely batty when trying to watch a movie. It's fine for sports but completely ruins the movie experience for me.
- brigade 14y ago
  MCFI is awful, yes. But that's because it's really hard to interpolate frames that aren't there to begin with, not because 24 fps is somehow the ideal framerate for video. As for me, 24 fps is incredibly noticeable, especially during panning scenes. To the point that it often takes me out of the movie; I've been wishing for higher FPS movies for years. Of course, I'm also one of the very few people that can see phosphor decay in plasma TVs, so...
jlgreco 14y ago
> Personally, I can't see how anything that replicates reality better can be intrinsically bad. I think a potential problem with replicating reality better is that the reality is that the set/props/makeup/etc are all fake. Unless you really take some exceptional care, and probably do way more post-processing work than you would normally have to, replicating reality better means revealing reality better.
objclxt 14y ago
> "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.

arethuza 14y ago

I saw it in 2D because I didn't want to wait until next weekend for a seat in the local IMAX and I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised - I was delighted by the whole film and looking forward to the next episode in pretty much the same expectant way that I used to look forward to the next LotR episode.

kh_hk 14y ago

I did see the movie in 2D (the parallax effect in 3D movies distract and give me headache). My experience was that for the first half hour, I felt that some scenes were there just to please the 3D movie. A tree that goes into the screen, a big rock on top of the characters to give perspective, a bird that goes to the depth of view... Also, the first part (will avoid spoilers), all the CGI was noticeable, and also felt the gamma filters were way too high (fake HDR ?). For the rest of the movie I did not feel it, so I either forgot about it and decided to enjoy the movie, or maybe they did stop using the tricks.

lewispollard 14y ago
Interestingly I thought roughly the same while watching the 3D HFR version - the first half of the movie felt awkwardly paced and didn't engage me much, the second half was much more enjoyable.