5 ms·

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

by 4ad 14y ago

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

andrewmu 14y ago
At least the Hobbit was filmed on dual cameras and didn't just have 3D 'painted on' afterwards. For ordinary shots, it should have correct parallax.
- erichocean 14y ago
  Filmmaker here. There's a lot more to having good 3D than parallax, and 'painted on' is a necessity to get better 3D today on live-action films even if you film with two cameras. The only films that truly have great 3D today are Avatar (in the 3D animated scenes -- most of the movie) and modern 3D animated films (Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks, etc.). The reason is that you need different parallax settings (among other things) within the same shot. Let that sink in. There's no global setting for any of the stereoscopic cues that works well for all objects in a single image. Obviously, then, having two cameras alone doesn't really get you good 3D no matter how you do it. Live-action recording like the Hobbit only ever gets one set of 3D settings per frame, unless you do the 3D 'painted' thing you claim sucks, and even then, the '3D painted' technique is time-consuming, expensive, and still not as good as what you can get when you're doing 3D stereoscopic rendering and can actually use different settings for different objects within the frame at the same time. FWIW, I'm certain that the Hobbit also used the '3D painted' technique. Everyone does it when they have the budget for it. If anyone is really interested in how 3D is actually done by those in the industry, subscribe to cml-3d. The 3D supervisors post their techniques on films often; it's quite an interesting read.
flyinRyan 14y ago
Not to mention that in true 3D you would be able to look anywhere you wanted in the picture instead of what's in focus. 3D will (hopefully!) go down as one of the most ridiculous fads ever conceived.
MrScruff 14y ago
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.
- addlepate 14y ago
  Incidentally, this is also the reason why Instagram-style photo filters are not necessarily a bad thing. Photography is not (only) an effort to, as you say, reproduce reality as closely as possible.
- bennyg 14y ago
  Exactly. I hate when it tries to be too real, so I take the exact opposite position as the parent. It's a movie, not reality. And they look like soap operas.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- martinced 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    > 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 14y ago
Shivetya 14y ago
Another annoying aspect of 3D movies is that when you watch the non 3D version it usually is apparent the gimmicky shots only made because of the 3D version. One very sore point I have with this film is just that.
valuegram 14y ago
I had the same feeling about 3D until I saw "Life of Pi" in 3D. They managed to provide imagery that wouldn't have been possible in a two-dimensional format. As with all other "tools" 3D can be used poorly, and it can be used well. As the technology matures, I have a feeling we'll see it skew more towards the latter.
- afterburner 14y ago
  Yes; Life of Pi is one of the most beautiful 3D movies I've seen, and a good story (based on an award winning book). I'm having trouble convincing people to go see it though...
  - Abundnce10 14y ago
    I'm in the same boat (pun intended). Hardly any of my friends have seen it and I'm considering it in my list of top 10 movies of all time! It was moving, although I'm not sure if I would have enjoyed it as much if I saw it in 2D...
swah 14y ago
I don't want to be a hater of something everyone around seems to love, but I really didn't enjoy the experience of Hobbit 3D HFR, it was like seeing a God of War game at times, and I felt no connection to the characters, and no emotion at all. And I really like the LoTR saga, having seen it several times.

by 4ad 14y ago

andrewmu 14y ago

At least the Hobbit was filmed on dual cameras and didn't just have 3D 'painted on' afterwards. For ordinary shots, it should have correct parallax.

erichocean 14y ago
Filmmaker here. There's a lot more to having good 3D than parallax, and 'painted on' is a necessity to get better 3D today on live-action films even if you film with two cameras. The only films that truly have great 3D today are Avatar (in the 3D animated scenes -- most of the movie) and modern 3D animated films (Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks, etc.). The reason is that you need different parallax settings (among other things) within the same shot. Let that sink in. There's no global setting for any of the stereoscopic cues that works well for all objects in a single image. Obviously, then, having two cameras alone doesn't really get you good 3D no matter how you do it. Live-action recording like the Hobbit only ever gets one set of 3D settings per frame, unless you do the 3D 'painted' thing you claim sucks, and even then, the '3D painted' technique is time-consuming, expensive, and still not as good as what you can get when you're doing 3D stereoscopic rendering and can actually use different settings for different objects within the frame at the same time. FWIW, I'm certain that the Hobbit also used the '3D painted' technique. Everyone does it when they have the budget for it. If anyone is really interested in how 3D is actually done by those in the industry, subscribe to cml-3d. The 3D supervisors post their techniques on films often; it's quite an interesting read.

flyinRyan 14y ago

Not to mention that in true 3D you would be able to look anywhere you wanted in the picture instead of what's in focus. 3D will (hopefully!) go down as one of the most ridiculous fads ever conceived.

MrScruff 14y ago

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.

addlepate 14y ago
Incidentally, this is also the reason why Instagram-style photo filters are not necessarily a bad thing. Photography is not (only) an effort to, as you say, reproduce reality as closely as possible.
bennyg 14y ago
Exactly. I hate when it tries to be too real, so I take the exact opposite position as the parent. It's a movie, not reality. And they look like soap operas.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
martinced 14y ago
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 14y ago
  > 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 14y ago

Shivetya 14y ago

Another annoying aspect of 3D movies is that when you watch the non 3D version it usually is apparent the gimmicky shots only made because of the 3D version. One very sore point I have with this film is just that.

valuegram 14y ago

I had the same feeling about 3D until I saw "Life of Pi" in 3D. They managed to provide imagery that wouldn't have been possible in a two-dimensional format. As with all other "tools" 3D can be used poorly, and it can be used well. As the technology matures, I have a feeling we'll see it skew more towards the latter.

afterburner 14y ago
Yes; Life of Pi is one of the most beautiful 3D movies I've seen, and a good story (based on an award winning book). I'm having trouble convincing people to go see it though...
- Abundnce10 14y ago
  I'm in the same boat (pun intended). Hardly any of my friends have seen it and I'm considering it in my list of top 10 movies of all time! It was moving, although I'm not sure if I would have enjoyed it as much if I saw it in 2D...

swah 14y ago

I don't want to be a hater of something everyone around seems to love, but I really didn't enjoy the experience of Hobbit 3D HFR, it was like seeing a God of War game at times, and I felt no connection to the characters, and no emotion at all. And I really like the LoTR saga, having seen it several times.