6 ms·

The Hobbit, the Uncanny Valley, and what it means for 3D

35 points by cianclarke 14y ago

ggchappell 14y ago
Isn't the ordering of the Hobbit scenes on the graph backwards? The unfamiliar scenes ("orc-filled battlefields ...") are more acceptable because they are less like the real life we know & love than the familiar ones ("... a character standing in the doorway"). So they are on the less realistic (left) side of the Uncanny Valley, not the more realistic (right) side. Other than that, I think your argument works.
- etherael 14y ago
  The graph shows a dip on the rightmost side below the leftmost side before going right up to indistinguishable from reality, that's the basic premise of the old uncanny valley hypothesis, that things which are just short of indistinguishable from the real thing are less desirable than fairly good approximations which could not otherwise be confused, due to the feeling that something implacable about them is a little off.
- cianclarke 14y ago
  The idea is as the graph comes 'out of the valley', things become more and more real - so the familiar scenes, which look false to us, stay in the uncanny valley, whilst the less familiar scenes have already climbed up the other side. Just my interpretation / application of the age old theory though, so it's open to question no doubt - thanks for reading :-)
- aidenn0 14y ago
  I think the argument is that the valley is further left on unfamiliar scenes, as "can just barely tell it's wrong" is more wrong for those things that stuff we know really well. Alternatively you could say "Orcs are unreal, so there isn't an uncanny valley at all for them"
  - cianclarke 14y ago
    True, in which case I think putting the orcs elevated out of the uncanny valley towards reality is probably a strange thing to do! Can't remember the last time I came across an orc on the way to the shops..! Same theory still applies for panning through scenery or walking thru a marketplace though.
  - acgourley 14y ago
    The orcs were mostly CG, I think that has more to do with it. If they were people in makeup and masks, I suspect they still would have felt uncanny. In fact, the orcs in the large battlefield towards the beginning were mostly costumed, and felt uncanny, while the band of orcs later were CG, and felt OK.
spoondan 14y ago
Is it possible that the uncanniness of the more mundane in The Hobbit magnifies our affinity for the more fantastical? I don't doubt The Hobbit has improved on the technology and its applications to film. However, if the mundane is relatively more uncanny than in other films, perhaps a more modest improvement is benefiting from comparison to a lower baseline. That is, maybe the lows are slightly lower, and the highs are only slightly higher.
w1ntermute 14y ago
For those interested in an in-depth look at 48 fps in The Hobbit from an artistic viewpoint, here are two good blog posts discussing its effect on filmmaking: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-accidentally-invented-impressionist-filmmaking http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-acc... http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/ http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unex... I've read the first article so far, which suggests that solving problems with 48 fps present in The Hobbit is simply a matter of modifying filmmaking techniques.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  I'm curious how HFR with no 3D would have fared. Most of his complaints about the 3D HFR showing align more with my experiences with 3D than anything else.
- baddox 14y ago
  There are so many ludicrous arguments in The Verge article. > For some [filmmakers], HFR will be a potential new tool in their arsenal for telling certain types of stories in a new and exciting way, while others will be reminded of why the 2D format at 24 fps has stood the test of time for so long. Just like dial-up for Internet and horses for transportation stood the test of time for so long. This is such an unabashed argument that "it should stay this way because it has been this at for so long" that I feel sympathetic embarrassment upon reading it. The author's failure to be immersed is clearly due to his a priori insistence that 24 FPS is the way movie should be shot and projected. He says that himself. But there is more: > In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR – I don’t recall hearing a single sigh, or laugh. Not one. When I went to see the exact same seen with an audience of the same size on a 2D projection – I heard regular chuckles and laughter… why? Here's why: because there are really high odds that of all the people across the world that watched the movie in both formats, at least one person would experience this. Why did Bob win the lottery? Is it because he's good at guessing lottery numbers, or is it because the odds were high that someone would win the lottery, and we chose Bob for analysis after learning that he won? In case anyone wants a counter-anecdote, I watched The Hobbit in both formats and there was a lot of laughter in both theaters. I don't have any real evidence, but I suspect most showings in all formats had considerable laughter. > It’s like being on a film set in person: all of the magic is lost. You get to see behind the curtain and you’re no longer under the spell… I think most critics and movie buffs are well aware that "the magic" comes from the viewer's deliberate choice to suspend disbelief. If this weren't the case, then filmmakers themselves would be unable to enjoy a film, since they would fully understand most aspects of how the film was produced. Again, this just reaffirms the author's own admission that he will only choose to be immersed if a film is projected in 24 FPS. > The makeup wasn’t as terrible as some people say, and most of the VFX were stunning but not all. When I saw them in 2D however – it was almost like seeing another film. My attention wasn’t drawn to them … As I was focusing on central action. That challenges the "Suspension of Disbelief" theory that we all need to believe what we are seeing on screen and to get lost in it… Oh boy. The author seems unaware that all or nearly all modern theory about suspension of disbelief places most of the responsibility on the viewer, not the artist. No artist can forcefully make you forget or ignore the fact that you're sitting down in a dark room with a bunch of other people. I suppose I cannot dispute the author's claims about experiencing physical pain from the 3D. Perhaps there truly is some sort variation in people's visual systems that causes this. Other than the slight physical discomfort from wearing 3D glasses over my corrective glasses, all I can say is I haven't experienced that. If this were his central criticism, then it would be valid, although depending on the rate of occurrence of this medical condition it may or may not be reasonable to expect a blockbuster filmmaker to accommodate those who suffer from it.
martinced 14y ago
Can we play 48fps on our computers? I mean: is there a common video format supporting 48fps and a common media player (eg VLC) able to play at 48fps? If so, the following movie would be great: make several types of animations / sequences (both filmed and 3D and, if possible, a mix of both) but... On the left part of the movie you show it at 48fps while on the right part of the movie you show only, say, even frames (hence showing each even frame twice and skipping every uneven frame). That would be a great "visual explanation" as to what 48fps does.
- bd 14y ago
  If you are on Windows, you can try SmoothVideo Project: http://www.svp-team.com/ http://www.svp-team.com/ It's just interpolated 60 fps from regular frame rate movies but it works pretty well (it needs decent GPU for high-def videos). I use it already for quite some time. Once you get pass the initial weirdness there is kinda no way back, 24 fps movies just feel broken. It's similar to how computer games feel bad on underpowered graphics card, you do notice choppiness of 24 fps and it is pretty distracting. BTW I did see Hobbit in 48 fps and it just felt "normal". So I suppose most of people complaining about 48 fps Hobbit just didn't get used to high frame rates yet (I expect for many it was their first experience). For me it took me few weeks for "soap opera effect" to wear off.
  - stephengillie 14y ago
    I haven't seen it yet, but the flicker of the movie is very distracting to me. Especially on bright scenes, like face-closeups. Then I can see the entire screen flicker, and I get headaches like it's 1998 again with the 60hz CRT.
- beemoe 14y ago
  The "even frames" method of comparison you describe is flawed. Motion blur is very important to our perception of motion, and is the reason that motion at 24fps can look great on exposed film (lots of blur) and terrible in video games (no blur). When you skip half of the frames you have thrown out motion blur information that could have been present had the lower-rate source been created at that rate in the first place. But yes, It would be neat to experience some legitimate side-by-side comparison of frame rates / motion blurs. Such a comparison has subtleties that make it hard to do fairly and cheaply. http://100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm http://100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm (edit to fix small typo)
Fargren 14y ago
Ok, has anyone tried selecting the text on that blog? The effect made me feel as though I was drunk. Why does it do that?
- KwanEsq 14y ago
  Because for some reason they have applied a text-shadow effect with a colour of #fff (white). So normally it is invisible against the also white background, but once you select you put the selection colour behind it causing the shadow to show up.
Tloewald 14y ago
So ... Shame about the script.
michaelfeathers 14y ago
I wonder whether the problems that people are seeing with 48fps are genre specific? Sure, we've conditioned ourselves to dreamy visuals created by lower frame rates, but losing that might affect fantasy more (particularly when special effects can't be masked as well), and drama where a "cinematic" feel is expected. Maybe 48fps would feel perfectly natural in a comedy or a situational horror film?
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  I'm thinking action movies will benefit. Comedy, less so; depending on the type you might not want it too realistic.
- mminer 14y ago
  I predict that a film's frame rate will become simply another choice for the cinematographer to make. Just like different film stocks and processing techniques are employed for different genres (e.g. bleach bypass in war movies), perhaps the FPS will indeed become genre-specific like you suggest. Debate about whether 48 is superior to 24 is misplaced -- it's an aesthetic choice, and the fluid movement that comes with additional frames works well in some scenarios but not in others. Many shots in The Hobbit looked terrible, perhaps demonstrating that 48 is not the ideal frame rate for an epic fantasy, but for some films it would be quite suitable.
siculars 14y ago
I actually saw The Hobbit thrice. In IMAX 3D, "Real-3D", and HFR 3D. I do have to say that you can tell the difference when watching in HFR. It felt as if the video was fluid or even slightly fast forward. Like you are moving a bit faster than you should be. Strange, but clearly the future of motion picture.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  HFR is nothing new. The problem is it sucks. It gives everything that is not a fast-action scene a cheap soap opera/reality show look.
  - baddox 14y ago
    Presumably that's only the case if you choose to associate higher frame rates with television, since television is traditionally shown at higher frame rates. But this association is problematic. It's analogous to resisting faster Internet speeds because you didn't enjoy college and you associate fast Internet with being in college since your college used to be the only place where you had fast Internet.
    - pretoriusB 14y ago
      Your analogy breaks in that we hate the "soap opera" look EVEN in soap operas and even if we happen to like soap operas (which I occasionally do). It's not that we associate the HFR look with a bad thing and thus we think it's bad "by association". It's that we think the HFR look is bad in itself.
      - baddox 14y ago
        I don't universally hate soap operas or the soap opera look, and I do think the association made by most people is simply that soap operas tend to be low budget while also being shown at 60 Hz. I believe the fundamental reason for bad-looking soap operas is the low budgets. They are 60 Hz because that's just how television has worked for a very long time.
  - 14y ago
geuis 14y ago
There's no uncanny valley here. I just got back from seeing the movie an hour ago, so I'm speaking from very fresh perspective. I saw it in 3D at 48fps. Both completely killed the movie. In the very opening scene where Bilbo is picking up the book, it looked too fast. It was the opposite of "smooth". I don't care about the technical arguments about how more frames per second is smoother. It doesn't look right subjectively. I don't know if its interlacing, or that it was high fps combined with 3D, but it continuously kept pulling me out of the story and taking notice of how fake everything looked. Everything that was epic in Lord of the Rings just looked phoney. It was incredibly easy to see the CG effects on the orcs, goblins, and wargs. I'm thinking about seeing the movie again in a week or so, but just the normal 24fps, non-3D version. I really hope this isn't the future of movies, because it looks freaking awful.
- MattDL 14y ago
  Honestly, you get used to it. I say this just from watching game streams at 60 FPS, at first it looks like it's faster it should be somehow, but soon enough it just becomes normal and you wonder how you put up with low FPS streams. The adjustment period might be a bit longer with film, but it'll happen eventually.
  - baddox 14y ago
    For me it took about a few seconds to "get used to it." A the very beginning of The Hobbit in HFR, I thought something looked weird about the way Bilbo was walking around his hole, but when I subsequently saw The Hobbit in 24 FPS, I realized that it's just the way hobbits walk.
    - magnet_ball 14y ago
      The bits that were weird for me was when telling the story of Ardor, you see the dwarves fighting and they seem to be moving too fast. But me too, as someone who like getting 60FPS from his games adjusted to the fast rate and enjoyed the rest of the movie.
- baddox 14y ago
pretoriusB 14y ago
>The reason action packed scenes and panning scenery all retain their authenticity is these scenes are unfamiliar to us. I’ve never encountered a battlefield of orcs, and I’ve never flown across the landscape hugging the ground in a helicopter. We have no prior experience which tells what these scenarios should look like. That's not exactly what the "uncanny valley" theory says, though. It's about realistic vs cartoony versions of things, not about familiar vs unfamiliar things.
- baddox 14y ago
  Well, the uncanny valley does rely on the adaptation of human brains to quickly judge familiar things. Human faces are the most obvious and common example, because the human brain and visual system has unsurprisingly adapted to be extremely fast and aggressive at recognizing facial features. The effect will never be as strong with something like, say, the face of an aardvark, because everyone sort of knows what aardvarks look like, but few people are familiar enough to instantly recognize deviations and thus interpret the image as creepy or disturbing.
chrisringrose 14y ago
I think the arbitrary choice of 48fps is the problem. I know it's easier to down-convert to 24, but it seems 48 just isn't right for our eyes. The human eye can process about 60fps. I love the idea of more frames, but 60fps might be better, and eliminate the "fast-forward" jittery look.
- mistercheese 14y ago
  If you believe 60fps is better than 24fps, I have a really hard time believing there's something about our visual processing that makes 48fps worse than 24fps.
  - chrisringrose 14y ago
    I don't believe this to be so; I simply wonder. This random number of 48 just doesn't seem to work. I've actually seen it. For whatever reason, I always felt the motion of people was jittery. I'm interested in higher frame rates, and want it to succeed. Perhaps 60 wouldn't be better either... but just settling on specifically 48 and saying "You'll get used to it" isn't the answer.
- MattDL 14y ago
  The 60fps myth should be wearing thin by now, and I'm sad to see it repeated so often on HN. I don't have the relevant links available to me currently, but suffice to say the eye can pick up on far, far more than 60 fps. The fast forward look is just an adjustment period, you experience the same watching videos of games at 60fps (even though they're played in 60fps normally, it's a very odd thing).
  - chrisringrose 14y ago
    Ah, fair enough - thanks for the correction. However, the problem still stands that 48fps still doesn't look "right" to most people. I saw The Hobbit, loved it. And I want a faster frame rate than 24 - I think it can add to the experience. But for whatever reason, 48 just never looked ..... "Right." And I'm not alone.

35 points by cianclarke 14y ago

Isn't the ordering of the Hobbit scenes on the graph backwards? The unfamiliar scenes ("orc-filled battlefields ...") are more acceptable because they are less like the real life we know & love than the familiar ones ("... a character standing in the doorway"). So they are on the less realistic (left) side of the Uncanny Valley, not the more realistic (right) side. Other than that, I think your argument works.

etherael 14y ago
The graph shows a dip on the rightmost side below the leftmost side before going right up to indistinguishable from reality, that's the basic premise of the old uncanny valley hypothesis, that things which are just short of indistinguishable from the real thing are less desirable than fairly good approximations which could not otherwise be confused, due to the feeling that something implacable about them is a little off.
cianclarke 14y ago
The idea is as the graph comes 'out of the valley', things become more and more real - so the familiar scenes, which look false to us, stay in the uncanny valley, whilst the less familiar scenes have already climbed up the other side. Just my interpretation / application of the age old theory though, so it's open to question no doubt - thanks for reading :-)
aidenn0 14y ago
I think the argument is that the valley is further left on unfamiliar scenes, as "can just barely tell it's wrong" is more wrong for those things that stuff we know really well. Alternatively you could say "Orcs are unreal, so there isn't an uncanny valley at all for them"
- cianclarke 14y ago
  True, in which case I think putting the orcs elevated out of the uncanny valley towards reality is probably a strange thing to do! Can't remember the last time I came across an orc on the way to the shops..! Same theory still applies for panning through scenery or walking thru a marketplace though.
- acgourley 14y ago
  The orcs were mostly CG, I think that has more to do with it. If they were people in makeup and masks, I suspect they still would have felt uncanny. In fact, the orcs in the large battlefield towards the beginning were mostly costumed, and felt uncanny, while the band of orcs later were CG, and felt OK.

spoondan 14y ago

Is it possible that the uncanniness of the more mundane in The Hobbit magnifies our affinity for the more fantastical? I don't doubt The Hobbit has improved on the technology and its applications to film. However, if the mundane is relatively more uncanny than in other films, perhaps a more modest improvement is benefiting from comparison to a lower baseline. That is, maybe the lows are slightly lower, and the highs are only slightly higher.

w1ntermute 14y ago

For those interested in an in-depth look at 48 fps in The Hobbit from an artistic viewpoint, here are two good blog posts discussing its effect on filmmaking: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-accidentally-invented-impressionist-filmmaking http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-acc... http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/ http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unex... I've read the first article so far, which suggests that solving problems with 48 fps present in The Hobbit is simply a matter of modifying filmmaking techniques.

sliverstorm 14y ago
I'm curious how HFR with no 3D would have fared. Most of his complaints about the 3D HFR showing align more with my experiences with 3D than anything else.
baddox 14y ago
There are so many ludicrous arguments in The Verge article. > For some [filmmakers], HFR will be a potential new tool in their arsenal for telling certain types of stories in a new and exciting way, while others will be reminded of why the 2D format at 24 fps has stood the test of time for so long. Just like dial-up for Internet and horses for transportation stood the test of time for so long. This is such an unabashed argument that "it should stay this way because it has been this at for so long" that I feel sympathetic embarrassment upon reading it. The author's failure to be immersed is clearly due to his a priori insistence that 24 FPS is the way movie should be shot and projected. He says that himself. But there is more: > In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR – I don’t recall hearing a single sigh, or laugh. Not one. When I went to see the exact same seen with an audience of the same size on a 2D projection – I heard regular chuckles and laughter… why? Here's why: because there are really high odds that of all the people across the world that watched the movie in both formats, at least one person would experience this. Why did Bob win the lottery? Is it because he's good at guessing lottery numbers, or is it because the odds were high that someone would win the lottery, and we chose Bob for analysis after learning that he won? In case anyone wants a counter-anecdote, I watched The Hobbit in both formats and there was a lot of laughter in both theaters. I don't have any real evidence, but I suspect most showings in all formats had considerable laughter. > It’s like being on a film set in person: all of the magic is lost. You get to see behind the curtain and you’re no longer under the spell… I think most critics and movie buffs are well aware that "the magic" comes from the viewer's deliberate choice to suspend disbelief. If this weren't the case, then filmmakers themselves would be unable to enjoy a film, since they would fully understand most aspects of how the film was produced. Again, this just reaffirms the author's own admission that he will only choose to be immersed if a film is projected in 24 FPS. > The makeup wasn’t as terrible as some people say, and most of the VFX were stunning but not all. When I saw them in 2D however – it was almost like seeing another film. My attention wasn’t drawn to them … As I was focusing on central action. That challenges the "Suspension of Disbelief" theory that we all need to believe what we are seeing on screen and to get lost in it… Oh boy. The author seems unaware that all or nearly all modern theory about suspension of disbelief places most of the responsibility on the viewer, not the artist. No artist can forcefully make you forget or ignore the fact that you're sitting down in a dark room with a bunch of other people. I suppose I cannot dispute the author's claims about experiencing physical pain from the 3D. Perhaps there truly is some sort variation in people's visual systems that causes this. Other than the slight physical discomfort from wearing 3D glasses over my corrective glasses, all I can say is I haven't experienced that. If this were his central criticism, then it would be valid, although depending on the rate of occurrence of this medical condition it may or may not be reasonable to expect a blockbuster filmmaker to accommodate those who suffer from it.

martinced 14y ago

Can we play 48fps on our computers? I mean: is there a common video format supporting 48fps and a common media player (eg VLC) able to play at 48fps? If so, the following movie would be great: make several types of animations / sequences (both filmed and 3D and, if possible, a mix of both) but... On the left part of the movie you show it at 48fps while on the right part of the movie you show only, say, even frames (hence showing each even frame twice and skipping every uneven frame). That would be a great "visual explanation" as to what 48fps does.

bd 14y ago
If you are on Windows, you can try SmoothVideo Project: http://www.svp-team.com/ http://www.svp-team.com/ It's just interpolated 60 fps from regular frame rate movies but it works pretty well (it needs decent GPU for high-def videos). I use it already for quite some time. Once you get pass the initial weirdness there is kinda no way back, 24 fps movies just feel broken. It's similar to how computer games feel bad on underpowered graphics card, you do notice choppiness of 24 fps and it is pretty distracting. BTW I did see Hobbit in 48 fps and it just felt "normal". So I suppose most of people complaining about 48 fps Hobbit just didn't get used to high frame rates yet (I expect for many it was their first experience). For me it took me few weeks for "soap opera effect" to wear off.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  I haven't seen it yet, but the flicker of the movie is very distracting to me. Especially on bright scenes, like face-closeups. Then I can see the entire screen flicker, and I get headaches like it's 1998 again with the 60hz CRT.
beemoe 14y ago
The "even frames" method of comparison you describe is flawed. Motion blur is very important to our perception of motion, and is the reason that motion at 24fps can look great on exposed film (lots of blur) and terrible in video games (no blur). When you skip half of the frames you have thrown out motion blur information that could have been present had the lower-rate source been created at that rate in the first place. But yes, It would be neat to experience some legitimate side-by-side comparison of frame rates / motion blurs. Such a comparison has subtleties that make it hard to do fairly and cheaply. http://100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm http://100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm (edit to fix small typo)

Fargren 14y ago

Ok, has anyone tried selecting the text on that blog? The effect made me feel as though I was drunk. Why does it do that?

KwanEsq 14y ago
Because for some reason they have applied a text-shadow effect with a colour of #fff (white). So normally it is invisible against the also white background, but once you select you put the selection colour behind it causing the shadow to show up.

Tloewald 14y ago

So ... Shame about the script.

michaelfeathers 14y ago

I wonder whether the problems that people are seeing with 48fps are genre specific? Sure, we've conditioned ourselves to dreamy visuals created by lower frame rates, but losing that might affect fantasy more (particularly when special effects can't be masked as well), and drama where a "cinematic" feel is expected. Maybe 48fps would feel perfectly natural in a comedy or a situational horror film?

andrewflnr 14y ago
I'm thinking action movies will benefit. Comedy, less so; depending on the type you might not want it too realistic.
mminer 14y ago
I predict that a film's frame rate will become simply another choice for the cinematographer to make. Just like different film stocks and processing techniques are employed for different genres (e.g. bleach bypass in war movies), perhaps the FPS will indeed become genre-specific like you suggest. Debate about whether 48 is superior to 24 is misplaced -- it's an aesthetic choice, and the fluid movement that comes with additional frames works well in some scenarios but not in others. Many shots in The Hobbit looked terrible, perhaps demonstrating that 48 is not the ideal frame rate for an epic fantasy, but for some films it would be quite suitable.

siculars 14y ago

I actually saw The Hobbit thrice. In IMAX 3D, "Real-3D", and HFR 3D. I do have to say that you can tell the difference when watching in HFR. It felt as if the video was fluid or even slightly fast forward. Like you are moving a bit faster than you should be. Strange, but clearly the future of motion picture.

pretoriusB 14y ago
HFR is nothing new. The problem is it sucks. It gives everything that is not a fast-action scene a cheap soap opera/reality show look.
- baddox 14y ago
  Presumably that's only the case if you choose to associate higher frame rates with television, since television is traditionally shown at higher frame rates. But this association is problematic. It's analogous to resisting faster Internet speeds because you didn't enjoy college and you associate fast Internet with being in college since your college used to be the only place where you had fast Internet.
  - pretoriusB 14y ago
    Your analogy breaks in that we hate the "soap opera" look EVEN in soap operas and even if we happen to like soap operas (which I occasionally do). It's not that we associate the HFR look with a bad thing and thus we think it's bad "by association". It's that we think the HFR look is bad in itself.
    - baddox 14y ago
      I don't universally hate soap operas or the soap opera look, and I do think the association made by most people is simply that soap operas tend to be low budget while also being shown at 60 Hz. I believe the fundamental reason for bad-looking soap operas is the low budgets. They are 60 Hz because that's just how television has worked for a very long time.
- 14y ago

geuis 14y ago

There's no uncanny valley here. I just got back from seeing the movie an hour ago, so I'm speaking from very fresh perspective. I saw it in 3D at 48fps. Both completely killed the movie. In the very opening scene where Bilbo is picking up the book, it looked too fast. It was the opposite of "smooth". I don't care about the technical arguments about how more frames per second is smoother. It doesn't look right subjectively. I don't know if its interlacing, or that it was high fps combined with 3D, but it continuously kept pulling me out of the story and taking notice of how fake everything looked. Everything that was epic in Lord of the Rings just looked phoney. It was incredibly easy to see the CG effects on the orcs, goblins, and wargs. I'm thinking about seeing the movie again in a week or so, but just the normal 24fps, non-3D version. I really hope this isn't the future of movies, because it looks freaking awful.

MattDL 14y ago
Honestly, you get used to it. I say this just from watching game streams at 60 FPS, at first it looks like it's faster it should be somehow, but soon enough it just becomes normal and you wonder how you put up with low FPS streams. The adjustment period might be a bit longer with film, but it'll happen eventually.
- baddox 14y ago
  For me it took about a few seconds to "get used to it." A the very beginning of The Hobbit in HFR, I thought something looked weird about the way Bilbo was walking around his hole, but when I subsequently saw The Hobbit in 24 FPS, I realized that it's just the way hobbits walk.
  - magnet_ball 14y ago
    The bits that were weird for me was when telling the story of Ardor, you see the dwarves fighting and they seem to be moving too fast. But me too, as someone who like getting 60FPS from his games adjusted to the fast rate and enjoyed the rest of the movie.
baddox 14y ago

pretoriusB 14y ago

>The reason action packed scenes and panning scenery all retain their authenticity is these scenes are unfamiliar to us. I’ve never encountered a battlefield of orcs, and I’ve never flown across the landscape hugging the ground in a helicopter. We have no prior experience which tells what these scenarios should look like. That's not exactly what the "uncanny valley" theory says, though. It's about realistic vs cartoony versions of things, not about familiar vs unfamiliar things.

baddox 14y ago
Well, the uncanny valley does rely on the adaptation of human brains to quickly judge familiar things. Human faces are the most obvious and common example, because the human brain and visual system has unsurprisingly adapted to be extremely fast and aggressive at recognizing facial features. The effect will never be as strong with something like, say, the face of an aardvark, because everyone sort of knows what aardvarks look like, but few people are familiar enough to instantly recognize deviations and thus interpret the image as creepy or disturbing.

chrisringrose 14y ago

I think the arbitrary choice of 48fps is the problem. I know it's easier to down-convert to 24, but it seems 48 just isn't right for our eyes. The human eye can process about 60fps. I love the idea of more frames, but 60fps might be better, and eliminate the "fast-forward" jittery look.

mistercheese 14y ago
If you believe 60fps is better than 24fps, I have a really hard time believing there's something about our visual processing that makes 48fps worse than 24fps.
- chrisringrose 14y ago
  I don't believe this to be so; I simply wonder. This random number of 48 just doesn't seem to work. I've actually seen it. For whatever reason, I always felt the motion of people was jittery. I'm interested in higher frame rates, and want it to succeed. Perhaps 60 wouldn't be better either... but just settling on specifically 48 and saying "You'll get used to it" isn't the answer.
MattDL 14y ago
The 60fps myth should be wearing thin by now, and I'm sad to see it repeated so often on HN. I don't have the relevant links available to me currently, but suffice to say the eye can pick up on far, far more than 60 fps. The fast forward look is just an adjustment period, you experience the same watching videos of games at 60fps (even though they're played in 60fps normally, it's a very odd thing).
- chrisringrose 14y ago
  Ah, fair enough - thanks for the correction. However, the problem still stands that 48fps still doesn't look "right" to most people. I saw The Hobbit, loved it. And I want a faster frame rate than 24 - I think it can add to the experience. But for whatever reason, 48 just never looked ..... "Right." And I'm not alone.