Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sammi | Hacker News Reader

24 fps looks like terrible judder to me in the cinema too. I'm not afraid to admit it even if it will ruffle the feathers of the old 24 fps purists. It was always just a compromise between film cost and smoothness. A compromise that isn't relevant any longer with digital medium. But we can't have nice things it seems, because some people can't get over what they're used to.

View on HN

>It was always just a compromise between film cost and smoothness.

I think the criticisms of The Hobbit when it came out in 48fps showed that it's not just that.

That film had many problems, but the acceptable frame rate was not one of them. Most criticism wasn’t about that.

True but there was specific criticism about how the framerate made it far too easy to see the parts of the effects, sets and costumes that made it clear things were props and spoiled the illusion. Maybe we just require a new level of quality in set design to enable higher frame rates but it clearly has some tradeoff.

I think that’s definitely the case with 4K, and we’ve seen set detail design drastically improve lately as a response.

I don’t see how it’s the case for frame rate, except perhaps for CGI (which has also improved).

I think just like with games, there’s an initial surprised reaction; so many console-only gamers insisted they can’t see the point of 60 fps. And just like with games, it only takes a little exposure to get over that and begin preferring it.

The 48 fps of The Hobbit was glorious. First time I have ever been able to see what is happening on screen instead of just some slide deck mess. There were many other things worth criticizing, but the framerate was not it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com