Comment by chc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chc | Hacker News Reader

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.

My wife and I saw the HFR version and we were both put off by it. We're not exactly movie snobs or hard to please either...we've been to a theatre like 5 times since we had our first child 10 years ago.

I was completely unimpressed. It was painfully obvious that we were on a set instead of in some fantasy world. If this really is the future, then I hope that Knoll is correct that it will be solved by improved sets, props and lighting.

It must be solved by improved set, props, lighting, makeup... HFR is but one aspect of ability of technology to destroy the illusion of film. Improved sensor resolution affects this, too. As time goes on and Things Get Better, it's easier to notice the flaws beneath the makeup used for coverup. That is, until techniques catch up.

Just to counter all the "I didn't like HFR" people. I saw both HFR 3D and non HFR 3D. I liked the HFR version better. I read the some blogs that hated the HFR before I went and so was going to skip it but other friends said they had no problems with HFR so I figured it would be good to experience it.

There were a couple of places it was distracting which I assume was because it's "different". On the other hand there were places in the non-HFR that were distracting because they were shot for HFR and stuttered horribly.

I absolutely loved the HFR version. It felt weird for the first scene but after that it was a subtle addition similar to how 3D wasn't gimmicky for Avatar.

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.

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.

I dunno, if it's a small group or not that gets headaches from the 3D but I definitely do. The HFR completely eliminated that though. I hope they keep it up (as long as they keep trying to do 3D that is) for purely selfish reasons :)

So I'm not a cinematographer but I find watching 3D at 24 FPS pretty annoying whenever the camera moves to quickly because you get a painful strobing effect. I had noticed it since the first 3D movie I saw and it has bothered me since. The Hobbit in 48 FPS was markedly better here (not perfect, but an incredible improvement).

> 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?

I'm guessing they will. 24fps action scenes end up as a blurry numbing mess if there's too much motion. The 48fps action scenes were exciting and easy to follow. The landscape shots were also improved.

Almost everyone I know (even those who loved the movie) thought it looked a bit odd in HFR. None of them are "film insiders".

The only person I know who mentioned having seen the HFR version complained about it. There's obviously a selection bias toward extreme reactions there, though. I've not seen either version yet...

> Nobody I know complains about it looking like a PBS show

I went to see it with a friend before reading any articles on it. I didn't even know what HFR meant. And this is exactly what I thought about while watching it ... that it felt like a freaking TV show.

My friend didn't get the same feeling, but on the other hand he nearly felt to sleep.

Looking back, it was a good movie, too bad I ended up seeing the HFR version.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com