Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> As you might have heard, The Hobbit was filmed not only in 3D, but with
> High Framerate, ie. at 48 frames per second instead of the traidiontal 24.
>
> I had read a lot of criticism about 48 FPS making the movie look odd and
> detracting from the experience...

I've read similar reviews. I actually went to see the movie in non-3D and at the
'standard' 24fps frame rate--to see if the movie *itself* stood up well, minus
the whiz-bang technology. Alas, it's no "Lord Of The Rings", but OK. (I've read
the book several times, BTW.) The movie just doesn't have the deep, developed
characterizations that LOTR had, IMO. Not a fault of the Hobbit book itself;
it's quite engaging and well-developed. My own main gripe is with the overly
'comical' performance of the movie's Bilbo Baggins. Plus, as neat as the special
effects are, we've seen them all before.

But I digress...

The 48-fps technology is, I think, an acquired taste. I'm not that crazy about
seeing the movie in that form. High-frame-rate movies are actually not that
new--special effects maestro Douglas Trumbull came out with something called
'Showscan' in the '80's (?), projecting film at 60 fps. I think it was installed
in some special venues, but never caught on generally.

IMO, the frame rate--combined with 'flicker' of one type or another (an
important aspect)--has a MAJOR influence on how we perceive moving images. The
overall 'feeling' that one gets when watching a film at a faster frame rate than
24fps is that it looks 'like a TV soap opera' (using the phrase I've seen
numerous times re: THE HOBBIT.) My own way of putting it is 'like live TV' (as
opposed to watching a film.) It's something I noticed a long time ago, when I
used to make Super-8 movies on film. (I had a motorized editing machine that
could play the movie back far faster than the normal 18fps speed--and with no
flicker, because it had a rotating prism rather than a shutter.) Projected film
in a theater has intrinsic flicker, no matter what fps it's at (because of the
projector shutter and the film pull-down mechanism.) There's a small time
interval of NO image and no light. Live video on a monitor doesn't have the same
'kind' of flicker. And a 24fps movie, seen on a monitor, has flicker
characteristics of a different kind yet. It doesn't look like 'live video,' but
it doesn't look quite like the film did when it was projected in a theater
either. (Discounting differences in dynamic range and color saturation between
monitors and film.)

And now we have yet another 'paradigm', a film projected in a theater at 48fps.
It's doubtful that we have anything in our experience to compare it to.
(Assuming that it *is* on film; perhaps it's all digital now. I wonder if
'digital' projection has eliminated the typical 'film' flicker altogether.)

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> My own main gripe is with the overly
> 'comical' performance of the movie's Bilbo Baggins.

The original book is for children, and if anything, the movie is
significantly darker and edgier than it.

> The
> overall 'feeling' that one gets when watching a film at a faster frame rate than
> 24fps is that it looks 'like a TV soap opera' (using the phrase I've seen
> numerous times re: THE HOBBIT.) My own way of putting it is 'like live TV' (as
> opposed to watching a film.)

I didn't get that feeling myself, which is why I find it strange. As I
commented, I got the same feeling as when playing a video too fast.

I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
brain.

But it's probably something that one gets accustomed to with time. I think.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
> The original book is for children...

Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and it just
seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt like it was
talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak. I also got a real
kick out of its droll humor. And, (at odds with the movie), Bilbo comes across
as a rather quiet and somewhat serious 'everyman'--if a bit eccentric--lacking
the overly-comic traits that are way overused by his film counterpart. If
anything, it seems to me that the film itself is more aimed at the kiddies than
the book is. Yet it does have a playful atmosphere, certainly more so than the
darker and more serious LOTR trilogy (which I've actually never read.)


>
> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
> something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
> motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
> sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
> motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
> brain.

Yeah, I agree completely. It's interesting that in the article you mentioned (or
in one of its links), the film's director/cinematographer/effects supervisor all
have the opinion that motion-blur is a *bad* thing, to be eliminated.
Personally, I think that's ill-advised. If we hadn't already had a century of
films to look at (at 24fps), and 48fps filmmaking arrived full-blown on a naive
public, maybe we would all *hate* motion blur; but that legacy has helped form
our overall 'picture' of what films are supposed to look like, for better or
worse. Yet, I suppose that argument is essentially the same that lovers of
classical art once used, when 'modern art' came along after centuries of
representational painting: almost a visceral dislike of so radical a change.

Personally, I'm hoping that this 48fps 'experiment' goes no further than THE
HOBBIT--but we have two more installments to look forward to! :-/

Post a reply to this message

Le 06/01/2013 14:35, Kenneth nous fit lire :
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 
>> >
>> > The original book is for children...
> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and it just
> seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt like it was
> talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak. I also got a real
> kick out of its droll humor. And, (at odds with the movie), Bilbo comes across
> as a rather quiet and somewhat serious 'everyman'--if a bit eccentric--lacking
> the overly-comic traits that are way overused by his film counterpart. If
> anything, it seems to me that the film itself is more aimed at the kiddies than
> the book is. Yet it does have a playful atmosphere, certainly more so than the
> darker and more serious LOTR trilogy (which I've actually never read.)
> 
> 
Different times, different approaches. It did have to be childish to be
for children.
Previously, "for children" was aimed at making them grow and move to
adulthood. Children are excellent at adopting the underlying
expectation: If you treat them like worthless bandits, they will turn
into worthless bandits. If you expect them to be gentle & fair, so would
they evolve.

You can elevate the expectation from your childish readers, and it was
so at the time of the Hobbit, or you can lower your language to reach
the lowest possible level.

Look at the Harry Potter saga. It was not using simple words because it
was for children... and it did not describe a beautiful pinky fluffy
world either. Children needs a bit of darkness in their stories, it
makes the happy ending brighter. (now, the 2 last tomes of the HP series
are just not on the same level as the previous ones... it feels "end of
service-get me out of there": one main line, few side tracks)

Same goes for "political": it's easier to have a "simple" yes/no
position... but the world is never that black or white.

Post a reply to this message

Le 06/01/2013 14:59, Le_Forgeron nous fit lire :
> It did have to be childish to be
> for children.

It did *not* have to be childish to be for children.

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > The original book is for children...

> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and it just
> seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt like it was
> talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak.

Just because children are the main target audience for something doesn't
mean it has to be patronizing or childish. Something can be quite profound
yet still be very child-friendly and easy for a young child to follow and
be entertained about. However, it *does* mean that you have to avoid
certain things (such as having too much complex drama, subject matters
that are too difficult for a child to understand and would therefore bore
them, too violent gore or events that could be too scary, a storytelling
pace that's too slow, and so on.)

You are probably not a brony, but I think that the current (ie. so-called
4th generation) series of My Little Pony is an excellent example of this,
compared to the previous series (the so-called 3rd generation and earlier.)
Both of them are primarily targeted at very young girls, but if you compare
a typical 3rd generation episode to a typical 4th generation one, the
difference is enormous. The earlier series were clearly made with the
mentality of "children are simple-minded, so they need simple-minded
cartoons", while the current series is far from being that patronizing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> > I think you address two main topics here. First the 3D issue.
>
> What issue?
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

I thank you for your frank answer,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
> something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
> motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
> sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
> motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
> brain.

yeah, it simply can't get in our heads that movies should do without motion
blur, lens flare and other artifacts of a device more limited than our own
eyes...

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> >
> > The original book is for children...
>
> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and it just
> seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt like it was
> talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak.

Elves are cheerie and brat-like in the book, even Elrond!  The dwarves are
barely disguised stereotyped jews in their traits, including greed and
cowardice.  Their funny names are written with kids in mind.  And a hobbit hole
is teasing children about rabbits and then entirely introducing them to a new
concept.

It was written for kids.

Silmarillion is much more tasteful, although possibly originating from juvenilia
from Tolkien, no doubt his most mature work.

> have the opinion that motion-blur is a *bad* thing, to be eliminated.
> Personally, I think that's ill-advised. If we hadn't already had a century of
> films to look at (at 24fps), and 48fps filmmaking arrived full-blown on a naive
> public, maybe we would all *hate* motion blur; but that legacy has helped form
> our overall 'picture' of what films are supposed to look like, for better or
> worse.

that's it precisely.  but people also thought B&W and silent was what movies
were supposed to look like.

Post a reply to this message

Le 06/01/2013 21:09, nemesis nous fit lire :
> Elves are cheerie and brat-like in the book, even Elrond!  The dwarves are
> barely disguised stereotyped jews in their traits, including greed and
> cowardice.  Their funny names are written with kids in mind.  And a hobbit hole
> is teasing children about rabbits and then entirely introducing them to a new
> concept.
> 

My interpretation is different. the elves/human/dwarves/hobbit are a
social stratification of the UK at the exit of first WW, a bit similar
to the cast system of India... the revolution of first WW is in progress
and perturbing the social consensus.

Dwarves are industrial/factory. Elves are the previously religious
elite... human are the law-enforcement-military of the great empire (and
land owners), and that's why the disappeared king is from that specie
(in LOTR)... hobbits are the small expendable people, previously
invisible and which get a real importance in the modern world.

About "One ring to rules them all"... the explosion of wars in first WW
was due to a mechanical application of treaties.

> It was written for kids.

The Hobbit, yes. LOTR, that's another target.

Post a reply to this message