This text is taken from a comment that I shared on Hacker News while discussing +why+ people are so bothered by this change in frame rate, and why people are so opposed to it. Most of my thinking originally branches from the article linked at the bottom of this wall of text.
What people like is what they are comfortable with, and not just because of habit: distinctive patterns, especially in highly emotionally charged areas such as movies and music, generate emotional connections and attachment. Those who grew up listening to vinyl associate it's "fuzzy/scratchy" sound with the moments they spent listening to them. There's very potent emotional attachment to those flaws, and that's why people are attracted to them. When I hear the warbly sound and see the poor quality visuals of old VHS's, I'm taken back to watching Disney movies as a child.
As explained in this article[0], these emotional attachments are the reason why people enjoy Instagram to the degree that they do. The washed out, blurry, grainy photos generated by Instagram hit on the emotional connections to old photographs of our parents and of our childhoods.
Similarly, I think the same follows for 24 fps vs 48 fps movies; think of all the intense moments you've had while watching a movie in your lifetime. How many times have you laughed or cried or gasped at something happening in a movie shot in 24 fps? Given that any movie you've watched up till now has been shot at 24 fps, you've probably done it many times. Each time you feel those strong emotions, every aspect of that moment is associated with that feeling: the smell of the popcorn, the low lighting, the chair you where sitting in, the people with you. All of those details are now associated with that memory and that experience.
Now repeat that process of strong emotional association for every single movie or TV show you've ever seen. With this information, it's obvious why people are so attached to this small aspect of a movie: because there are strong emotions associated with the frame rate of 24 fps.
[0] http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/05/14/the-faux-v...
I'm very interested to hear what anyone else has to say about why people are so attached to these kinds of changes, or your thoughts on this one in particular. Also, I'd love to hear any challenges to my thoughts or explanations.
BTW, here's a useful tool if you ever care to make the comparisons in frame rate (not refresh rate):
http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ Personally, I like the motion blur that comes from 24 fps. I tend to think with 48 fps, the uncanny valley will become even more apparent. CG in live action movies is really distracting to me in most instances, and I still have a preference of modeling, pyrotechnics, and FX over CG in movies.
I might hesitate to say that I'm emotionally attached to 24fps. I have used new mediums to consume entertainment (the first time I saw good 3D, first time I saw HDTV, etc) and quickly adopted them without issue. For me, it's not a question of nostalgia for 24fps but rather a specific distaste for 48fps - because I associate it with soap operas and low budget daytime television.
I think you probably hit on a great counter-argument with the mention of HDTV. I don't know anyone who was anti HDTV when it came out, everyone thought that it was simply better or at worst a pointless addition. So when lelandbatey talks about the emotional connection to 24fps that was created by all the emotional moments that one has seen in that format, I'm not sure it actually holds up. If that was the case, why aren't we emotionally connected to SDTV in the same way?
You're right about that. There are changes that are welcomed and others that aren't and It's not always clear why. Personally, I view the 48 fps change similarly to the change to HD: It seems like a straight upgrade to me. I thought the 48 fps in the Hobbit looked quite good, and it changed my experience for the better. I should have made a more nuanced point that emotional association is one of many factors that affect why we do or do not like certain things. However, I posted this at about midnight, just before going to sleep, so it's not the most well written.
Former projectionist here. I'm in love with the 24 fps standard that is being dropped. The "fluidity" of the higher frame rates makes it look like you aren't watching a movie at all. This is what Jackson was going for, though. He wanted to give it a sense of reality. Not sure if I think it's a good change for the industry, though. It might alienate some long-time cinema-goers.
I know professor that occasionally brings out actual slides of her time at the Gombe (taken in the 70's). with eyes used to shitty power points folks are amazed.
Flaws are a aspect worth considering when it comes to 48fps, but I think they actually lend credence to the other side of the debate. Because the clarity is so much higher with 48fps, it's actually prone to reveal production flaws. Prosthetics and set design, for example, are much more transparently constructed at 48fps than they would be at 24fps. That's why the location shots and CG in The Hobbit are so spectacular—the high frame rate allows you to take in an overwhelming amount of detail. But that can be a liability in traditional filmmaking. No doubt filmmakers will be able to compensate, but that will require more time, more effort, and more money. Which is part of why 48fps is unlikely to take off, save for certain kinds of projects. It's simply too expensive to shoot that way, particularly if you're making a movie that requires a great deal of artifice. Expect high-end nature documentaries to embrace it, much the same way that they've embraced IMAX. But I wouldn't expect many more movies like The Hobbit to go the 48FPS route. By the way, there ARE people who like unscratched vinyl...
Where to begin. The reason that John Knoll gives regarding light and texture quality seems pretty intuitive to me. Movies are fake. If you make the fake more crisp, it will only look more fake. Case closed. It seems odd to me that Jackson and Co. wouldn't have tested this though. Perhaps the issue is that it was a fruit they couldn't resist tasting. We all know that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, but because he's regarded as a high tech director perhaps he couldn't help himself - or his reputation. Maybe a film full of prosthetics and makeup should NEVER be HFR. PJ just doesn't know how to edit and restrain himself as an artist. But about the rest, I completely disagree that people do not like flaws. Who likes perfect? In theory, yes, perfect is fascinating, but in real life - perfect is boring. I did read that societypages link a while back so forgive me, but I don't recall anyone mentioning the connection to nature regarding old photos and movies. Some of those images are that way because of the chemical characteristics of the cellulose itself. The silver halide in the film gives the image some graininess. It think it's great when the actual process of the production of the art and its mediums is explicit in the final thing produced. And records? It isn't only about the fuzz. It's about the scale of the object - how it fits in the hand. It's about interaction - actually lowering the needle onto the record as an active pursuit. It's about SEEING the grooves. It's about ephemerality, the records slow death. Speaking of: if you haven't heard The Disintegration Loops before, I recommend it. And btw, I don't own a record player. All of my belongings exist on a hard drive. Of course all of this can be trumped by the nostalgia tag, because that is simply the era that we exist in now: one that is just beyond these older technologies, in the perfect 'nostalgia' zone. Just thought these other factors are worth considering.
Tell that to audiophiles who listen exclusively to music in .flac format. That is as perfect as any media format currently is and its going through a major surge in popularity. What isn't fascinating about hearing every single note perfectly, feeling every single hum and vibration as though you were there? Likewise, why isn't it fascinating and intriguing and valuable to see a film as though you were there, on set? Movies are supposed to test our suspension of disbelief against how well the director can make us believe it. The Hobbit is the first of big, mass release films using HFR so it won't be perfect, but it won't be long now before it IS perfected, at least to a degree that audiences will appreciate. Pretty soon, we will have films where everything will be visible, every subtle tic, every feature on an actor's face, every sharp point on the scenery will be visible in its realistic glory. We'll be able to see things directly from the creators' vision in a new way. Perfect is not boring, my friend. If a director wants to use film grain, then they still can, but what's right for one movie isn't the solution for all of them. And I can see the motivation for Jackson with The Hobbit - he wants to create something that feels like you're on the adventure, feels like you're there seeing everything up close and personal. And I think that's a noble goal, and I hope that 2 and 3 take some of the critiques of the first to heart while putting on the production and post-production details so that we can see more and better HFR being released. But wanting to create a specific feel for your movie isn't boring.But about the rest, I completely disagree that people do not like flaws. Who likes perfect? In theory, yes, perfect is fascinating, but in real life - perfect is boring.
I just have to wonder though if the cart wasn't put before the horse this time around. Would be interesting to know about the order of filming decisions made for the Hobbit. Was investing in a handful of RED epic cameras done before screen tests? What if PJ was unhappy with the look of the film in the early stages, could he have switched gears or was the momentum of such a huge film already too big? Like trying to turn an ocean liner 180 degrees. I have to say that I know squat about making movies any way so this is all just a thought. Considering perfection. I tend to prefer the lossless kind of media as well because I think the purity of production is a worthwhile effort, but what I was trying to get at (in not so many words) is that perfection is impossible. Music will never be perfect when transferred to another media. But playing records might be more about other things than audio quality. I was just at a friends for NYE and his record player has a staging mechanism that will drop one record on top of the other to play when the first is finished. It was such a cool machine. And it made me more aware of the space and time of a collection of songs that can fit onto one side of a vinyl record. Of course, this could be considered super annoying to some people. For me, there is a huge difference between hearing music and listening to music.
I don't know the order the film was produced in, and I know nothing about the filmmaking process. But I'm glad it was done. We can be aware of the medium now, and keep working with it. A few years ago there were no 3D movies, now, it seems, every big film gets a 3D version, even if it's ill-advised. We're getting the the point where it's no longer a novelty and is just a fact of the matter. HFR might soon get there, too, and I welcome adding another tool to the creative toolbox. Won't be right for everything, but used well, it could be a big, positive change. As for the kind of media you listen to something on, I agree that there is some value in appreciating how things were done and novel ways of observing it. But that's just it - as new, higher-fidelity, lower-loss mediums are perfected, the old ones will become novelties. Record players are one thing, but would anyone really choose to listen to music on a gramophone, except to listen to the sound of the gramophone? What I mean is, I don't think enjoying lossy, dated mediums is about enjoying the music or the movie. I think it's about enjoying the medium. You're listening to that vinyl record not because you want the music but because you want the framing for the music which produces a novel experience. At least, that's my perspective. Perhaps to some people it really doesn't sound right without the grain. But I really do have think that is a kind of nostalgia or novelty.
from the dictionary: Novel: adj. 1 : new and not resembling something formerly known or used
2 : original or striking especially in conception or style from this, I would say that that term might not describe what you're trying to say.
New and not resembling something formerly known or used -- the the one who would know or use it. Black and white may not have been a novelty when the first few color films came out. But if someone made a black and white movie now, it would be novel, because it is not something known or used in the age of color, with few exceptions. Currently, 24 fps movies are not novel. But when HFR catches on - and I believe it will - a movie that opts for a 24 fps style may be novel. Perhaps our children, or grandchildren, will grow up in a world where they never saw a 24 fps film come out. That will be when what we considered the norm will be novel.
Thanks for clarifying. You know - with the recent influx of new users on here lately, a lot of shit has come through the door. But a whole lot of awesome has come through the door as well - yourself included. I think Hubski is a much stronger place because of it and am excited about it's future. This conversation got me to thinking about record sales and searching for stats. I was also reading about the 25-35 year old demo primarily responsible for the uptick. Funny because it's totally me. 33. In fact, 90% of the people that I spend 90% of my time with is totally this. Sometimes I forget, even when living in a city with 2 million, what kind of a bubble I'm in. Cheers!
I appreciate the kind words - I actually came here because of StephenBuckley and not reddit, my arrival was merely coincidence. But many of those posters, too, have been interesting and added new texture. And the ones who aren't are easily blocked :) And yeah, it's a curious thing that people in that age range are embracing vinyl records again. I wonder why? Nostalgia can only account for so much, and if it was merely a novelty I don't know if so many people would flock to it or be intrigued. Perhaps there is something to the way it sounds that some people simply find more attractive? I don't fully understand it myself but I also can't claim to know other peoples' tastes, and there's no accounting for that. But I am glad that we have a choice. The majority will be using MP3 and other digital recordings of middling quality, and I suppose the audiophiles will be split between ultra-high-quality digital FLAC files, or the sound of vinyl records. Certainly an interesting range, though. I would bet vinyl users are centered in cities primarily, due to having easy access to record shops that sell that kind of stuff. Small town stores are a lot less likely to have records available in that format, and in fact finding a record store at all in a small town these days is... well good luck. Downloading is kind of the only choice for probably a major segment of the population, and certainly the most convenient. I wonder what the statistics would be if vinyl records were more readily available so people had more of a distinct choice?
Novelty. That word. You're onto something there. I'll have to digest that one. Really good point! :)
I feel like you are making a lot of assumptions about a guy who, in LotR, was known for his extreme-detail anti-green screen approach. Building giant sets, going to all that trouble with Andy Serkis, etc. It's true that he took a step back from that in The Hobbit (noticeably more CGI), but I'm sure he had good reasons. Probably certain things just weren't feasible. I thought the high frame rate only really impressed itself onto my consciousness in a couple of scenes, and even then it just reminded me of a video game. Still beautiful, just different.We all know that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, but because he's regarded as a high tech director perhaps he couldn't help himself - or his reputation. Maybe a film full of prosthetics and makeup should NEVER be HFR. PJ just doesn't know how to edit and restrain himself as an artist.