Comments on: 48 FPS: 2x The Suck

By: Deuce

Deuce — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 04:26:23 +0000

I see it! I’m always checking to see if there are any new comments.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 05:28:04 +0000

Hey Paul!

I read the comments on old posts (actually, that’s why I set the newest comments to show up on the sidebar, but I didn’t realize that those of us who see the site on iPads and such don’t actually see the sidebar).

But no matter. Good Oatmeal cartoon, and I agree!

Shaka Brah, Bro,
Ryan

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:37:02 +0000

And in case anyone reads a comment thread that’s a month old and buried under end of the year chaos, here’s this as well:
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/3d_movies

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:00:39 +0000

I get where you're coming from. And if someone wants to watch 48fps, let them. I really don't care. People perceive motion in different ways just like they perceive 3D in different ways, and some people like it and some don't. The thing that I don't like is that, like I said in the post, by setting up so many different ways to see it, the movie is literally competing with itself.
For example, I wanted to go see Life of Pi the other night, but the only show that was playing was in 3D. I didn't want to see 3D, so it just lost $12 because it couldn't offer an interested customer what they wanted. Especially with movie attendance at an all time low, people are going to stop going to movies completely if they don't think they'll be able to see it the way they want to, especially when they already have to pay "premium" prices for that shit.

By: Sitzman

Sitzman — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:55:19 +0000

Hey guys! A couple more thoughts on all this:

I'm wondering if this whole 48 FPS issue will be one of those things that moves from specialized circles of people who are really into technology or specific aspects of film, to the mainstream. I thought of 3D right away, but the fact that you need to wear specialized glasses to see 3D movies instantly changes the nature of the viewing experience for moviegoers, whereas 48 FPS may be immediately recognizable as different, but not in a way that's as tangible.

I can't think of a good equivalent of what I'm talking about off the top of my head, but perhaps it'll be like people deciding between the number of megapixels in a photo camera. By that I mean, before digital cameras came out, of course no one cared about megapixels. And now that they are out, people have been forced to learn a bit about megapixels if they want to buy a camera. And when they see that some cameras have more megapixels than others, they assume that more is better, although the reality is more nuanced than that. So coming back to movie cameras, maybe now that 48 FPS is a reality, people will have to make a decision about which version they'll see (or did I misunderstand that?). They will see 48 FPS and realize that more isn't necessarily better, and there could be a general acceptance that the technology moved faster than our human evolution could.

Or maybe not. It's hard to explain and express what I mean, but I found this review of the 48 FPS Hobbit screenings on Badass Digest:
http://badassdigest.com/2012/12/04/does-anybody-like-48fps-in-the-hobbit?
Most reviewers seemed negative or on the fence, but none were very positive about it.

Maybe we can thank Lucas for this. Since he started changing “his” movies, people started to realize that while movies ARE of course largely the result of a film crew's efforts, they don't exist in a vacuum, and ultimately have a relationship with their viewers.

Who knows.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:46:01 +0000

Time for a good ol' fashioned sit-in… or something. Hopefully it's just another fad that will pass, but, like with 3D, if James Cameron is getting involved with it for the other two Avatar movies, that might be enough to carry it through for the long (or at least semi-long) haul. What crap.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:28:48 +0000

I love explain!

Paul, thank you for joining. I don't feel like I talk to you enough about movies, let alone talk to you enough about the weather. Welcome!

This post made my blood boil! Paul, why did you have to make me so angry? I've known about this "problem" becuase of Jake, but this is going too far. What can we do about this? It's so idiotic!

By: Sitzman

Sitzman — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:30:47 +0000

I guess it's "realistic" if one's a machine.

By the way, I like the way you explained these things.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:26:42 +0000

And I guess I double clarified my point since the “wave-your-hand-in-front-of-your-face” trick is also persistence of vision, but it goes to show that in real life we do see motion as a blur, UNLESS, we scan our eyes or head to follow the object in motion. You also see this in photography where a photographer will pan his camera with a fast moving object, i.e. a car, and let a slightly longer shutter speed blur the background of the image, while keeping the car crisp. But 48fps takes this away and smooths out that motion. Like I might have explained to you before, the best way to describe 48fps with the hand trick is that with 48fps, you would see a clear outline and image of your hand every step of the way as it moved. I suppose some people might like this, and some people might think it's “realistic”, but I think it's just another gimmick to try to “revolutionize” an industry which never needed to be changed.

By: Sitzman

Sitzman — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 08:04:43 +0000

Hey Paul! Great to see you here on the blog, and let there be many posts indeed! As you say, "discussions will be had" (and it also proves my point that I was telling my students earlier: the passive voice IS used in English!).

I liked this post, since I didn't really understand the difference between frame rates before. I when I asked you in the hotel lounge in New York if you knew why the TV looked weird, I noticed instinctually knew that something was wrong, but not why it was off. You explained it a bit then, but this makes it a lot clearer.

A great first post!