Re:The Hobbit, the Uncanny Valley, and what it means for 3D
by Wintamute on Saturday December 22, 2012 @07:31AM
(#4956446)
It's not only to do with the film-makers ability to craft, or dial-down the perceived detail overload in 48fps. It's just as much to do with the viewers expectations and experience. Can you imagine showing a recent 24fps blockbuster action movie to a 1920s silent film cinema go-oer? The special effects, quick cuts and loud soundtrack would have given them incredible sensory overload. They would have left the cinema totally overwhelmed. I'm not saying 48fps is a similar level of advance, but it's the same principle. Not only do film-makers need to learn the new craft, we also need to learn to watch it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Hobbit, the Uncanny Valley, and what it means for 3D
by baddox on Saturday December 22, 2012 @04:33PM
(#4957546)
I agree, and I can't help but think that the anti-HFR crowd is almost certainly putting themselves on the wrong side of history, like a (perhaps hypothetical) critic who claims that no one ever wants to hear actors speak in a cinema.
Re:The Hobbit, the Uncanny Valley, and what it means for 3D
by reneherse on Saturday December 22, 2012 @11:06AM
(#4956799)
Indeed. And an additional attribute that shouldn't be ignored is connotation or association. Unfortunately with HFR, it's going to be some time before people stop thinking "soap opera" when they see this kind of picture.