The Hobbit, the Uncanny Valley, and what it means for 3D

For those interested in an in-depth look at 48 fps in <i>The Hobbit</i> from an artistic viewpoint, here are two good blog posts discussing its effect on filmmaking:<p><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-accidentally-invented-impressionist-filmmaking" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-acc...</a><p><a href="http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unex...</a><p>I've read the first article so far, which suggests that solving problems with 48 fps present in <i>The Hobbit</i> is simply a matter of modifying filmmaking techniques.

Isn't the ordering of the Hobbit scenes on the graph backwards? The unfamiliar scenes ("orc-filled battlefields ...") are more acceptable because they are less like the real life we know &#38; love than the familiar ones ("... a character standing in the doorway"). So they are on the <i>less</i> realistic (left) side of the Uncanny Valley, not the more realistic (right) side.<p>Other than that, I think your argument works.

I actually saw The Hobbit thrice. In IMAX 3D, "Real-3D", and HFR 3D. I do have to say that you can tell the difference when watching in HFR. It felt as if the video was fluid or even slightly fast forward. Like you are moving a bit faster than you should be. Strange, but clearly the future of motion picture.

Is it possible that the uncanniness of the more mundane in The Hobbit magnifies our affinity for the more fantastical? I don't doubt The Hobbit has improved on the technology and its applications to film. However, if the mundane is relatively more uncanny than in other films, perhaps a more modest improvement is benefiting from comparison to a lower baseline. That is, maybe the lows are slightly lower, and the highs are only slightly higher.

I wonder whether the problems that people are seeing with 48fps are genre specific? Sure, we've conditioned ourselves to dreamy visuals created by lower frame rates, but losing that might affect fantasy more (particularly when special effects can't be masked as well), and drama where a "cinematic" feel is expected. Maybe 48fps would feel perfectly natural in a comedy or a situational horror film?

Ok, has anyone tried selecting the text on that blog? The effect made me feel as though I was drunk. Why does it do that?

I think the arbitrary choice of 48fps is the problem. I know it's easier to down-convert to 24, but it seems 48 just isn't right for our eyes.<p>The human eye can process about 60fps. I love the idea of more frames, but 60fps might be better, and eliminate the "fast-forward" jittery look.

There's no uncanny valley here. I just got back from seeing the movie an hour ago, so I'm speaking from very fresh perspective.<p>I saw it in 3D at 48fps. Both completely killed the movie. In the very opening scene where Bilbo is picking up the book, it looked too fast. It was the opposite of "smooth".<p>I don't care about the technical arguments about how more frames per second is smoother. It doesn't look right subjectively. I don't know if its interlacing, or that it was high fps combined with 3D, but it continuously kept pulling me out of the story and taking notice of how fake everything looked.<p>Everything that was epic in Lord of the Rings just looked phoney. It was incredibly easy to see the CG effects on the orcs, goblins, and wargs.<p>I'm thinking about seeing the movie again in a week or so, but just the normal 24fps, non-3D version.<p>I really hope this <i>isn't</i> the future of movies, because it looks freaking awful.

So ... Shame about the script.

Can we play 48fps on our computers? I mean: is there a common video format supporting 48fps and a common media player (eg VLC) able to play at 48fps?<p>If so, the following movie would be great: make several types of animations / sequences (both filmed and 3D and, if possible, a mix of both) but... On the left part of the movie you show it at 48fps while on the right part of the movie you show only, say, even frames (hence showing each even frame twice and skipping every uneven frame).<p>That would be a great "visual explanation" as to what 48fps does.

&#62;<i>The reason action packed scenes and panning scenery all retain their authenticity is these scenes are unfamiliar to us. I’ve never encountered a battlefield of orcs, and I’ve never flown across the landscape hugging the ground in a helicopter. We have no prior experience which tells what these scenarios should look like.</i><p>That's not exactly what the "uncanny valley" theory says, though.<p>It's about realistic vs cartoony versions of things, not about familiar vs unfamiliar things.