Desolation of Smaug trailers (SPOILERS)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

TV clip featuring "I See Fire" (for what it is worth):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKwZFcUT ... e=youtu.be

[Dave_LF]

Is that official or fanmade? It doesn't really seem like the right tone at all to go with the visuals.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Don't know. I was wondering the same thing. I am guessing fanmade. And honestly, I don't like it much.

[Smaug's voice]

So what's the reaction here, on "I see Fire"?
I didn't like it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You mean on the song itself? I initially liked it better than Neil Finn's song, but now I don't.

[Passdagas the Brown]

You mean on the song itself? I initially liked it better than Neil Finn's song, but now I don't.

I knew you'd come around.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To be clear, it's not that I decided I like Neil Finn's song any better than I did ... .

[Smaug's voice]

I did like Neil Flynn's song very much. The lyrics and the rhythm and the tone was excellent. I just wish it was sung by someone with a deeper, more dwarvish, voice. I think Armitage himself would have done a phenomenal job if he'd sung that song at the credits.
I dislike I see fire because it is tonally complete alien to middle earth, for me.

[Elentári]

I really dislike the feeling of being "on stage," which I know is just a personal, subjective reaction...I simply prefer (because I'm used to it, I guess) being on the outside, viewing a story through a lens.

This made me think of a possible explanation that I think could be at the root of this for some people, including myself. I think there may be an effect where it looks so real that it looks like they're literally in front of you - like they're actually in the same room you're in. But wait! - my brain says - how can Bilbo be in the same room as me and in Middle Earth at the same time - COGNITIVE DISSONANCE ALERT!! I think this makes a lot of sense from a brain-image-processing POV. Obviously I am not saying this is happening consciously but it may be the brain having a hard time reconciling "it's really in front of me" and "it's not really in front of me" and just concluding "this is wrong".

In that way, it could be something like the uncanny valley effect - something fake that starts approaching reality too closely and suddenly your brain rejects what it's seeing:

Remember yov's post last month?

Seems he was right! this article was published when AUJ was released, and certainly, for me, explains why I really don't enjoy HFR...

The Science of High Frame Rates, Or: Why 'The Hobbit' Looks Bad At 48 FPS

...most researchers agree we perceive 40 conscious moments per second. In other words: our eyes see more than that but we’re only aware of 40. So if a frame rate hits or exceeds 40 fps, it looks to us like reality. Whereas if it’s significantly below that, like 24 fps or even 30 fps, there’s a separation, there’s a difference — and we know immediately that what we’re watching is not real.”

You’ve got guys like Cameron and Jackson saying, let’s make it more real because the more realistic, the better; the higher the definition, the more 3-D, the more this, the more that. They’re not taking into account what’s called The Uncanny Valley in psychology. The Uncanny Valley says that, statistically, if you map out a consumer’s reaction to something they’re seeing, if they’re seeing something artificial and it starts to approach something looking real, they begin to inherently psychologically reject it."

"Not every person perceives the Uncanny Valley, however. There are some people that just do not reject things that look too real, although the vast majority of people do experience that phenomenon. So you’re going to get some individuals who see it and go, This looks great! The problem is anecdotes are not evidence. You have to look at the public as a whole, and I think that’s what Jackson and Cameron are not doing."

“There are all sorts of conventions in film that are not found in reality. People talk to each other in ways that they don’t in reality. Things are lit in ways that they’re not lit in reality. The make-up, the hair, the props, everything is fake. If you stand on a film set and you watch the actors performing, you don’t for a second think that it’s real. There are acting conventions that we have chosen to accept."

[yovargas]

Woo! I'm a genius!

[Dave_LF]

They contradict themselves. They say that above 40 a moving image is indistinguishable from reality, but also that at 48 there is an uncanny valley, which is caused by something that looks almost real but not quite.

You can make the argument that the problem arises from the fact that the framerate is realistic, but what is being shown is not. One thing I do remember saying after my first experience is that it was a bit... surprising to see obviously unreal things like orcs and wizardry presented so hyper-realistically. But people seem unhappy with HFR even when it's being used to present fairly ordinary stuff. Plus, what makes framerate special? Why not argue that it causes dissonance to have realistic looking sets combined with cinematic behavior?

Edit: And this is just plain wrong, if our BBC-acclimated peers are to be believed:

[Some say] you watch it long enough and you won’t associate it with cheap soap operas anymore. That’s nonsense. The science does not say that. It’s not learned behavior. It’s an inherent part of the way our brains see things.”

[Elentári]

Who is the "some"? Is that supposed to be your BBC-acclimated peers, of which I am one?

In any case, I think it is the 3D combined with the HFR that is the problem for me, but until I get to see a 2D HFR version I won't know!

[Dave_LF]

The "[some say]" is sic, brackets and all; I don't know what they replaced.

In any case, I think it is the 3D combined with the HFR that is the problem for me, but until I get to see a 2D HFR version I won't know!

There are some 2D HFR DOS previews upthread if you're interested. It's not true HFR because they had to use computer algorithms to interpolate the extra frames, but it was close enough that I, at least, couldn't tell the difference.

[yovargas]

But people seem unhappy with HFR even when it's being used to present fairly ordinary stuff.

I wouldn't call the a 20-feet tall ultra-realistic human head "ordinary", which is what you get in close-ups of actors in a movie theater. For me, ordinary humans give the most "that feels wrong" feeling.

[Dave_LF]

I guess it's likely enough that different people get the uncanny effect from different classes of perceptions. I am fairly sensitive to the way things move, for example, and I think I almost prefer the obviously wrong CG of Radagast's bunnies to that of his hedgehogs, who look fine in stills, but just don't quite move the way real animals do.

And even if I accept there is an uncanny valley for some, I still don't understand the claim that things appear sped up ala Benny Hill. Maybe there is more than one thing going on.

[Elentári]

I'm okay with the actors for the most part, it's the scenery and depth of field that I have real problems with - but as I say, that is probably the 3D which is exaggerated by the HFR.

[Alatar]

Whereas I find the scenery and depth of field to be the best part of 3D HFR. Honestly, I think its purely and simply a case of "Ouch! Different is bad!". We just haven't got used to it yet, and also, the cinematography isn't as mature.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I agree to a point. But if the cinematography hasn't matured enough to catch up to HFR, then I believe films shouldn't yet be released in that format. I think of it as a beta stage, and find it unfortunate that The Hobbit has been a guinea pig in the early stages.

But I can't complain yet, really. I get to see TH at 24fps whenever I want, and am not being forced to watch 48fps. My only fear is that in the near future, all films will be shot and screened at 48fps, and studios won't wait for cinematographers and set designers to catch up.

[yovargas]

Honestly, I think its purely and simply a case of "Ouch! Different is bad!".

Are you equally dismissive of the original idea of uncanny valley? I don't know why you'd insist there's no real issue just because you don't have the same problem?

[Passdagas the Brown]

The uncanny valley effect is so severe to me, that it almost makes me nauseous.

But perhaps Al is right, and the uncanny valley phenomenon is primarily there because the other elements of filmmaking - cinematography, etc - have not matured to the point where they are able to blunt the rough edges of 48fps.

Much like cinematographers and set designers had to adapt to color, and are trying to adapt to high res digital.

Whatever the issue, we're not "there yet" with 48fps. There are many bugs and kinks to knock out.