Desolation of Smaug trailers (SPOILERS)

[axordil]

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

Pretty much this. The difference is probably up there with the switch to color, but not as drastic as the switch to sound.

I think the term "uncanny valley" really should be limited to effects that attempt to mimic/model mechanical reproduction of images, i.e., CGI. Applying it to different methods of actual image reproduction is a misuse of the term, as the issues have less to do with the physical mechanics of perception than the psychological aspects of it. Mind you, that's a spectrum, not a black and white thing.

But the analogy the article makes to acting conventions is so vacuous on its face I can't believe they printed it. Yes, acting conventions changed after the introduction of sound...but the major trend in acting conventions after 1929 has had much less to do with technical limitations than with culture and style...in Western cinema at least. The Actor's Studio has had more effect than the sum total of technical advances in film over the last 80 years.

[yovargas]

I think the term "uncanny valley" really should be limited to effects that attempt to mimic/model mechanical reproduction of images, i.e., CGI. Applying it to different methods of actual image reproduction is a misuse of the term, as the issues have less to do with the physical mechanics of perception than the psychological aspects of it.

But my original theory was exactly that both are more psychological in nature, that the "this is wrong!" mental clash comes from an image that simultaneously feels both real and unreal. My theory is that that dissonance is what makes some like me uncomfortable.

As a sidenote, I'd be curious to see if 36 FPS would feel better to those of us who aren't liking 48 FPS.

[Alatar]

The difference is that pretty much everyone experiences the "Uncanny Valley" with regard to CG, although I believe some of the new CG is climbing back out of that valley. However, the 3D HFR is more a personal preference and seems to me more like a new technology. The first "talkies" or "Technicolor" movies had their detractors too, and the technology was new and the tools had not been mastered. I honestly believe that all we're looking at here. Just compare how much the 3D HFR has improved from AUJ to DOS.

[yovargas]

The difference is that pretty much everyone experiences the "Uncanny Valley" with regard to CG, although I believe some of the new CG is climbing back out of that valley.

I'd bet if you grew up seeing stuff in the "valley", you wouldn't even notice it was weird.

[axordil]

But my original theory was exactly that both are more psychological in nature, that the "this is wrong!" mental clash comes from an image that simultaneously feels both real and unreal. My theory is that that dissonance is what makes some like me uncomfortable.

The difference is that pretty much everyone experiences the "Uncanny Valley" with regard to CG, although I believe some of the new CG is climbing back out of that valley. However, the 3D HFR is more a personal preference and seems to me more like a new technology.

I think both of these can be true. The CGI UV is near-universal. HFR's perceived issues are not. That's why I think the CGI issues have more to do with deep, neuropsychological resistance and HFR issues are about a mix of less-universal cultural norms (the "BBC effect") and some variance in physiology.

[Passdagas the Brown]

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

Pretty much this. The difference is probably up there with the switch to color, but not as drastic as the switch to sound.

I think the term "uncanny valley" really should be limited to effects that attempt to mimic/model mechanical reproduction of images, i.e., CGI. Applying it to different methods of actual image reproduction is a misuse of the term, as the issues have less to do with the physical mechanics of perception than the psychological aspects of it. Mind you, that's a spectrum, not a black and white thing.

But the analogy the article makes to acting conventions is so vacuous on its face I can't believe they printed it. Yes, acting conventions changed after the introduction of sound...but the major trend in acting conventions after 1929 has had much less to do with technical limitations than with culture and style...in Western cinema at least. The Actor's Studio has had more effect than the sum total of technical advances in film over the last 80 years.

Good points. Frankly, I thought "uncanny valley" just meant "more technically realistic but somehow soulless, and simultaneously hyper-fake" which is generally my impression of HFR.

But I understand that this is not the common usage of the term.

Best way to describe HFR (and high res digital) is that the technical realism highlights all the artifice of filmmaking.

And until those artifice creators get better, the combination of high res and HFR will strike many as uncomfortably artificial.

But where there is no artifice - such as in pure landscape shots - HFR and high res can yield glorious results.

[axordil]

The difference is that pretty much everyone experiences the "Uncanny Valley" with regard to CG, although I believe some of the new CG is climbing back out of that valley.

I'd bet if you grew up seeing stuff in the "valley", you wouldn't even notice it was weird.

Very possibly not, if you saw enough of it young enough to blur the lines. But everyone thought the Zemeckis attempts at CGI fell into the UV, because there had been so little hyperrealism until then...and as Alatar notes, technology is crawling out the other side. So thankfully we will never have a generation who thinks Tom Hanks in The Polar Express looks just fine.

Hmm. Maybe there isn't one monolithic, two dimensional UV, but rather one that could be depicted along two or even three axes and with some slopes more sharply defined than others. HFR's (which seems to be based on motion perception) is not like CGI's (which is more about depiction accuracy).

Acting conventions, by contrast, don't HAVE a UV: you never hear someone saying "that performance was a little too lifelike, it made me all squicky."

[Frelga]

IIRC, the uncanny valley has to do with the perception of the image/object as an abnormal, possibly diseased human, which triggers revulsion. My own theory is that the objection to the HFR has more to do with the feeling that it destructs the illusion by exposing the manufactured aspects of the movie.

Personally, I enjoyed it. I had a few problems, but I think they were due to sitting in the second row.

ETA: or what PtB said about "artifice of filmmaking"

[Dave_LF]

If that's true, it should be something you can train yourself out of. Theoretically, you could say that very realistic costumes or sets draw attention to a film's less realistic elements, but we're used to those things, so they don't.

The first (only) time I watched AUJ in HFR I did experience something like that at first--because things looked different it popped me out of "movie watching context" with the effect that things I usually let slide because it's just a movie became noticeable and jarring, but I got over it.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I have experienced HFR in a cinema 5 times now, and I have not gotten over it, unfortunately. In fact, my last experience (with DOS) seemed to be the worst one yet!

It is possible that in addition to HFR showing up other artifices that haven't adapted to the format yet, there is also a neurological component to some people's experience that goes well beyond "you're just not used to it."

Hopefully, some PhD candidates will take this up!

[Frelga]

After reading a Wiki article on the uncanny valley, I discovered that some elements of it have to do with the distorted proportions of a human face with photo-realistic texture. Possibly this is at play, given that the proportions of dwarf faces have been distorted with prosthetics.

Again, it did not bother me at all.

[Passdagas the Brown]

After reading a Wiki article on the uncanny valley, I discovered that some elements of it have to do with the distorted proportions of a human face with photo-realistic texture. Possibly this is at play, given that the proportions of dwarf faces have been distorted with prosthetics.

Again, it did not bother me at all.

With the Polar Express example, it's simple. The characters look like robots with human skin grafted onto them!

The textures are hyper-realistic, but there's something slightly off about their movements, and their expressions, that makes them look like...well...zombies.

Gollum is, IMO, the first CGI entity to break through the valley. Yes, he's a fantastical creature and not technically "human," but he's sufficiently human to be considered within that category, IMO.

[kzer_za]

Isn't HFR 3D only for the Hobbit? That alone is enough to make me not want to see. I don't like 3D - not even in Gravity!

[Passdagas the Brown]

Isn't HFR 3D only for the Hobbit? That alone is enough to make me not want to see. I don't like 3D - not even in Gravity!

As far as I am aware, yes. The Hobbit is the only film(s) to be shot and screened in HFR 3D.

[Dave_LF]

If you don't like 3d, it's probably because the framerate is too low.

Seriously, the main driver for HFR, as I understand it, is that the blur effect you get at 24 looks much worse in 3d, to the point where it can cause nausea and disorientation in some people.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Isn't HFR 3D only for the Hobbit? That alone is enough to make me not want to see. I don't like 3D - not even in Gravity!

As far as I am aware, yes. The Hobbit is the only film(s) to be shot and screened in HFR 3D.

Yes, although Cameron reportedly is going to be shooting the Avatar sequels in as high as 60 FPS.

[Passdagas the Brown]

If you don't like 3d, it's probably because the framerate is too low.

Seriously, the main driver for HFR, as I understand it, is that the blur effect you get at 24 looks much worse in 3d, to the point where it can cause nausea and disorientation in some people.

If that is the main thrust of HFR advocacy, then I am afraid it will always be a niche technology. Unless, of course, 3D films become the overwhelming norm.