The Hobbit: Why 48FPS Makes Film Less Magical - <AUTHOR> http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/ <comment><USER3> After I saw The Hobbit at 48fps, I'm having a hard time watching 24fps movies. Yesterday I watched The Shining by Kubrik. It was jittery, and that's a _slow_ film. HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way. I suppose color and sound were not considered "cinematic" back in the day just like HFR now.

3D on the other hand... I wish it would die. You have to converge at a distance and focus at another, and that's really hard for some people. There are a huge number of cues[1] that are important in depth perception, but 3D movies make use only of parallax confusing the brain. The depth of field is usually shallow, and that's great for 2D, but catastrophic for 3D. In real life, objects that I make an explicit effort to focus to are not blurry, but in 3D they are.

Another annoying aspect of 3D movies is that they artificially augment the parallax to make the 3D effect more extreme. That's equivalent to objects being really close. Apart from strain on the eyes, that's really annoying for wide outdoor shots, where things should effectively be at infinity. It's like you are looking at a miniature, not at a vast valley.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception>

<comment><USER4> _HFR is superior to 24fps in every conceivable way._

Film makers have a wide variety of creative tools available to them to help them tell a story, of which HFR is one. We're talking about art, not a technical quest to reproduce reality as closely as possible.

<comment><USER5> Sure... And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps.

So _anything_ that 24fps can do, 48fps can do too.

And I don't buy the crazy idea that someone using 24fps during an entire movie would someone be the achievement of some visual art perfection.

This is wrong, wrong and wrong.

Also I have to laugh quite a bit at you describing a movie called "The hobbit" which shows dragon, trolls, elfes, magicians, etc. as "trying to reproduce reality".

; )

<comment><USER6> > And if I display the exact same frame twice in a row at 48fps I get 24fps.

Not quite. Shooting at 48fps requires a faster shutter speed than 24fps (1/48 vs 1/96) which gives you less motion blur.

<comment><USER7> Which is great! Motion blur sucks ass.

And if the film maker wants blur sometimes, they can still add it, without compromising the entire film.

<comment><USER8> Um, no. Motion blur is absolutely essential for smooth movements. Showing 48fps material by displaying every other frame at 24fps will look, much much choppier than 24fps material.

<comment><USER7> Of course, but that's not what I mean. Shoot at 48fps and blur each frame as appropriate, just like games do. It's not exactly hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I saw it last night in HFR 3D. It's actually the first proper feature film I've seen in 3D and I enjoyed it a lot.

There definitely were moments where it looked like you were looking at actors on a set. The fidelity was so good that it was obvious the characters were wearing prosthetics and makeup. However there were plenty of scenes where the increased detail and clarity were a huge advantage, especially some of the CGI scenes. The flight of the eagles was gorgeous and the feeling of actually being there you got from the combination of HFR and 3D added a lot to the experience.

It very much is a question of trade-offs. I'm very glad I saw it in HFR 3D because for a lot of the scenes it gives you an experience you couldn't get any other way, but if I were to see it in a cinema again I'd go for 2D, and I look forward to seeing it on TV at home. I'll quite happily watch the next film in HFR 3D.

<comment><USER10> I really liked the 48fps version too. It has so many advantages over 24fps, especially in 3D. I would quite like to see a 48fps 3D version if only for the increased brightness but that doesn't appear to be a thing yet :( I guess they had to cut it down from the already ridiculous number of variations though.

<comment><USER11> I though the 48FPS version was only available in 3D?

<comment><USER12> Yes, the 48FPS is only available in 3D.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Odd, my experience was exactly the opposite. For me, 3D HFR was a totally immersive experience. It felt like the action was happening right in front of me, on a stage.

Bear in mind, I cannot stand those TVs that double the frame rate to make everything look like a cheap soap opera. I've heard this comparison, or ones like it, in almost every negative review I've read. In my opinion, this is false comparison.

Imagine if soap operas were filmed in colour, and proper films shot in black and white. Then a film maker comes along and releases a colour film. Suddenly everyone says it looks like a cheap soap opera. To me this is the psychological effect that is hindering the acceptance of HFR and thus the negative reviews.

Ten years from now our children will scoff at our luddism.

<comment><USER14> What's interesting to me (for background, before I ended up programming I trained in traditional film/animation) is that a lot of the 24/48fps discussion on HN tends to be around technical concerns, whereas a lot of film developments come out of artistic needs.

HFR is really interesting when contextualized in the history of cinema: frame rate was never a problem until directors started changing how they shot action scenes in the 1980s. It was realised that if you made the action fast and blurry you could get away with a lot more: what from a wide shot would look like a slow moving car chase could become a very dramatic action scene.

I think this is being reflected in a lot of the reviews coming out for The Hobbit (I haven't seen it yet): it seems a lot of people don't mind it during action sequences, but it becomes distracting during dialog and less frenetic moments. And this makes sense: why _should_ dialog scenes be in 48fps? There's no technical or artistic reason for them to be.

I'd be really interested in watching a cut of The Hobbit which moves between 24 and 48 fps for dialog/action: people are happy to accept aspect ratio shifts (like moving from full-frame IMAX to CinemaScope in the Dark Knight, etc, and more artistically moving to Academy for a particular scene in Life of Pi), perhaps they'd be willing to accept frame rate shifts too?

<comment><USER8> > And this makes sense: why shouldn't dialog scenes be in 48fps? There's no > technical or artistic reason for them not to be.

Fixed that for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Certainly captures a lot of my experience with The Hobbit. I saw it in HD/HFR, and I'm planning on going back to see it in 2D just so I can enjoy the Movie. I was distracted, and distressed at the experience - my entire "suspension of disbelief" was never engaged, and I constantly felt like I was watching a TV Show - one exception being where the Orcs where chasing everyone down inside the mountain, when I felt like I was watching a video game.

Like the OP, I applaud Peter Jackson's experiment - without courage like this, you won't be able to advance the technology of the art. But, in this case, it just didn't work for me. I'm interesting in hearing what other's thought.

<comment><USER16> > distressed at the experience

I think this is interesting. Like yourself, and the author of the article, I applaud Peter Jackson for having the courage to try, and reserve judgement until I have the chance to see it myself next week. That said, I still think it's very much an open question whether people's responses to this are due to the intrinsic nature of 48fps or just due to how alien it feels.

Personally, I can't see how anything that replicates reality better can be intrinsically bad. When I was a very young child and watching films for the first time I remember being distracted by its artifice: the depth of field, the way camera perspectives changed, and the motion blur, though I couldn't have put a name to these back then.

I think the bad reaction to 48 fps is largely for three reasons: legacy associations, with home video and the like, a lack of experience making films at 48 fps (could Peter Jackson have made a better 48 fps film had the industry had more experience doing it? probably), and sheer alienation (if every single film you've ever seen is 24 fps, and you've acquired a suspension of disbelief for 24 fps, then you're going to lose that at 48 fps). I think this last point is worth emphasising: I don't think we innately are capable of a suspension of disbelief for film. I think it's something we learn over time, like I did as a child, and it's something we haven't yet done for 48 fps.

So I'm optimistic. And sad too, because perhaps next week I won't enjoy The Hobbit as much as I should. I think back to Technicolor films and how crappy they looked at the time compared to how beautiful black and white films looked (and continue to look) at the same time. Yet here we are now, and we'd never go back these days.

But who knows. Maybe I'm wrong and there's something intrinsically bad about too-fast a frame rate. Perhaps, as the author alludes, filmmaking is as much a decision of what information to lose as it is what to keep. But I can't help but ask the question: the author says that certain scenes looked like a video game to him, but I ask what would it look like if you'd never played games in your life? If you lacked that association...? Maybe it'd be something a little bit magical.

<comment><USER14> > _"I think back to Technicolor films and how crappy they looked at the time"_

Technicolor films looked _fantastic_ when they were first released. There are a lot of bad transfers that have been done since, but three-strip technicolor (the kind used on the Wizard of Oz, where you shoot using three separate film strips) had incredible saturation.

There were other, considerably less expensive alternatives that you might be thinking of, but Technicolor was _the_ process to use for color: the problem was that to do so required a _huge_ budget (unsurprisingly shooting on three film strips simultaneously requires three times the processing budget), and lots of light (the film speed was very low). One-strip Eastman became the dominant format for reasons of cost, but most people would agree the Technicolor 'look' was in most cases superior.

A lot of film stock from the 30s/40s has deteriorated significantly, and studios do not always take the greatest care when transferring (especially for films not so well known or renowned) - but I personally think three-strip Technicolor films like the Wizard of Oz have great, vivid color.

<comment><USER16> It's actually Wizard of Oz I had in mind when I was saying that. I appreciate for its time it was a huge advance, but I always thought it looked considerably less beautiful than black and white films of the same era, but perhaps this was as much because people didn't really understand how to use colour properly then as much as the technology itself. Anyway, thanks for the info :) I consider myself enlightened.

<comment><USER17> Directors of that time were accustomed to choosing oversaturated colors to help viewers distinguish between different elements in black & white productions. This practice continued well into the 1960s. Look at a color set photograph of "I Love Lucy" for an example of this.

3-strip Technicolor, by its own nature, tends to oversaturate colors as well.

These two facts help explain the garish colors seen in The Wizard of Oz and other 3-strip Technicolor films of the era.

With that being said, I find The Wizard of Oz (and most other 3-strip Technicolor films) to be indescribably beautiful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> At the risk of drawing this thread off-topic, I saw it in 24FPS and didn't think much of it. No amount of HD or FPS can make up for a mediocre film, in the same way that fantastic graphics don't make a good game.

(Spoilers ahead.)

Bilbo and the dwarves were caricatures - overdoing their roles as a surprised hobbit and a fat, funny disney character with a single personality. (Seriously - there's a fat one, a stupid one, an Irish one, an old one etc...)

That would be ok, since The Hobbit is a children's book, but this is certainly not a children's film. I did not like the mixture of comedy and seriousness that was attempted. Whereas LOTR (which I really enjoyed) had moments of Merry and Pippin being funny, these dwarves never seemed to stop taking everything as a joke (obviously apart from Mr. Serious Dwarf). Some bits were genuinely funny (dwarves with Elrond), but they're in obviously safe environments.

If the overarching plot is to kill a dragon, there are some difficulties when trying to stretch it out into 9 hours of films. Sauron had a command structure and it was perfectly possible to kill mini-bosses (Saruman) and get some feel that you're doing something useful. A dragon has no such web of power, so the various evils they vanquish in the film appear disconnected and irrelevant to the main plot.

Gandalf has seemingly random amounts of power at any given time. I guess this also cropped up in LOTR, but it was much more obvious here.

Graphics for graphics sake. Rock battles?

Gollum was good.

<comment><USER19> The point of The Hobbit wasn't defeating Smaug, it was the adventure along the way...

<comment><USER20> What adventure? Leaving one place and going to another, with so ho-hum episodes in between?

<comment><USER21> The title for The Hobbit (the book) is "The Hobbit or There and Back Again"[1]. It is about the journey.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Hobbit-There-Back- Again/dp/0618150...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Hobbit-There-Back- Again/dp/061815082X) or see the end of Return of the King where Frodo adds the "Lord of the Rings" title under Bilbo's title.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I haven's seen the movie, but I think this is a case of history repeating itself.

<http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Talkie_Town_USA.pdf> (apologies for the low quality of the scan):

 _"Only last winter an extensive poll of film fans showed them relatively unsatisfied with sound pictures and desirous of once more seeing silent pictures."_

We also have Aldous Huxley (<http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/sound.cfm>, about halfway down):

 _Silence is Golden_

 _I have just been, for the first time, to see and hear a picture talk. "A little late in the day," my up-to-date readers will remark, with a patronizing and contemptuous smile. "This is 1930; there isn't much news in talkies now. But better late than never."_

 _Better late than never? Ah, no! There, my friends, you're wrong. This is one of those cases where it is most decidedly better never than late, better never than early, better never than on the stroke of time...._

I bet I could find similar reaction to the introduction of color movies, colour television, GUIs for personal computers, etc. (did anybody ever critique Gutenberg for 'form over function' on his bibles?)

In all cases, we had to discover how and when to properly use new technologies. This will not be different.

Also, I expect we will eventually go beyond 48 Hz, as 48 Hz is slightly below human perception thresholds. <http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Flicker_fusion> gives limits around 60Hz. Those are for bright lights, large areas, and peripheral. You will not normally see that with old-syle television sets and won't see it in most homes, either, but in cinemas, one can easily get there.

<comment><USER14> I think you'll be far more likely to see a split, in the same way today we have films shot in CinemaScope (2.35:1) and widescreen (1.85:1). The complement, rather than replace, one another.

48 FPS is probably analogous to 3D, rather than talkies. When the talkies came along there was a _rapid_ transition: the big five studios were exclusively shooting talkies about two years after the Jazz Singer was released. Whereas 3D is more prevalent today, but some film-makers choose not to use it. There is not quite the same demand by the audience.

I mentioned this earlier, but I'd _love_ to see a screening of The Hobbit with 24fps for dialog and 48fps for action.

<comment><USER23> To take it a step further, they could use an adaptive framerate. Have an algorithm (or, more likely, this being Hollywood, a person) select specific shots or pieces of shots with too much lateral movement and ratchet them up to 48fps.

<comment><USER24> Let's have some scenes with talking and others dead silent!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I imagine that in 5-10 years all films will be higher resolution and 48fps. The youth of tomorrow will look back at the low-res, fuzzy films of today the same way we look at black and white flicks from the past, "Did people really like this crud?!".

The Hobbit - good or bad, it doesn't matter - is really just the first of the next generation. It means makeup artists and prop creators have to step up the quality based on complaints like those in TFA, but that's technology for you.

<comment><USER26> And the movie industry needs this. There are only so many stories to tell. If the back catalog was still first tier entertainment there wouldn't be nearly as many new movies.

Timeline:

• Silent movies: Tell all the stories.

• Sound!: Tell al the stories again, no one will watch a silent movie.

• Color: Tell all the stories again.

• Style change: Never look like a play. Look "real". Tell all the stories again.

• Decent CGI: Tell all the stories using special effects again.

• High frame rate? 3D? HD?: If one of these hits the industry is set for the next decade.

␄

[1] This is where I came in. Movies from before the '70s have either a video sitcom or musical theater look that does not engage me as "real".

[2] My 18 year old daughter can't really engage in a movie filmed before about 2000 if it has special effects. They are just too campy looking to her. She can tolerate some cinematography from the mid '90s, but before that it looks cheap and fake to her.

<comment><USER27> The assertion that new movies exist and are watched because they are higher tier than older movies seems completely ridiculous. There are movies made before the 70s with absolutely amazing cinematography on beautifully detailed film stock; "Lawrence of Arabia" comes to mind as one that stands up quite well, perhaps with the exception of modern pacing. Do you really think people watch "The Hangover," "The Hobbit," or "The Avengers" because they are higher tier entertainment or more realistic than "Lawrence of Arabia?" I'd also counter that "The Bicycle Thief" feels more heartbreakingly realistic than anything I've seen recently from a major studio. Of course there's no multi- million dollar ad campaign/media blitz or major studio release for it.

<comment><USER28> I think the problem is that any film made before those that the viewer was first introduced to the film format with (or is used to watching) is going to seem old and be judged as less appealing. This mostly unconscious judgement made in a a few seconds based primarily on the 'look' of the film (b/w vs color, film stock, lenses etc.) and secondarily on it's pacing and editing style.

There may be older films that have good cinematography but the viewer is still going to judge it as 'old' before they get to appreciate that.

<comment><USER27> Plenty of films do seem dated in a negative way to me, and I can get that someone expects carefully mastered soundtracks with impressive thumpy sound. But I think there are some films were well made that stand the test of time.

The LA Times ran an article[1] arguing lack of interest in old movies stems largely from new films having a social function that is similar to fashion. I'm inclined to agree. Therefore, while 48+fps might become the fashion, I doubt it's required to retain interest in new movies as referenced in the great-grandparent post.

I certainly wasn't around when _The Seventh Seal_ was filmed, yet I find it astonishingly beautiful and impressive (which makes the parody film _De Düva_ even better.) Of course, I can't talk about it the way one talks about the weather or of theater run films-- "Did you see Argo yet? I want to check it out, the trailer looked cool."

[http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/14/entertainment/la- ca-...](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/14/entertainment/la-ca-film- novelty-20120715)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is a well-written article, but it seems to me like a lot of words to say, "The association with other high-frame-rate media made me uncomfortable and the movie harder to sit back and lazily process." The author says as much in several places, but then does not seem to think that that should be considered in their points about "magic," immersion, and art. I found very little relevant evidence (even given that the premise is subjective and somewhat abstract), and they make foggy points like this with no real assertion:

> In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR – I don't recall hearing a > single sigh, or laugh. Not one.

Okay? Correlation does not imply causation. Maybe the audience of the 3D HFR show was more Tolkien and/or cinema fans that were taking the movie less lightheartedly, or were more introverted. And what does this even mean to say? The related point further on saying that the movie is too comedic - and in the wrong places - doesn't serve his premise any better.

I hadn't read much from the perspective of those against HFR, but if this is the only real argument, I think it's time to start pushing. There's no reason not to have all the visual information we can, and lower technology-imposed limitations. If filmmakers actually think that stuttering and blurs improve a movie, they can still add them! That's no reason to limit the technology, though.

For the record, my experience was similar. It was hard to shake the "home movie" feeling as I was watching it, and suspension of disbelief was a little harder. However, I recognized this as a personal limitation, and I was able to enjoy the visuals and the experience regardless. I don't think that seeing more movies like this could be anything but an improvement.

</comment><comment><USER30> I saw it at the weekend, and I guess I am in a minority judging by reviews, but I honestly didn't think the HFR was that bad. (Maybe my opinion will change when I re-watch in 2d?)

Firstly, I normally come away from a 3D film with my eyes feeling extremely strained, but the Hobbit was the first film where this wasn't the case, which was a refreshing change.

There were a couple scenes, particularly at the start, that somehow felt weird as described in the article thanks to the HFR, but to say it stopped people laughing at the jokes seems pretty extreme, that wasn't the case with the audience I was sat in.

In other scenes, the benefits were clear: Panning landscape style shots were judder free. You could actually see what was happening in action scenes, rather than the usual mess of blur. (Made worse in many films by their insistence on making things more "exciting" by going into shaky-cam mode)

Ultimately, I think what we will settle on is a variable frame rate set-up, where talking heads, indoor scenes with little action can be shown in 24fps to prevent the "soap opera" look that people hate, and action/high motion scenes can reap the benefits of 48fps.

<comment><USER19> It seems to me that most of the folks complaining about HFR are those with a relatively deep experience with films and filmmaking.

The 'unwashed masses' seems to be at least indifferent, and in many cases, positive about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Maybe it's somehow like uncanny valley? It gets too realistic, but is not real, so it's disturbing.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley>

<comment><USER32> I came here to say something like this.

I think that sometimes, the fact that the medium you are using is not perfect/too realistic makes your imagination do a lot of the work, and that makes it easier to be immersed in the experience you are having.

That is why I jump into immersion really quickly when playing Mario or even more so reading a book, but a game like Skyrim has a really hard time hooking me in.

I think realism may in some cases be a kind of a red herring when striving for immersion.

For example, I, as a programmer, can be completely immersed in what I am doing without my text editor being "realistic" (whatever a realistic text editor could be :) ).

I think that the state of "flow" and the immersion in some kind of experience (movie, game, book) go hand-in-hand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> So I hear a lot of people saying that they really enjoyed the higher frame rate during the action scenes, but not so much during the quiet scenes. Would it be feasible for directors to switch between the frame rates as needed? For action scenes, let it roll at 48fps but for all other scenes, simply chop out half the frames and display one duplicate frame per frame to simulate 24fps. I wonder if the transition would be too jolting.. perhaps you could ease into it by ratcheting down the frame rate over a period of a few seconds. At any rate, it seems like you might get the best of both worlds.

<comment><USER34> I watched some of King Kong on an HDTV that does the interpolated 48fps. It switched between 48 and 24 fps depending on scene when it could. The switching was quite irritating, going from very smooth motion to now-apparent jittery "normal" motion. Jolting indeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> My experience is the opposite of the author's. The only really different thing I noticed while watching The Hobbit in 3D at 48fps was that panning shots _weren't_ distractingly jittery. The film was enjoyable and didn't feel fake or unconvincing. I can only guess that, being younger than Vincent, my familiarity with 2D is simply less ingrained than his.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think this is one of those "problems" where the only rational response is to deal with it and get over it. If movies had always been shown at 48 FPS and somebody came along in 2012 arguing that they should instead be projected at 24 for a more "cinematic" look, they'd be laughed out of town.

<comment><USER37> Good grief, it's a significant change to the way movies are made and displayed, and movies are huge part of the entertainment culture. It's got a fascinating technological component which HN tends to love, and a fascinating artistic component as well. Further, the implementation seems to be pretty divisive, though the tech-savvy HN crowd seems more forgiving/accepting of the technology than the public at large.

I think it's OK if we discuss it for a little while.

<comment><USER36> I'm not saying that higher frame rates aren't an interesting subject for discussion and further refinement. I'm saying that the move to higher frame rates in general is a pointless thing to fight, and I've provided a trivial proof.

The _objective_ fact is that the existing 24 fps standard blows goats. What can/should be done to improve upon it?

<comment><USER37> I don't find your objective fact objective at all, especially if the alternative is what I saw in The Hobbit, or 90% of what is implemented in 3D movies.

<comment><USER36> We can both be right, of course. 24 FPS is not OK, and maybe the current implementation of 48 FPS isn't, either. As has been noted, increasing the frame rate demands changes throughout the production process... everything from better makeup to better lighting.

The porn producers already had to confront similar issues to some extent, when HD started to ramp up. Nobody wants to go back to fuzzy porn, do they? :-P

<comment><USER37> That's true, and I'm not averse to change. I'm hard-pressed to believe that scenes involving dialogue and little movement will seem improved by any framerate increase, but I would be the first to applaud the movie that shoves that in my face.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Considering he's focusing on the fact that it's a 48FPS movie when watching it, a second time no less, doesn't that kind of detract from the conclusion that it's a bad thing?

I thought it was pretty magical for a movie to flow like this, I felt the 3D was well focused and in many cases hard to notice (As it should be), and not just a layer slapped on.

All in all I'd rather watch it in 3DHFR first, and 2D later, to make a fair judgement on whether it's a good thing.

I agree that in the start I was a bit focused on the looks of it all, but after a few minutes it added to my immersion rather than detract from it.

Isn't it possible that the reason you're distracted by this new way of doing things, is because it is in fact new, and different from other movies? If everything looked like this, we can focus on the right things instead.

I thought it was pretty damn magical.

</comment><comment><USER39> tl;dr version: movie critics are now experiencing what audiophiles once did, and are longing for the days of pleasant distortion. (Can't come up with an analogue of "euphonic" this early in the day.) Yes, it's true that directors took advantage of the limitations--but now they can learn to take advantage of what HFR provides, and eventually audiences will learn the new conventions.

</comment><comment><USER40> Reminds me: during the transition from 8 bit color images to 24 bit color images in early 90s, some were complaining that 24 bit images looked worse than 8 bit images.

<comment><USER41> I agree. After watching Avatar, I was arguing that this 3D thing will be over really soon because no one would want to wear those cumbersome glasses and tolerate the eye-strain. But then I got used to it and it doesn't bother me at all.

It's quite possible the 3D film-making is going to see more advances both in the theater and during filming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I take fault in the post's back & forth collusion of 48/3D being responsible for the bad story & acting. It seemed like Jackson directed on the same level he left off with from the previous series, but the cast wasn't in the same place and weren't operating from that level of experience and familiarity with their characters. They ended up just "acting".

The 48p/3D was memorizing. I think it will take another 2 years to work out the kinks and a decade or more to really explore what can be done with it.

</comment><comment><USER43> The immersion was amazing. I was flinching every time something flew at the screen. I can't say I ever did that for Avatar.

Furthermore, the audience and myself were all gasping and laughing etc unlike what the author states with his anecdotal 'proof,' clouded by preconceived notions and order bias.

</comment><comment><USER44> I think in general, more realism is a challenge for the director. I've seen many HD movies and television shows where it feels like I'm _really_ on the set, rather than _really_ in the place the movie is set in.

Anyway, I haven't seen the Hobbit or any HFR movie. But I do think that while extra realism in the filming process will ultimately be a boon to the art form, currently there are a lot of challenges. The realism just makes me feel like I'm on a set with a bunch of costumed actors and props rather than in the film's universe with its characters.

Realism currently makes the suspension of disbelief harder rather than easier. But when they finally figure out how to overcome that, watch out, because it will be awesome.

<comment><USER45> This is exactly what watching The Hobbit in HFR felt like to me. It was something of a cross between a play and a video game. There were some scene that felt more cinematic, but especially scenes without much camera movement felt like watching actors on a set.

Like the author, this pretty much ruined the movie for me, but I'm not prepared to totally write off HFR. I think directors will just need to learn how to properly adjust filming techniques to keep HFR feeling like a movie, similarly to how they had to learn to incorporate green screens without having an obvious separation between the actors and the CGI (which a lot of directors still get wrong).

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I think there is a place for high frame-rate: stories that are aiming for fly- on-the-wall realism (I'm thinking particularly of The Wire, or Paranormal Activity). I could also see new film-making styles built around the tech. Unfortunately, epic fantasy is exactly the wrong type of film for the HFR effect.

In addition to looking lifeless and flat, everything seemed to move too quickly, and human movement looked cartoonishly fluid (curiously, CGI creatures looked more real, and people looked like CGI creatures). I found the scenes that looked best were the ones in slow-motion, and I can't help but feel the whole movie would have been improved through using effects to slow down _everything_.

</comment><comment><USER47> Why sound Makes Film Less Magical? Why colors Makes Film Less Magical?

In my opinion this will happens all the time new technology will be use in Films. The peoples just need time to accept it. I hope that future Films (especially 3D) will be made in with 60 FPS !

</comment><comment><USER48> I'm wondering what it will look like in 2D because not only was it shot at 48fps, but it was presumably also shot with a shutter speed of 1/96th of a second. 24fps films are shot with a 1/48th second shutter speed, so the motion blur helps to compensate for the lack of temporal accuracy. Showing a film shot at 48fps, 1/96th shutter at 24fps by presumably throwing away every other frame would result in much more "choppy" and stark motion than a film that was shot for 24fps to begin with. I'm wondering if they used some kind of process to generate fake motion blur for the 24fps version, sort of the opposite of what our 240hz TVs do?

</comment><comment><USER49> There is a small cynical part of me that thinks that being the first to use HFR could be very profitable if everyone is so curious that they pay to see the same film several times in different formats.

</comment><comment><USER50> I think this comes down purely to opinion..I watched it at 48 fps and thought it looked great. The story line was interesting and well developed from the book - the frame rate and quality weren't issue because I was engrossed in the film. Had the film been a run-of-the-mill hollywood action flick reliant on the latest HD and VFX to mask a reptitive and overdone plot, then I would likely be complaining about 48 fps and why it looked dull.

This is a natural step forward in terms of quality of medium and before long will seem normal.

</comment><comment><USER51> Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet, in any format.

But I did see the clip of the Bilbo and Gollum scene played on Colbert the other week. Martin Freeman (who I've loved in other stuff, like Sherlock) was fucking terrible.

If the calibre of delivery is like that, I'm expecting unexpected rubbish. Even one of the scenes from McKellen Colbert played was pretty shit. Maybe I'm expecting too much from what is meant to be a kids book.

My point is, forget FPS -- if the acting is shit, nothing will help.

<comment><USER52> I loved Freeman as Bilbo. I don't know the scene that Colbert showed, but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Is there no non-3d 48 fps version?

<comment><USER54> Just take your own glasses to the movies that have same polariser in both eyes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> The first and only movie I saw in 3D before was Avatar and it was almost painful. I avoided 3D since then. Last weekend I saw Hobbit in HFR 3D by accident: we thought it was in 2D, but got handed the 3D glasses at the entrance. And what can I say: I enjoyed it, to the point where I think that seeing it in 2D would be a lesser experience. Some fast moving action scenes were still uncomfortable, but nature shots were simply gorgeous.

</comment><comment><USER56> Meh, I think it will just take time before people are A) used to HFR and B) directors/producers are accustomed to working with the new framerate.

The porn industry thought HiDef was going to be the end of their career, since suddenly everyone could see that the porn actresses were really just people with makeup on. Porn certainly hasn't died yet. Cinema won't either.

 _(Sorry for comparing porn to cinema)_

</comment><comment><USER57> Is it only me that finds this ironical to be on the HN front page along with the one where Carmack laments games being only 30 fps?

</comment><comment><USER58> Waa waa waa. I saw the HFR 3D version of The Hobbit by choice. Yes, for the first few minutes my brain was thinking "what am I seeing????" but then I forgot to think about how I was watching an HFR 3D movie and just started to enjoy the story, the acting, the visuals, the humor -- you know, the actual movie.

I believe Jackson is onto something here, and I bet in a few years HFR 3D will be the gold standard of movie presentation in theaters. We may begin to see HFR take off in the home theater, but that's a less certain prospect. In terms of cinema, though, this is the future. And goofs like this article writer can protest all they want but audiences are used to the frame rates of games and it's only natural to wonder "why can I play Halo at 60+ fps and then I have to watch a movie at 24fps?" 24fps is a relic of a bygone age. Kids won't have the nostalgia factor here to cloud their judgement.

</comment><comment><USER59> I wonder if we can fix the "too little motion blur" problem by creating a camera that doesn't have a shutter - one that's continuously filming with a sensor that has the same excitability properties as our eyes, and you can read off the sensor at whatever speed you choose.

</comment><comment><USER60> I remember when we bought our first flatscreen full HD TV (I think full HD - honestly I lost track of what means what, I guess it has a somewhat higher resolution than the old tube). Everything looked shocking at first, too - <USER2> HFR is described here, suddenly lighting and makeup were painfully obvious.

After a while we didn't really notice that anymore, so I could imagine we will adjust to HFR, too. Also I suppose film making will have to adjust (lighting, makeup and so on).

A problem could be that we get to watch a lot of TV, but not that much HFR movies in the cinema. The Hobbit will be the second movie I'll watch in the cinema in two years...

Anyways, I will watch it in HFR 3d in the cinema because I don't have the opportunity to watch it like that at home.

</comment><comment><USER61> I watched it both in the 3D HFR and 2D version. I prefer the HFR version since the action was more fluid. But that could just be the crude conversion. I really didn't noticed the 48 fps after 30 mins or so, I just enjoyed the movie instead.

</comment><comment><USER62> Actually, any TV/software with motion interpolation feature makes any 24fps video feel like 'cheap TV show', its not new. From my experience the effect disappears over time, and you regain the ability to pay attention to the story.

</comment><comment><USER63> I saw it in HFR this weekend. At first it felt "wrong" or "cheap" somehow but by the end I didn't notice the HFR except that the movie looked great. So it's something I think we'll get used to.

<comment><USER17> The reason it appears "cheap" to some is that many associate the smooth motion of high(er) framerates with crappy shot-on-video productions, such as Soap Operas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> For me movies are about escaping reality for a few hours and enjoying good story. I didn't like the HFR, maybe because it looked too real or maybe because I found the story lacking a bit, but the net result was I found it hard to simply get whisked away to fantasy land.

Or maybe I just didn't like the movie that much and picking on HFR in 3D is the easiest way to express my dislike.

</comment><comment><USER65> Quite interesting, but he didn't convince me that there are inherent, insurmountable problems with 48FPS or 3D 48FPS, even though that seemed to be implied.

It's early days, and there may be ways to work around the problems.

For example, with it showing too much sharp detail (too much for the viewer to take in at once), there may be ways to keep certain sharp detail while reducing the rest of it.

</comment><comment><USER66> I don't agree with this article. I was a sceptic but the Hobbit won me over.

>In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR – I don't recall hearing a single sigh, or laugh. Not one.

He wasn't at the screening I was at as I did all of those things... oh and muttering "Fuck!"

The one things people are not mentioning is how the high frame rate fixes the 3d dimming problem.

</comment><comment><USER67> Not to go TLDR on Hacker news, but if 48fps was too much for the author, he did in noway attempt to limit his own output to get down to the core of the matters, or "magic of telling a story" if you like.

I'm seeing this in 3D HFR tomorrow (and incidentally my first 3D movie as well). Will be interesting to see if I share his sentiment.

</comment><comment><USER68> Thanks for writing on this topic.

Two questions I relevance:

1.) What was the order you watched the different [quality of] films in? 2.) Is it possible that the 48fps version (with its inclusion of elements that do not directly add to the story) was shot in such a manner specifically for the substantial number of psychedelic-using filmgoers?

</comment><comment><USER69> A lot of the CGI seemed bad to me. It would have been better if they had just dropped the far away scenes.

</comment><comment><USER70> When I saw The Hobbit 3d 48fps, I wasnt looking for any specific differences from the status quo. And i didnt notice any. If someone has to really look for the differences to notice them, then they are relatively unnecessary. I like that they are trying to push the envelope tho.

</comment><comment><USER71> I haven't seen the movie, but I had a very similar experience going from 25fps PAL CRT to full hd LED 100hz - all TV shows just looked amateurish and home made! That's how I would describe it. Eventually after a few months my eyes adjusted and now everything is back to normal.

</comment><comment><USER72> > "I've always preached that a director or photographer should INCLUDE > elements in a frame or shots that add to the story, and EXCLUDE elements or > shots that detract from it."

The genius of Tolkien is in the detail of his world, a detail no author I have read is yet to emulate.

</comment><comment><USER73> Maybe 3D HFR could be made to work if we had much more realistic lighting, makeup and VFX?

</comment><comment><USER74> The guy from Flat Panels HD (good Danish TV/monitor review site) enjoyed it after adjusting:

[http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&...](http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1355734483)

</comment><comment><USER75> > _It's like being on a film set in person: all of the magic is lost._

This is a common theme among HFR detractors: The fact that "It's too real" when viewing _Middle Earth_ is a helluva left-handed insult.

</comment><comment><USER76> An interesting comparison with videogames, where higher FPS is striven for. 60FPS would be considered optimal (on consoles at least, PCs can go much higher).

</comment><comment><USER77> I'm really curious what the reactions would be if the movie started at 24 fps and smoothly increased the framerate, to 48 fps at the end.

<comment><USER31> I would imagine you wouldn't notice first, but when the scene changes half through the movie you would say "hey, somethings different now"

<comment><USER78> I suppose you could use that for stylistic effect. Like a change of mood in the story, or a changed attitude of the character.

<comment><USER79> That's exactly the approach that Douglas Trumbull wanted to use in _Brainstorm_ where the replayed experiences of others would have been displayed using his 60fps Showscan techbology:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_%281983_film%29>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Once DPs get a hang of exposure and motion blur to look the same as on slower frame rates, this debate will be over.

</comment><comment><USER81> Is the Imax version of the hobbit also 48FPS? Aslo How do I know beforehand which theaters have 48?

<comment><USER82> In my country, only one of the 6 IMAX cinemas is showing the movie in IMAX 3D HFR, the others only show IMAX 3D. All of them offer non-IMAX 3D HFR versions, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Let's wait until the first 3D+48FPS porn movie comes along, and then we can decide ;o)

</comment><comment><USER84> The Hobbit was just beautiful. I only watched the 2D version and it was incredible.

</comment><comment><USER85> This guys full of it. There's no way you can see the same movie and tell me you "connected" more when it was just 2D. If he wants to be a film purist he should say so, I'm fine with people preferring one format but I bet he'll be watching the film when it comes out on Blu-Ray and NOT his VHS...

<comment><USER85> Also, I saw it in 3D HFR and thought it looked amazing! Everything was so clear and I could see the pores on peoples faces and the battle scenes flowed much more smoothly. The only thing that bugged me was the glasses which wrapped the head too tightly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> I wonder if adding motion blur in post production would help.

</comment><comment><USER87> It's fascinating how many comments here seem almost offended that someone had the affrontary to dislike a technical improvement on artistic grounds.

<comment><USER88> I would say that you must be offended that people have a differing opinions, because I see little offense among others. Yes, other people disagree, as they should.

Another poster hit on a point of contention that has always bothered me, which is the "I can correlate it with something different (soap operas, football, etc), therefore it is worse". That is not a credible position, yet it is returned to again and again in the piece.

Better technology always has the capacity to present worse (48fps can be 24fps if you want, and you can vaseline up high definition to the point of achieving low definition), while the opposite is not true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> It's unfortunate there is not a 2D HFR version; I'd like to sample future technology without present anti-features.</comment>


Are You Productive In the Morning Or Creative at Night? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.timberry.com/2008/07/productive-as-a.html

<comment><USER2> I think most coders are more productive at night because there are fewer distractions, when they're not expected.

At night, I typically go into the "zone" where I'll allocate most of my attention span to my code base and to the syntax of a particular language and to the higher-level problem at hand, and my productivity is pretty high. But during the day, I usually can't get into that state, so I bounce back and forth between talking to people, answering questions, meetings, and coding.

<comment><USER3> _I think most coders are more productive at night because there are fewer distractions, when they're not expected._

You can say the same of very early morning. With the added bonus that then your brain is refreshed and works faster.

<comment><USER2> Sure. I think most people merge the very late night with the very early morning.

Ie my most productive coding sprees are from about midnight through 10am. And then I hit a brick wall ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am most creative when I sleep. I wake up with ideas. But I'm not productive in the morning. If I can get to the office before it gets too busy or distracting, I find I can jell a lot of ideas in the morning.

I am productive late at night, when I can go into the coding zone with little interruption. But that late night time is generally not creative for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> I notice that when I get enough sleep I will sometimes spend the last dream of the morning solving (or at least advancing on a solution) to a problem I have been wrestling with. My dead time is after lunch until early evening, I try and schedule phone calls and interaction with other people to renew my energy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm most productive in the early morning. I think the key to creativity is that leisure is an important part of it. The best ideas come during downtime of one form or another - hence we hear of people having ideas in the shower, or when they sleep, or walking around (my personal favorite). We generally have more leisure at night.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is a false dichotomy; thought patterns are more nuanced.

<comment><AUTHOR> In this case productive for me means "focused on closure" or "getting things done" and creative means "generating possibilities, exploring new approaches." Obviously inspiration can strike at any time, and you have to find ways to get things done and even when you are not inspired.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I found recently that I am most productive before eating anything in the morning. That was a study tip from one of my teachers, I should have paid attention.

<comment><USER8> It's exactly the opposite for me. If I don't eat a good breakfast I'm likely to get nothing done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think i am most productive at night, I am awake almost all night and sleep in the morning and wake up at noon. The reason, nights are productive is because 99.9% of the people are sleeping, no phone calls to disturb, no online friends pinging you and many more reasons.

</comment><comment><USER10> I find it's easiest for me to focus in the morning, from around 8AM to 1PM and in the evening, from around 6PM to 10PM.

I don't know about "productive" versus "creative," though.

<comment><USER11> _I don't know about "productive" versus "creative," though._

Me either - creativity and productivity aren't mutually exclusive in my business so I would struggle figuring out when I was better at one or the other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think people are creative at night because the body becomes tired and has less energy to interfere with inspiration.</comment>


Social Media Venn Diagram - <AUTHOR> http://site.despair.com/socialmediatee/socialmediavenndiagram.jpg

<comment><AUTHOR> Somehow, this makes sense - although the myspace categorization is questionable. Maybe it's the strobe lights.

</comment><comment><USER2> For some reason I both flagged and upvoted this. Where does that fit in the diagram?</comment>


Moonshine – A lightweight Lua VM for the browser - <AUTHOR> http://moonshinejs.org/ <comment><USER3> This is great to see! It's important to note that this isn't just yet another "X compiled to Y using Z", but a VM written from scratch natively in Javascript.

The result is a much smaller size, it's more understandable, hackable, extensible - all things that Lua's standard C implementation is great for. It's likely also easier to optimise this way.

I began on a similar project some years back, but as many spare-time projects go, never finished it: [http://code.matthewwild.co.uk/ljs](http://code.matthewwild.co.uk/ljs)

<comment> j-b Interesting, any useful resources you recommend for those interested in learning how to write a VM in Javascript as a fun side project?

<comment><USER4> Don't write it in JS :)

No but seriously, if you want to write a VM in Javascript, I would suggest learning how to write a VM in a language more suited to writing a VM in. Maybe C or C++ then writing one in Javascript.

<comment><USER5> Do what you want. The nice thing about writing a managed language with GC in a managed language with GC, is that you don't have to write the GC. (Or the JIT, if you do it right.)

<comment><USER6> It's not really a VM then though, just a compiler.

EDIT: Maybe also a runtime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Another good one - for those of us who love Lua (I Do!) is the MOAIFiddle editor:

[http://getmoai.com/forums/moaifiddle-an-online-moai- editor-a...](http://getmoai.com/forums/moaifiddle-an-online-moai-editor-and- player-t2604/)

(Edit: some direct links to already-working examples: [http://moaifiddle.com/Q09BJWGMW6](http://moaifiddle.com/Q09BJWGMW6) and [http://moaifiddle.com/262FBR1ZR8](http://moaifiddle.com/262FBR1ZR8) and [http://moaifiddle.com/262FBR1ZR8/2](http://moaifiddle.com/262FBR1ZR8/2))

This is a full-blown (web-based) development environment for the MOAI Game toolkit, which just happens to be able to deploy to not only Android, iOS, Windows, Linux, OSX hosts .. but also - as demonstrated - to html5+js hosts.

So, if you've ever wanted to check out MOAI but have been put off by the need to build your own host for the OS of your choice, you can just use moaifiddle to get your project done, see the results directly in-browser, and prepare your app before even having to download the MOAI SDK. Sweet!

(More details about the cross-platform game toolkit, MOAI, are available here: [http://getmoai.com/](http://getmoai.com/))

<comment><USER8> I love Lua too but I've tried to get into Moai several times and I just can't seem to stomach it. Maybe I let Corona spoil me.

The documentation is especially off-putting: [http://getmoai.com/docs/](http://getmoai.com/docs/)

<comment><USER7> I've been working with MOAI for 3 years now, so I guess I'm quite biased - <USER2> I find it awesome.

Yes, the Docs - well these are generated docs, courtesy of doxygen. You really need to start at the wiki, and then work your way through _all_ the samples in $MOAI_ROOT/samples/

[http://getmoai.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page](http://getmoai.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page)

And of course the tutorials and other refs from the github:

[https://github.com/moai/moai-dev/](https://github.com/moai/moai-dev/)

MOAI does take some patience - but on the other side of that effort, is a fantastic framework that makes game development easy and fun. There's something just so elegant about it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It would be nice to see other languages available as real languages, not compiled down to Javascript. I love me some javascript, but it would be nice to work in Python, in the browser.

<comment><USER10> There's [http://www.skulpt.org/for](http://www.skulpt.org/for) Python in the browser.

<comment><USER11> That stuff uses JS. It would be nice to see a Python runtime in-browser with no JS involved whatsoever.

<comment><USER12> How do you envision this happening? Either the runtime would have to be written in JS or you'd have to get all the browser implementers to adopt your virtual machine — which, I mean, why would they?

<comment><USER11> "why would they" \- and that is the saddest part. We are locked-in now.

<comment><USER12> I agree and used to agree very enthusiastically, but now I kind of understand the browser makers' position. Like, I don't love having my favorite runtimes locked out, but I also don't think having 15 virtual machines bundled with every browser would be a great outcome either. We've already seen how in- browser VMs turn out when they're not adequately maintained with Flash and Java, and it isn't pretty and it leads to people's money getting stolen. So I can't really blame the browser makers for not wanting to go down that road.

What we have now isn't the very best thing I can imagine, but I think it's an OK compromise. We have a set of runtimes that implement a fairly consistent Turing-complete set of instructions, so we can implement just about anything we want and express it almost any way we want. And in the end, I think that's the most important thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A presentation given at the London Lua Group about it's development: [https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/3820-developing-a- lua-v...](https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/3820-developing-a-lua-vm-in- javascript)

</comment><comment><USER14> ...I know it's the fashion to write compile-to-js languages and js-VMs for other languages, but I really have to ask: WHY? I mean, Lua is a dynamic language with first class functions just like Javascript is, no big difference here.

I understand clojurescript, parenscript and haskell to js compilers, because these languages _are really different from javascript_ , so they offer you a very different way of working and different tradeoffs (Clojure, CL, Haskell offer you the ability to choose a programming style that is just not possible in Javascript). Maybe even Opal or Amber - rubyan/smalltalkian oop semantics really are very different from Javascript's and you end up using very different design patterns. And I understand the wish to have static typing for large projects/teams, ergo TypeScript or Dart.

 _But I really don 't understant why would anyone go through such pain (by pain I mean not writing the transcompiler/vm, this is the fun part, I know, but debugging it, maintaining it and debugging the code you use it on), to use a language so similar to Javascript, like Lua or Python, instead of using just plain Javascript and making some minor effort to 'use strict', avoid some dark corners and get used to living with a little less syntactic sugar?_

<comment><USER5> _WHY? I mean, Lua is a dynamic language with first class functions just like Javascript is, no big difference here._

You can use objects as keys in Lua. This makes a lot of code in Lua a pain to port to JavaScript. I have Lua code I would like to port to JavaScript that this applies to.

<comment><USER14> Got some sample code or a link to it? I really like figuring out ways to express existing code in a different style/pattern/language :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This would be even more amazing if there was no dependency on `luac` to compile to Lua bytecode. I'm developing a web application with user-scriptable features, and I'd love to use Lua (to provide a better user experience for my non-webdev audience), but the dependency on a server-side compilation step is a problem for my use-cases.

<comment><USER7> Use luac locally to compile the bytecode, then include it in your deployment to the server somewhere?

<comment><USER15> The app _front-end_ has user-scriptable features - I should have been more specific. My app has no back-end, and it is unacceptable to set up a back-end for the sole purpose of running luac on user scripts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Has support for coroutines -- awesome!

<comment><USER17> [citation needed]

<comment><USER16> The examples don't support deep linking, so here's how you get to the example:

Try It -> Examples -> Coroutines

<comment><USER17> Ah. Thank you :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I work with moonshine, if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm loving how everything is moving to JS :)

Can someone explain why I might want to use Lua in a browser over JS? Does it have a fundamental feature that JS does not have?

Cool name btw!

<comment><USER20> I hate how everything is moving to JS :) I wish somehow there were multiple languages targetting a common bytecode.. but that won't happen for some reason I can't understand because I stopped in the middle of the dragon book.

<comment><USER21> Personally, I feel that the biggest slap in the face to developers in the last decade is that V8 uses native code instead of byte code. In 10-20 years I hope we look back on Google's decision to do that and hate them for it.

<comment><USER22> it compiles to an ast first

<comment><USER5> Years ago at Camp Smalltalk, Smalltalk VM implementers talked about compiling everything to ASTs instead of bytecode.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So weird to see this here</comment>


We are barely halfway done - <AUTHOR> http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4711 <comment><USER2> It's sad to see a company go out of business, but I applaud the owners of Manuals Plus [1] for making such a large donation to the Internet Archive.

To provide some more context about what the actual contents of the archive includes, a description is on their about page [2]:

 _" Manuals Plus buys and sells Electronic Test & Measurement Equipment Manuals. We stock over 400,000 manuals at our Westminster, Maryland location. Our inventory consists of Operator, Service, Calibration, and Programming manuals."_

[1] [http://www.manualsplus.com/](http://www.manualsplus.com/)

[2] [http://www.manualsplus.com/About.php](http://www.manualsplus.com/About.php)

<comment><AUTHOR> The way I understand it, the company behind the manualsplus.com service (Ridge Equipment Company, Inc.) isn't going out of business. The issue is they needed to move to a new location and it didn't make economic sense for them to continue with the manuals part of their business when considering the cost of outfitting the new facility for their storage and moving the material.

<comment><USER3> If that's the case, they should be getting a nice tax deduction for the donation, right?

<comment><USER4> .. which might be more than they would have gotten for them in an auction. Clever.

<comment><USER5> Likely not, the ones they are throwing in the dumpster are making a statement about the estimated value of the rest of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Jason Scott is really one of the heros of our time. His dedication to preserving history is seriously amazing. I really hope to meet him one day.

</comment><comment><USER7> Jason Scott is doing an incredible public service here. Presuming this gets scanned and released to the public, it will over time result in many pieces of recycled electronics, inspired engineers, and derivative art.

<comment><USER8> > Presuming this gets scanned and released to the public

What is the copyright status of these manuals? I hope they don't bump into any legal problem though and they can release scans.

<comment><USER9> Some of the oldest ones are probably in the public domain, but I guess the others are still copyrighted; nevertheless, I trust the Internet Archive will have that figured out as they have collected plenty of other copyrighted material before this.

<comment><USER10> Archives have some pretty broad exceptions to copyright infringement laws.

[0] [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108](http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some context: [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4683](http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4683)

</comment><comment><USER12> What an amazing effort. In case someone local wants to join in:

The warehouse is located in Finksburg, MD, about 30 miles northwest of Baltimore.

[taken from the original post of the issue: [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4683](http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4683)]

<comment><USER13> I and many others spent basically all day there yesterday. It's fun to look through all of these manuals. It takes a lot of concentration picking out the unique copies and leaving the many copies behind. Especially HP.. arg so, so many revisions of the same manual.

<comment><USER14> Thank you for your effort.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If this weren't happening so far away, I'd be there to help. Historical preservation, especially of niche documents like electronics manuals, will become increasingly important over time as historical equipment needs to be maintained, patents need to be refuted with prior art, etc.

</comment><comment><USER16> He's getting great service from Uline, the packaging material supplier. 4-hour delivery on pallet loads of boxes.

<comment><USER17> Well that's because he paid $4,000 for it.

<comment><USER18> I paid $560 for the courier service Uline provided. The rest was the cost of the 1,200 boxes, regardless of shipping method (Roughly $3,400)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> you can get a view of what's going on by looking through the images at [https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/sets/721576572772417...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/sets/72157657277241785) there's also microfiche.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've never heard of this company before now. I've needed a manual for my Leader LBO-514A oscilloscope, and it turns out they have one. I guess Jason has it now!

<comment><USER21> I needed a manual for a piece of consumer electronics but they didn't have the manual. The manufacturer did though when I contacted them. I thought about giving the copy to this company but I felt no desire to help some business out like that, but for the IA, heck yeah, I might have to send it off to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Oh wow, I thought this was in SF, and then I realized one of the guys in the picture is Maze, a guy who helps run a hackerspace here in Baltimore. I had no idea this was happening! And not only do I have to work, I injured my neck and back, so I can't lift anything. And no car. Crap. I hope more local people find out about this, though!

<comment><USER23> If you know people in the area, can't you make a few calls to see if anyone else can help?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wish I could be there to help. But I can't, so I made another donation.

Jason and the other volunteers, my thanks! You guys are heroes.

</comment><comment><USER24> Jason, You continue to make me feel awesome about humanity. Say hello to socks for me.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think, we all should tip to buy a vacuum book scanner for Mr Scott, if he shall decide to digitize manuals. You won't believe how useful this library will be for the folks in the field.

<comment><USER26> It would probably be better to donate such a thing to the Internet Archive and get to use it for this project. This guy is renting storage space for the manuals out of his own pocket, it's unlikely he has space for industrial scanning equipment at home.

<comment><USER27> Jason Scott works for the Internet Archive, as well as doing his own archiving and documentary work.

<comment><USER26> > Jason Scott works for the Internet Archive, as well as doing his own > archiving and documentary work.

Yes, I know.

The GP comment suggested giving an expensive, large industrial scanner to "Mr. Scott", which I interpreted as giving it to him personally. My point was simply that it would be more appropriate to give it to the Internet Archive.

<comment><USER25> I just thought that this particular mission was initiative of Mr Scott himself, not the Internet Archive as business entity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Let the future remember the past clearer than we ever could.

</comment><comment><USER29> Thinking outside the box here, would it not be more effective contacting some of the companies still operating (eg, HP, Intel, Philips etc) to see if they have some of the operating manuals already scanned, and available publicly?

<comment><USER20> You're right that it is not worth bothering with the manuals already online and available. But clearly they are so short of time they cannot spare the time to do such searches, and can only just grab them all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Wait Columbus? That's not drastically far..

</comment><comment><USER31> For context:

This is the third post in a series. The author (Jason Scott) is trying to save ~25,000 manuals, instruction booklets, and engineering notes (largely electronics related, created over the last 80 years). This is a large project, the company which owns the manuals currently is going out of business, and all the manuals will be thrown away very soon (re: tomorrow).

First post: [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4711](http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4711) Second post: [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4683](http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4683)

<comment><USER32> It is infeasible (IMHO) to deal with all physical manuals ever in this way, unless you are literally a Manuals Library that is supported by the county or whatever.

I think the only way to go forward is to digitize the shit out of everything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've noticed that a lot of headlines on HN are intentionally vague, to pique reader's interest. I'm not sure what being intentionally vague for an entire article is supposed to accomplish.

What is it that is barely halfway done?

<comment><USER34> Well also to comply with [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.

<comment><USER35> And this is a _perfect_ example of a time when using the original title is stupid. There's absolutely no good reason to insist on original titles for their own sake, when the original title is meaningless, lacks context, or is otherwise inadequate - none of which are necessarily the same thing as "misleading or linkbait".

<comment><USER36> The logic is to prevent sensational titles. By forcing the title to be the page's heading, it limits posters ability to target the hn audience with a snappy, BuzzFeed-like, heading.

<comment><USER37> So instead, authors of the article can target any audience with snappy, BuzzFeed-like headings, and the HN poster can either copy it or rewrite it, and they'll get complaints either way...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> wow, just wow. huge work indeed</comment>


Turpan Yuanyang Xiapu (vid) - <AUTHOR> https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=M82zOvlpIz8 <comment><USER2> This is the original title as suggested in the guidelines, but it's not very descriptive. The unofficial extended guidelines suggest using the subtitle or the first sentence of the article. The first sentence of the video is: "It's the great Chinese riddle: How do you feed more than a billon people?"

My suggestion is a variant like: "Turpan Yuanyang Xiapu: How do you feed more than a billon people?"</comment>


Snowden, NSA, and counterintelligence - <AUTHOR> http://20committee.com/2013/09/04/snowden-nsa-and-counterintelligence/

<comment><USER2> This comes across as a lot of nonsense. There is little here to support the rather outrageous claims. The whole "Ed" thing is typical of folks of a certain political bent who think diminishing a person through disrespectul over-familiarity helps their argument (think folks who constantly throw "Barry" into discussions referencing the President).

If there were ANY evidence Snowden was a Russian agent the US authorities would be leading with that for the simple reason it would rapidly undermine any popular support for him.

<comment><USER3> That's the thing I've been wondering about--either Snowden was a full-blown spy with lots of outside help, or he hacked his data out of the NSA on his own, with no formal spy training (and it wasn't as easy as downloading some files, either), which is ridiculously embarrassing for the NSA. The fact that they haven't branded him as a foreign agent _immediately_ is telling.

The author in this article seems like he's being deliberately obtuse--

" _Putin today called Ed "a strange guy" – whose main purpose is causing pain and suffering to Washington, DC. Which, let it be said, he has done rather well, thanks to the propaganda offensive waged by Greenwald, Poitras, and their helpers in several countries, with Ed's purloined information, and who have masked their radical activism under the (thin) guise of post-modern journalism._ "

Right, because there's nothing at all problematic with the programs that Snowden revealed, and anyone who has a major problem with them is clearly a 'radical activist.'

I think we've found a great example of the type of mindset that led to these programs being created in the first place.

<comment><USER2> Sysadmins have lots of access into systems. Governments routinely favor security theater over actual mechanisms to secure things. The US government has a strong cultural bias towards having outside contractors rather tha employees on the government payroll (partly due to the ideological bent of the major political parties and partly due to lobbying by contractors). These things make it more than plausible that contract sysadmins had far too highly elevated access into far too wide-ranging sets of systems. No spying needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While this post doesn't strike me as particularly credible, the ties between Wikileaks and the Kremlin bear some investigation. Assange chose to host a talk show on RT, which is a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. One wonders to what extent Assange, in his opposition to the United States, has allowed himself to be used by a regime that is considerably less progressive and democratic than the Obama administration.

</comment><comment><USER5> I read it as an interesting mix of conspiracy theory and potential counter intelligence ties. It certainly raises a couple of questions that are worth exploring. It will be interesting to see how things play out.

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting reading this. Particularly the language used. Shame in a way, because if it wasn't written in they way it is, it would sound plausible.</comment>


Designers as Pawns and Useful Idiots - <AUTHOR> http://www.andyrutledge.com/designers-as-pawns-and-useful-idiots.php <comment><USER2> I fully agree that non-paid design competitions like the one mentioned should be banned and avoided by every professional - but unfortunately that's not what the post's about...

All the Lenin, propaganda, bolsheviks, Marxism references are bordering on pejorative, he even goes the length to say that public schools are "non- Constitutional government agencies". Yeah, let's save health and education for those who can afford it, that will make things much better.

<comment><USER3> People who think that federalized public education and healthcare is unconstitutional would have no legalistic disagreements with those same programs implemented on the state level.

Let's face it---federal control of education has been an utter failure: substandardized testing, unfunded mandates, federal rules on what can and can't be taught in sex ed, and even inflated college prices due to the over- prevalence of student loans.

In short, what are you fighting for? Good education or federalized education? Because if its the former, you might actually find yourself on the side of those you seem to dislike now.

<comment><USER2> I'm not north-american. Where I live, state, municipal and federal public schools mostly differ on the funding source. Many federal schools are known for their excellence. Federal universities here are also doing great, and are the best in the country. But does it really matter? All government levels should work together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What?

This idea by Obama's campaign folks is pretty transparent. Plenty of people donate time, money or expertise to politicians that they support. All political parties make overt requests for donations, whether in pure cash or other forms.

The link color on the blog seems to suggest the author's political opinions and reasons for writing the post. This is apart from all the rhetoric contained within the content itself.

</comment><comment><USER5> How dare we give someone the chance to volunteer their time for something? From now on, I say we force everyone to require monetary compensation for all time spent on any projects, even if it's something to which they want to donate their time.

</comment><comment><USER6> It mentions that "the top %1 pay more than %40 of taxes," but I am pretty sure I've read that they make far more than %40 of all profits. [citation needed] of course.</comment>