Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Hobbit's Higher Frame Rate To Cost Theater Operators

Posted by samzenpus on from the playing-catch-up dept.

kodiaktau writes "Film makers keep touting increased frame per second rate as improving viewing and cinema experience, however the number of theaters who actually have the equipment that can play the higher rate film is limited. It makes me wonder if this is in the real interest of creating a better experience and art, or if it is a ploy by the media manufacturers to sell more expensive equipment and drive ticket prices up. From the article: 'Warner Bros. showed 10 minutes of 3D footage from The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at 48 frames per second at CinemaCon earlier this year, and Jackson said in a videotaped message there that he hoped his movie could be played in 48fps in “as many cinemas as possible” when it opens in December. But exhibitors must pay the cost of the additional equipment, and some have wondered how much of a ticket premium they would charge to offset that cost.'"

6 of 710 comments (clear)

  1. Awesome by dubl-u · · Score: 5, Informative

    I love this. They charge a premium for 3D that half of everybody hates. Now they'd like to charge another premium for 3D that will suck a bit less.

    I look forward to the next article bleating about the mysterious decline in box office attendance. What could it possibly be?

    1. Re:Awesome by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Informative

      Back when they were actually using film, what allowed wide-screen in the first place was rotating the film 90 degrees as it passed through the camera... each frame could have an essentially arbitrary aspect ratio either way by increasing or decreasing the amount of film that was exposed with each frame, and by having it go sideways through the camera instead of vertically allowed it to have a wider aspect ratio like we see today. Switching to a different aspect ratio was a matter of changing the lens and increasing the speed that the film moves through the camera.

      Now that they're using digital cameras and largely digital projectors, though, it's moot... the aspect ratio is fixed to what the capturing CCD is capable of, and the final resolution is a question of how it's transcoded (most HD films are recorded in much higher resolution than the 1080p you buy on a bluray). *many* theatres have gone with digital projectors these days, and changing the aspect ratio with a digital projector is a matter of specifying either a letter box or pillar that gets overlaid on the source so that the final output is the native resolution of the projector.

    2. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The film was entirely shot in 3D (wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28film%29). I'm sure there were a few post-conversions for botched shots, but actual photographed stereo 3D can often appear extremely planar depending on the interocular distance (physical x separation) of the cameras and whether the rig was converged (where screen plane is defined) at the focus point or converged closer to infinity (spending the depth 'budget' on detail in distance rather than foreground roundness). I think a lot of the choice of shooting the way they did (converged to the back of set) was done in order to maximize the feeling of the photographed volume - in essence creating a sense of starkness in the 3D effect. Pina used this with exceptional endst. Most 3D is gimmicky in its execution, but it doesn't mean that non-realistic portrayals of depth can't be valid artistic choices.

  2. Along the same lines by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Along the same lines was the announcement that by the end of next year the major studios plan to stop the distribution of film prints. How many screens are there that don't yet have digital projection equipment, hundreds of thousands? My personal fear is that the forced switch will cause a lot of smaller theaters to close, particularly the drive-in ones that I've just rediscovered with my kids recently.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  3. Re:Classic 2D is best by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uh, 24fps movies are usually shot with a 1/48 shutter speed. Since this was, I believe, shot on Red digital cameras, they presumably shot 48fps at 1/48 so dropping half the frames will give you the horrid stuttering film look you're used to.

  4. Re:In other news by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Informative

    No. NTSC is fixed at 60 FIELDS per second. Being interlaced, that becomes 30 FRAMES per second. NTSC is the standard that has been used in the US from the beginning. In other countries you have PAL which is 50/25 fields/frames per second.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC