Slashdot Mirror
The Hobbit's Higher Frame Rate To Cost Theater Operators
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.'"
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?
I think a classic book like the Hobbit should be available in classic 2D.
Then again, I can't see most 3D theater experiences.
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
It will also look like a home video and be awful and distracting
There have always been niche premium formats: 70mm, IMax, etc. The ones that are really valuable commodities spread, the rest remain niche, with niche content providers creating for them.
For a real niche, look at Planetarium productions.
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.
When a single movie ticket costs more than buying a Filet Mignon at the grocery store, I vow to stay at home and enjoy a juicy steak while reading the Wikipeida synopsis of movie "xxxxxx"
sudo make me a sandwich
People prefer it if games run at 60 fps, so why not higher framerates in movies? I am willing to give this a go as long as I don't have to pay more for the ticket.
So now I can sleep through this movie at 48FPS like I slept through the rest of the Ring movies at 24FPS?
--
BMO
As long as 24 fps is still available somewhere at current prices, I don't really see the problem. Let people who care pay the extra money for the higher framerate. If there are enough to make it profitable, the technique will continue. If not, it won't. In the meantime, I can decline to participate. It's all good.
Currently, given a 2D or 3D version of a film, we choose the 2D version. I don't begrudge the people who want to pay extra to see a blurry gimmicky image. That is their choice, and welcome to it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I've seen several examples of both. And guarantee you the former will make the movie feel more vivid than the 3D. Its as significant as going to color or talkies. I cant wait for all films to be shot this way.
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.
Can't it be both? :)
Are the theaters really complaining that they'll have a new gimmick to sell? After the whole charging double for a headache and annoying effects thing (3D)?
I already will not pay to see any movies in the typical multiplex cinema where these projectors will live. I damned sure won't pay extra for the privilege of being annoyed by talking, texting, etc. Fix that, and we might be able to renew our relationship, until then, you'll find me at The Alamo Drafthouse, McMenamins, or similar.
Show me another summer tent-pole film being shot in 48 FPS. Are theaters expected to break even on their hardware investment from their take on one film? Unlikely. Where's the commitment from studios to 48 FPS? Theaters need a future lineup of films that utilize the new projectors to justify such an expense. Also there is mixed work of mouth on viewer reaction to the new framerate, so that ups the gamble for early adopters who might be buying the next Edsel.
I sure as hell wouldn't be willing to pay a premium to see this in a higher frame rate. Movie tickets are expensive enough as it is.
I have no doubt that at least some of the movie-going public would do this, but I bet more wouldn't than would.
I'm sure Peter Jackson thinks this is going to make the movie experience oh-so-much better, but I bet most people wouldn't notice the difference, or care.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
One more reason for me to stay away from movie theatres. I already loathe going due to the unwashed masses that can't act respectfully to other movie goers for 2 hours and now an increase in price is sure to keep me away.
I'm so excited about this movie. The Hobbit, of course, was the first book of Tolkien's that I read and I'd hoped when they first said they were filming the series in New Zealand that it also would be the first movie. I'm more than happy to pay for quality. Heck, we already pay $15 but 3D movies these days, a few more for a movie like this is well worth it.
This is the second (if not more) article on /. complaining about the high framerate in this movie.
Yes, we should have lower FPS! Let's render it with a Riva TNT card!
I might pay for the 48fps 3D, but I would try 48fps 2D in an instant. It is about time 24fps went the way of B&W. Screw those old fart 'film buffs' who think that framerate makes movies look better' No, it looks wrong but you grew up watching movies that way are are simply used to it. Probablty also explains 90% of the fetish for tube amps amongst 'audiophiles'; their early impressions were formed with tube amps and they refuse to change.
But why not go all the way to 60? Would that be so wrong? It would make it compatible wirh HDTV without messy frame rate conversion. Plus I believe IMAX also runs at 60fps native. About the only advantage I can see with 48fps is that they can just merge pairs of frames for printing to normal 35mm and for the 1080p@24 BluRay release. (BluRay can't do 1080p@60, some players can but the format can't bless it.)
Democrat delenda est
A surcharge for this too? I'm surprised the theatres don't charge extra for that new fangled "air conditioner" technology at this point. Or maybe $1 per speaker in the theatre.
Oh well, just another reason to stay home and watch when it hits on demand for a tiny fraction of the cost.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
They already hit that point. My wife and I have not seen a movie at the theater for 2 years now. This year threare several that I want to see, but I am unwilling to pay $30.00 to see them. So I wait for the Bluray and watch it at home in my theater (Yes only 96" screen).. The theater experience is not worth it. Yay, some lady sitting behind me talking to the screen, crying kid in the front row, from the parent that brought a 6 year old to a R movie, to having the idiots that use their cellphones.
Yeah, the "theater experience" is sub par to a low end home theater at home. I have less than $6500 in mine and it blows out of the water any movie theater on this planet.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The theaters make very little, if any, from ticket sales. They make all their money in concessions. So, if a theater has to buy expensive equipment it will be passed onto the consumer through concessions increases.
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
48 FPS is a terrible choice.
24 Hz displays (theaters, yes, they do integer multiples) will be fine.
30 Hz displays (shitty TVs) will fuck it up royally.
24 Hz displays (theaters) will be fine.
60 Hz displays (TVs) will fuck it up royally.
120 Hz displays (TVs) will fuck it up royally.
You'll need a 240 Hz display to show it properly. And if you add 3D, direct view, active 3D setups (3D TVs) will have to do 480 Hz.
Fucker should have gone with 60 Hz.
So the film industry has realized that no one really wants 3D so they are desperate to try to find something to replace it with that they can use to justify inflated prices.
If you want a gimmick, how about quicker DVD/BluRay/Digital releases after the movie hits theaters. Or better still, how about direct to DVD/BluRay/Digital purchase option day of release. That way those of us who want to see the movie but hate having to see it in a theater filled with assholes can do so. You can still wait months to release it for rental at a cheaper price if you want. But I don't think there is as much overlap in each of those markets as the industry thinks there is.
viewer can make a difference between 24fps and higher framerates.
24fps: fast enough to perceive motion (unlike older black-and-white movie which looked more like an animated slideshow), yet not that high and a lot of too-fast motion either shows up as motion-blurred, or as dotted-path.
higher frameates (like Hobbit's 48fps or TV's 50/60 depending on regions) give a much smoother motion (they give a better temporal resolution). Fast motion looks less blurry or less doted.
Most of the current population of adult movie goer grew up with the habit that:
- movie = slow framerate = blurry motion., and movie = high quality.
- TV = faster 50/60 (depending on PAL or NTSC) = fluid motion and TV = lower quality
for them, whatching the Hobbit at 48fps looks "too fluid", which their brain automatically compares with what they are used to see on "TV" and which they associate with "lower quality". Thus they complain that the hobbit "looks like on TV".
Also some people might like the "blurry" effects on movie, just like some used to like the "grain" of analog medium, or the peculiart aesthetics of black-and-white movies. For these people, high FPS movies just steals a part of the artifacts which bring its "charm" to the medium.
Also a small degree of artifacts looking un-natural (motion blur, film grain, etc.) might help the whole feel a littre bit un-natural, and thus help give an impresison of "fantasy" for the movie. (Of course, for other people it's exactly the other way around: artifacts stand in the way, they want the picture to look as closely as possible to reality).
Gamers on the other side are used that the higher frame rate = the better quality because of more fluid motion. As the proportion of gamers gets higher in the general population and as the gamers grow older, more and more people will start to appreciate the higher frame rates in movie. Probably that 48fps isn't just a passing fad but will probably stay in the long term, it only needs the population to get used to it.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
If you're going to throw around some vague accusations of a plot to sell expensive equipment and raise ticket prices, then you ought to have at least a scrap of evidence that Peter Jackson, or the production company or the Move Studio in charge of distribution is tied to or is somehow making money from projection equipment bought by cinemas. Just saying "I wonder if..." isn't a good excuse to besmirch filmmakers.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Is anyone willing to go see how it turns out before forming an opinion? It might actually be a pleasant change. I always assumed that 3D worked by sending half the pictures to each eye, so if that's the case than each eye would still be getting the 24fps it's used to. My experience hasn't gone past Magic Eye pictures though, so I'm just talking out my arse here.
and Jackson said in a videotaped message
Ironic, no?
I don't have one, but a large part of the fetish for tube amplifiers is the equalizer curve they naturally produce during amplification. Many find the inaccuracy to be a pleasing 'warm' EQ curve, so in that case doing it wrong feels better because of a desirable equalizer overlay.
New tech causes cinemas purchasing new equipment causes ticket prices increasing causes NEW BOX OFFICE RECORDS!!!
Lower ticket sales will still generate box office records this way. It's been all down hill since Gone With the Wind.
Fuck the MPAA.
Everyone calm down and don't get mad. The media industry is doing something right for once. How do you get people to pay for a movie rather than getting a bootleg for free? Offer something in the theater that they can't get at home. It's how the free market works and they will have much better luck with this than they will with their "Lets sue everyone" strategy.
Despite what the article leads you to believe most major theaters can do well over 48fps and are installing projectors that are 4000p and above right now. This is the future of theater. It's a good thing.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/AudioQuest+-+Diamond+3.3'+High-Speed+HDMI+Cable+-+Dark+Gray/Black/2383276.p;jsessionid=310CCC6FDFA4F4B48027114FF363F3FC.bbolsp-app04-32?id=1218324437192&skuId=2383276#BVRRWidgetID
This comes to mind
I mostly agree, but there's usually 1 or 2 movies each year I will see in the theatre. Everything else I get on Blu Ray.
But generally, I prefer to be able to drink a beer, pause the movie for bio breaks, and the other things that watching at home give me. My leather reclining sofa is much more comfortable than the movie theatre -- and I don't need to worry about late comers, idiots who talk or text during the film, and crying children.
If I *do* want to see something in the theatre, I wait until IMDB puts the weekend box office under $7-8 million, and then catch it that week since it's likely to drop off from there. By then the worst of the crush is over and you can usually get a partly empty cinema.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
On TV, I see computer graphics and short clips (e.g. rotating logo for sports programme) which are at 30fps all the time. They have the tech right at their fingertips to create a lovely 60 fps computer graphics animation of (say) a football zooming and spinning into the screen, but no, all artists (or at least their producers) DEGRADE the quality to 30fps. Why?
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
I'd think a 24fps 3D projector should have no problem showing a 48fps 2d movie- Just remove the polorizing filters and have each projector interleave every other frame a half step apart. Am I wrong?
A sequel is in the works that will involve Hobbits running around on stage and reading their lines live. They also plan to act out commercials and trailers live to give a more movie theater like experience.
1. Most theaters have or are going all digital. With a digital projector, there is no reason it shouldn't support 48fps with a simple firmware update... In fact many already support alternate framerates so the theater can rent the rooms for presentations, live TV events, etc, none of which are 24fps. This nonsense about cost is just to allow the theaters to charge more for tickets.
2. Much like Retina/HiDPI needs to be experienced for a period of time before you can appreciate the difference, I suspect that once you get used to the improved quality of 48fps it will be annoying to drop back to 24fps. I used to think the iPad 3 screen wasn't a big deal for the first day or two I used it. Then I tried to go back to the iPad 2... I couldn't do it. The "screen door" effect was too glaring.
3. There is absolutely no technical question as 48fps is smoother and better. Film has long, slow pans *because* directors are used to working within the limitations of film... Not because it is necessarily better. Like any new technology, there will be people who abuse it. There will also be people who stick with the older styles or blend new and old.
Remember: 24fps was chosen as a reasonable minimum that would fool the eye (not look like constant flickering) but be as slow as possible to make the equipment cheaper to produce and especially to compensate for the insensitivity of early film stock which needed as long of an exposure as possible to register the action without excessively bright lights... In the earliest days sets were unbearably hot due to the massive amounts of light needed. Color film set this effort back for a while until the film got better, just as sound set portability back as cameras were loud so you needed barriers and had to find ways to hide microphones on set.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
So far there is only a short term demand - two films, Hobbit 1 & 2. And while The Hobbit(s) are a sure fire hit, theaters keep roughly 15-20% of a ticket sale. That's not very much scratch to help pay for a new projector. The rest goes to the distributor and studio. (The concession stand is the only pure profit section of a movie theater, which is why the price of Mike and Ikes is so damn high.)
People forget one of the reasons Avatar made so much money is it sat in many theaters for 36 weeks. There wasn't much content available for all of the newly upgraded IMAX screens. How to Train Your Dragon was the only film competing for the same screens. It's unlikely The Hobbit films will have such an extended run. They will have a shorter window to justify the expensive upgrades to the theater.
The safe bet for most theaters will be to run the 24 FPS version.
Like Blu-ray and even 3D, the framerate "War" is a solution waiting for a problem. Show me ANYONE in mainstream society who gives a shit about 720p vs 1080p or even Blu-ray vs DVD... Now have them do a comparison that is NOT side by side, they won't be able to tell. Now find me a single monster cable buying Blu-ray consuming joe-sixpack who will say "the problem with movies today is the framerate is too low". You will never ever be able to find someone who is not an obsessed spreadsheet spec consumer who cares.
ALL my non-tech friends thanked me when I turned off motion prediction on their expensive HD TVs (which is that feature that makes HD movies look like shit by predicting motion and simulating greater framerate to make it smoother aka more "soap-opera looking" in layman's terms.)
People care about story, spectacle, popcorn in that order. Nowhere on the ticket buying masses' list is framerate, though I look forward to the "General Hobbital" "One Ring to Live" and "Days of our Shire" jokes.
Film doesn't do 60FPS. You can only get rates like that using video, which is not the same thing as film.
If I remember correctly the record for film frame rate is in the millions of frames per second, in special cameras designed for nuclear explosion analysis and similar high-speed events.
And even fairly cheap movie cameras can hit around 100fps; I believe the Aaton we used a few years back topped out at 120fps. How do you think movies have shot slow-motion footage for the last century?
I saw 'Earthquake' with "Sensurround" in a theater as a teenager. Whenever another earthquake started up, big bass speakers kinda' made your chair vibrate, a little. The way they hyped it at the time, then teenager me expected to be part of an actual earthquake, being thrown from the chair! So okay, I was a gullible type who, as a 7 year old, thought if I mailed $2 and a coupon from a comic book, in 4 to 6 weeks I'd have a real submarine sent to me. And all I got for my $2 was a pice of cardboard that had dials and gauges printed on it. I'm still pissed and feel cheated about it!
I think a classic book like the Hobbit should be available in classic 2D.
I think a classic book like The Hobbit should be available in classic paper scroll form.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Now, that's what I look for in a good movie.
Who gives a crap about the screenplay, the actors, etc.
It's all about the framerate---NOT!
It seems to me that Mr. Jackson has been in the sun too long and is suffering from heat stroke.
...as I, and most people I talk to, won't pay extra for the gimmicks. I draw the line at anything more than 11 bucks a ticket; otherwise I am quite capable of waiting for the movie to come out on DVD. Yes, DVD. Bluray is remarkably unremarkable.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Nearly all the digital projectors used in theatres can go up to 60 frames per second. The few that don't have a native 48 fps mode can be upgraded with a simple firmware update.
BTW: Nearly all _film_ projectors these days do 48 fps (although they only advance the film at 24). They flash each frame twice to reduce the flickering effect.
While high frame rate (HFR) has been tried many times in the past and proved too expensive to catch on (though the additional expensi, the current push for HFR (both the 48fps for The Hobbit and the 60fps James Cameron has said he is using for Avatar sequels) is largely tied to 3D, not as an alternative, but as a means of addressing the downsides of 3D, as the queasiness some people feel with 24fps 3D is reduced with higher frame rates.
You mean studios will finally be able to pan at a reasonable speed without it looking jittery and fucking terrible?
24 fps is terrible and you should feel bad for propping up a dying standard.
Cameron ("Titanic", "Avatar") is pushing hard for 48FPS. His work has pans over exquisitely detailed backgrounds. That looks awful at 24FPS unless the pans are kept very slow. Or worse, some blur is applied, which is a common solution in action movies and is why many action backgrounds are out of focus. (Well, sometimes the backgrounds are out of focus to hide flaws background art and set construction.)
Action movies are going to look much crisper at higher frame rates.
I am pretty sure it was for asthetic reasons and not that he would 2x for selling film stock (although its hard to tell from Edison's scheming sometimes). The early industry experimented with 15 to 50. They settled for 24 which was the cheapest they could survive without the result being too annoying.
24 fps has been the standard for films, even though humans can perceive the flicker. (It's supposed to give it a special feel or whatever.) With 3d you end up with an effective 12 fps, unless you bump up the technical frame rate. So are they saying it will be effectively be 48 fps in 3d, requiring the theaters to buy 96 fps equipment? Cause I can definitely see that being a problem. On a more subjective level, I wonder if we really want to go down the road of computer monitors, tvs, and movie screens all pretty much looking the same; while originally movies were limited by technology to 24 fps, we've probably had the technology to set it around 60 (where the human eye stops being able to perceive the flicker) for decades.
If you remove the polarizing filters both eyes will see both images and you lose the 3D effect (you just get ghosting). The polarizing filters (on the projectors and glasses) are what makes sure each eye only sees images from the correct projector, they're not related to the projection speed.
Alternating frames requires active shutter glasses, which are more expensive. And, indeed, that's how active shutter 3D works, but, until now, one eye was seeing the film 1/48th of a second behind the other, since the two cameras were typically in sync to make post-production easier. With 48 fps cameras, active shutter systems will finally be able to feed each eye 24 "correct" frames per second (i.e., one eye will see frame 1L, then the other eye gets frame 2R, then 3L, 4R, etc.). Of course, if they just speed up the current system, they'll be doing 96 updates per second and one eye will still be slightly behind the other (but now just be 1/96th of a second), but my point is that 48 fps cameras have an advantage for active shutter stereo 3D even if that final movie is played at 24 fps.
Maybe, but the push for high frame rate is connected to 3D, which is why the big stories about films planning to use it are the Jackson's The Hobbit (which is 3D @ 48fps) and Cameron's Avatare sequels (3D @ 60fps).
Most modern theaters with digital equipment have variable frame rate setups which let them maximize their ability to rent out the auditoriums for other uses, where video presentations don't conform to the movie industry's 24fps standard. So the additional hardware investment to support the framerate of the 48fps The Hobbit (or the 60fps Avatar sequels Cameron has announced) would be zero. Which is pretty easy to break even on.
Just play it at 24fps so we can watch in slo-mo...
Not sure if you're trolling or just very ignorant.
Any good 35 mm film camera in the market can do up to 120 FPS, usually 240 (and these aren't even specialized slow motion cameras). Slow motion is far easier and cheaper to do with film than digital sensors. All you need to to is speed up the camera motor, and compensate the exposure by using higher-sensitivity film.
Most people have 60 fps display equipment in their homes. Many even have 100 or 120 fps display equipment.
The whole point of the article is few theaters have an easily upgradable option, that this will be an expensive upgrade. This isn't just flashing a new firmware. The whole reason they were showing the 10 minute clip at CinemaCon is because they were selling the new format to theaters that weren't ready.
Of course the cost will go to theatre operators...who else? Who do you think paid for upgrades to 3D capability? And digital cinema? This is a very worthwhile upgrade. 24fps is juttery and looks terrible for any scene with lots of fast movement. This is amplified on bigger screens... Take a look here: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ Set one ball to 24fps and the other to 48fps. Swap the background to one or the other as a reference. Now sync and up the pixels per second for all of them. Watch the terrible blur at higher px/sec on the 24fps ball. It hurts my eyes. Especially on a huge screen where everything is moving quickly and that blurry. Sure you can call the blur "cinematic" but guess what, directors can still at that blur in post production when it will bring something more to the picture instead of leaving you to suffer through it on scenes where it only takes away. Unlike 3D on shitty 24fps film, this is an extremely worthwhile upgrade, and one side effect is it will actually enhance the 3D experience in movies which are 48fps and shot in 3D. Call me a troll if you want, but anyone who thinks 48fps is bad clearly doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about, end of story.
Waitaminute, he wants theaters to play his 3D 48fps movie, but he releases a message on videotape ? wtf?
mod me funny
But you NEED to see it at the higher frame rate just like you NEED to see it in 3D! Someone in marketing told me so, so it must be true.
Now, I'm not an expert, this is all personal experience. That said, I'm one of the unlucky ones to be sensitive to flicker. I can/could see the flicker of refresh for the old CRTs when they were set to 60 hz. 70-72 generally fixed that, so I wouldn't rate myself as 'extreme', but I'm definitely in the minority. I also require a strong prescription to reach 20/20, including astigmatisms. When it comes to 3d movies, I start experiencing eye fatigue by 30 minutes in, and actual pain for longer movies. That being said, sure, I'd love to see a movie in 3d, but the question becomes 'is it worth the headache'? Especially if the ticket price is 50% more? We're looking at straws here. Our local theater tried showing films only in 3d, but found that they lost business that way. Cheapskates, headaches
This push for higher frame rates indicates to me that it MIGHT be due to frame rate; going 3d cuts the effective frame rate in half. So the traditional 24fps becomes 12 fps for 3d presentations(though there are tricks). I figure that back in the old days 24fps was chosen because it was the level at which 99.9% of the population was good with it. Cutting that in half just isn't going to work well. Going to a 48fps rate would simply restore the 24 fps(per eye) that has been acceptable with 2d presentations for decades.
If you figure that people like me are something like 20% of the population and that we're evenly distributed, your typical 'family of four' only has a ~40% chance of all members being okay with 3d and not whining to see the 2d version. Which isn't good when you're looking to charge a premium and get higher profits for the 3d version. People messing with the 3d glasses to restore 2d images is very much in the minority, and if it's the 12 fps that's causing issues, they'd get that with custom glasses as well.
I don't read AC A human right
You can watch the same movie at 24 FPS if you want to. But just to warn you - it's going to take twice as long.
You need signoff WoW more often. It's been well know for a while the Hobbit is being told in two volumes.
Just because theaters can show a film at 48fps does not mean they have to. There is no one holding a gun to their heads saying that that must show it at 48FPS or they can not show it at all. It is a choice by the theater as to what format they will display and a choice by the consumer as to what format they will pay for.
I may be showing my age, but when movies were shown by film projectors, they showed them at 48fps. However, the movie was produced at 24fps, and the projector showed each frame twice. The reason not to produce at 48fps was that it doubled the film length, which at 24fps is usually two reels. 48fps reduces the peripheral flicker, which are more perceived by the cones in the outer regions of the retina. Rods don't seem to notice much flicker over about 24fps (unless you are a native of New Guinea, but now I digress).
$6500/$60 is 109 movies though. For most people that just does not make financial sense, the $6500 investment would not be able to pay itself back in saved theatre tickets. Obviously the economy is better if you generally have more people watching, and worse if you have to include buying or renting movies.
Most people are better off paying the $30 each time.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Sick to death of having movies ruined because some jackass can't stop running his his mouth for ten seconds.
This, more than anything else keeps me out of theaters.
but they never seem to captilize on it. i once emalied nato (national organization of theater owners) and asked about them standing up to the studios.
i went on about how their justification for outlandish concession prices in regards to not getting much on the actual showing of the movie was asinine
and that they should use their collective bargaining to get a higher share of ticket sales. yeah, they never did respond, but my point stands.
they have all this power but do nothing about it. where else is hollywood going to show its films?
...
Last time I went to the theatre, I had to queue so long for tickets that we missed the session we wanted. Had to wait around for the next one.
Crap service, horrendous prices - would rather wait for the DVD to come out & watch it at home.
While the response for a film like the Hobbit should be strong. Customers are not willing to pay more for a ticket unless it has some fancy marketing brand on it like Digital3D or IMAX.
Likely there will be no branding for this 2nd gen 4K video equipment. Thus consumers will not pay extra. If theaters charge extra for the film without much explanation, we'll see customers who choose theaters that do not charge extra or worse, customers who wait for the blu-ray or streaming version.
Peter Jackson is gambling big time with this push to bring theaters up to a higher visual standard, and I think it could backfire horribly.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
For the skeptics, this website is great at showing a comparison between 30fps and 60fps: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
BluRay comes into it's own if you have a large screen and a top-notch sound system.
Most people don't.
I've only seen 2 films in 3D: Avatar and Prometheus. Luckily.
My immersion in Avatar was so significant that I felt like I was moving and teleporting with every panning shot and switch.
About the time the crew of the Prometheus were charging towards the dome, I thought to myself: "I haven't seen much that is this entertaining." The overt storyline was a little linear and many characters not fleshed out but, for me, proper 3D more than doubles the entertainment factor of even decent films.
In both films I thought 3D has a long way to go. Avatar started off brilliantly, the first shot from a cockpit flying over the jungle demonstrated 3D perfectly. My jaw literally dropped. I was there until I started getting motion sickness from the factors I mentioned earlier.
In Prometheus, 3D wasn't apparent for the first minute or so of the film until the crucial-but-forgotten scene of the alien dosing himself. I started wondering about whether the film was set up for someone with a shorter distance between their eyes. [I don't have weird bug-out eyes but am male and do have a large head].
When there was a large distance between the foreground object and the background object, it really didn't look right, and I don't think it was a matter of the objects being in focus/blurred.
Agree the cesarean was extremely well done. The only thing lacking was the physical sensations (thank God). And the scene, although not properly set up by Ridley Scott (motivation and Shaw's immediate intention weren't properly apparent), was very powerful in a non-forced way.
When they start talking to the alien, Shaw's far more important questions get lost in the shouting -- and they miss referencing the first scene, which is the only way to answer them.
I really think this guy was wanting to say nitromethane not TNT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitromethane#As_an_engine_fuel
Which is followed by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitromethane#Explosive_properties
Why would you watch only 109 movies? and then throw it away? I can get thousands of movies out of it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I liked the story but wish I'd gone to the 2D theater...And NOT worth $32 for two tickets. More for IMAX. More for 42fps, someday. They're just guaranteeing that I'll wait for it to come out on Netflix.
I saw Prometheus the release weekend, but waited until Sunday afternoon and watched it in 2D. Even at a very nice theater that only cost me $5.75. At that price point I left happy. The movie was OK with some memorable concepts and imagery. At $16 I would have been disappointed.
Yes you can, and for you it makes a lot of sense. For most couples, 2 x 109 movie tickets would be enough for at least a decade. (Yes that is less than one trip to the movies a month).
The intersection of people who can find $6500 (generally not students) and people who go to the theatre 109 times within the space of perhaps 6 years is rather small. Even smaller when you exclude the people who go to the theatre precisely to get out of their home :)
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Cinemas had to upgrade when talkies were introduced too. Likewise for 3D.
Okay, so many people aren't fond of 3D, fair enough. However high frame-rate is a much better improvement and long, long overdue.
Movies will look much better as we get the perception of actual moving pictures and not juddery slide-shows of today. Once people get over the soap-opera effect nobody will want to go back.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Next would be stage acting, which is almost life-like.. Or maybe holographic projected stage acting done by 3D models
You can do hundreds of thousands of frames per second if you've got a nuclear bomb for a flashlight. To do thousands of frames per second in an inside location, you need so much light people's eyes hurt. Have a look at lighting in vehicle crash labs. It's not pleasant to be around when it's on. High frame rates are certainly possible, but you need light, lots of it.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
The alternating frame system drops it to like 12FPS in a normal 3D movie. Something rushing across the screen really fast looks sooooo bad to me! I'm one of those people that can see the rainbow in even a high end DLP projector, probably from gaming and good nerves, but I've heard complaints from older and slower people as well. This is definitely a much needed step in the right direction. I've personally stopped paying extra for 3D movies and watched 2D versions to save money and get what I see as a better product. That's not good from an income standpoint for the movie or the theater.
It work like this for me - while watching the amazing visuals I was running a parallel movie in my head thinking and musing over the issues Ridley unsuccessfully tried to discus. Every now and then I would compare my "movie" with what Ridley showed us. I even "played" different dialog in my head. Thus I duped all my bulshit - meters and sat through the whole thing greatly enjoying myself.
It was such a successful strategy that I wrote positive review on a forum afterward and was politely laughed out from there. Only then I realized what exactly have I seen and that without the little trick I would have walked out of the movie midway...
James Cameron has said he is using for Avatar sequels
what the fuck? He's making sequels? Are you serious?
kill me now. Please
Dear Filmmakers,
If you want my Euros in your till, then try spending the money on scripts and acting, directing, costumes... !!
Regards, Another-Old-Fart
I have a large screen, and while yes you can tell the difference, I don't consider the increased fidelity to be all that noteworthy. Unless I'm looking for it, I don't notice it. Most people are the same way.
I don't have a sound system worth anything though, nor will I be purchasing one. So on that point I could see it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
There's no disputing that the advancements made in visual science are a marvel to behold, but I can't help feeling that most of the time it's just smoke and mirrors to make what would otherwise be a piss-poor film interesting.
Once you're inside, there is no competition for snacks and drinks.
Big pockets.
Or exercise a bit of self control and don't stuff your face for a few hours.
Have gnu, will travel.
3D in a movie should be like the subwoofer/bass in a surround system. It should be tuned so that you don't notice it is there, but you should notice if it is missing.
3D where they have things flying towards you out of the screen is like turning the bass waaaaay up. Tacky and very distracting.
As the previous poster said: good 3D will make the visuals look better. As will a subwoofer do for sound.
Harald
Though, you can bet that once the 48FPS trend catches on, studio will be more than happy to sell you 48fps-interpolated version of the old movie.
Just look at what's happening with all the "shot in 2D, then software enhanced to 3D in post production" movie.
Or even before that, the old black and white movies recolorized.
And be prepared for yet another edition of StarWars, this time iboth with 3D and 48fps. "This time finally showing the true vision of George Lucas".
And this time round, Greebo and Han simultaneously shoot the ceiling, then get together on the table and dance polka.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]