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
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
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
A director is free to add motion blur to his picture in post, if it's for 'artistic reasons' you can do whatever you want.
Just don't go and tell me that the blurryness in the fight scenes of 'the dark knight' where an artistic statement...
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
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.
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 ]
The "stuttering" effect you are accustomed to seeing when you watch movies at home is an effect of the movies frame rate not being accurately reproduced by your TV. A 120Hz TV solves this problem for 24 fps movies.
Unfortunately, 48fps will require me to get a 240Hz display to solve the same problem.
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.
I have my PS3 setup to output 24p with a 120 Hz LCD TV. The difference between watching a movie in the theater and at home is night and day. I don't see any of the issues at home that are prevalent in the theater, but I still get that characteristic low fps film look. As well, the brightness of a modern LCD TV allows for significantly more contrast than is possible in the theater. I simply can't enjoy going to the theater anymore, and 48 fps won't change that.
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
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.
Really? I remember getting a real submarine. No crew of course, but the rest of the kids in the neighborhood filled in.