The Hobbit's Higher Frame Rate To Cost Theater Operators 710
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.'"
Awesome (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?
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Piracy. Of course.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
They're only angry because they can't see in 3D.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew it! Theater managers are one-eyed pirates with wooden legs!
Nah, that's only when they charge you $10 for a bucket of popcorn and 32 oz cup of fizzy sugar water.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Ha....Americans, you have it all easy and still complaining! Let me do you the calculation for Amsterdam.
14 Euro for ticket IMAX 3D
4 Euro public transport (the weather sucked so no bicycle)
5 Euro - popcorn + Cola
So how much did we spend with my wife for a single movie - yep, almost 50 Euro...how often we do this - once or twice per year. Used to be tens of times per year.
I am eagerly awaiting the law that will make spending money on entertainment obligatory. Create public stigma to help along. "What, you did not spend money on the latest bulshit content? You terrorist or something?"
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
This brings up an interesting point -- will I be able to see this in 48 fps *without* gimmicky 3D?
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
You can see non gimicky 3D right now: Prometheus.
The visuals in that movie were top notch. Unfortunately, in order to see them, you must sit through the movie. What a load of crap.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I liked the story but wish I'd gone to the 2D theater. As opposed to Avatar, where I liked the 3D but the story was disappointing.
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.
Oh, public service announcement: DO NOT TAKE YOUR PREGNANT WIFE TO SEE PROMETHEUS. Don't ask me why. Just trust me and don't do it.
Re:Awesome (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.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
I have Amblyopia (one eye is stronger than the other) so 3D really doesn't do much for me. In addition I live in France where like most of the world outside the US, people who want to see movies in english have to put up with subtitles. The last movie I saw in 3D (Avengers) put the subtitles about a foot away from your face, which was really distracting & tiring (you don't want to focus on the subtitles but THEY'RE IN YOUR FACE). and decided once again to abstain from 3D if at all possible.
I saw Prometheus and feel that all your points on how great the movie was in 3D are overblown. The worm in the eye scene didn't need to be 3D to be creepy. The guys eyeball was most of the screen so 3D added little to nothing. The people I saw Prometheus with who all have normal vision are of the same opinion. 3D is a useless money grabbing technique that adds little & often distracts from the experience.
Re: (Score:3)
I saw that in IMAX 3D, and IMO the visuals were ruined by the fact that individual pixels were easily discernible. If I'd bothered to do the research, I could have learned that most they use so-called "2K" (2 Kelvin?!?) projectors, but alas, I took it on faith that IMAX would be higher quality. To add insult to injury, there were multiple self-promoting IMAX ads before the movie, extolling the superior sound and video quality. As far as I could tell, it was just the same shit I could have seen for $5 les
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a bit of gimmick in Pirates. For completely gimmick-free 3D film, try Hugo. Not in theaters anymore, though, but is on 3D Blu-Ray.
Re: (Score:3)
Coraline.
I really can't stand 3D in general, but it was very well done in Coraline, and I continue to hold that film up as an exemplar of how 3D can be used effectively to create an immersive film.
Re: (Score:3)
Pirates of the Caribbean part 3 [...] Subtract the "ooo wow" of 3D and you're left with a flat film filled with flat characters and a story that wouldn't even fill a 100 page novel.
Or a single theme park ride?
Re: (Score:3)
all of the people who expressed a preference wanted to see the 2D version.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. Just buy two pairs of polarised glasses, remove the left glass from one pair and replace with the right glass from the other pair. With two glasses with the same polarisation, you'll only be able to see one 2D channel.
What a concept. In fact, a back-of-the-envelope calculation I just did would indicate you could probably even make two such pairs of 2D glasses... Profit!
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Informative)
Or let someone else do the lense swapping for you: http://www.2d-glasses.com/ [2d-glasses.com]
Re: (Score:3)
But it still means you have to wear sunglasses over your regular glasses, and the picture is darker and harder to see. I'll wait and see it projected in 2d, or if they only do 3d, pirate it for initial viewing, and then buy the DVD when it comes out.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Informative)
It already exists:
http://www.amazon.com/Hank-Greens-2D-Glasses-Headaches-Discomfort/dp/B004X4L1UC/ [amazon.com]
A friend who gets headaches loves these.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I assumed that would be the case. However -- how many theaters will actually run 2D + 48fps when the same projectors can do 3D + 48fps (and they can charge more for the tickets because 3D is EXTREME).
Re: (Score:3)
"They charge a premium for 3D that half of everybody hates."
Fortunately for me, its the BOTTOM half, that hates 3D - so I'm largely unaffected.
Interestingly enough, it's the same half of me that LOVED "Sensurround" [wikipedia.org], back in the day. Go figure!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I remember 'Sensurround'... (Score:5, Funny)
Really? I remember getting a real submarine. No crew of course, but the rest of the kids in the neighborhood filled in.
Re: (Score:3)
The premium is for 48 frames per second, they're already charging you for the 3D part. Last time I went to the theater for a first run movie it was $14 for a matinee with a coupon and $6 for a small popcorn, and that was their smallest screen and not in 3D (they want $16 for a matinee, $22 for prime hours for that)... I think can skip the 3D and wait 2-4 weeks for the $2 theater with $2 popcorn. I don't really give a flying f**** about 3D anyway, and blu-ray vs DVD isn't that big of deal to me either (if I'
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only have the ticket and food prices gotten complety INSANE, but the last time I went I also got the benefit of sitting through about 30 minutes (seriously, not an exaggeration) of Coke commercials, car commercials, and trailers which were mostly completely unrelated to the style of movie I was seeing.
Pretty much avoid theaters now. Had enough, thanks.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
As a former movie theater employee (some 15+ years ago) when you pay for a movie, the theater sees very little of it.
I think the way it broke out then was they kept ~2% of opening week ticket box revenues, after a few weeks it jumped to ~6% and I think topped out around 10% before they weren't around anymore. Budget theaters keep a much higher percentage, but they have really old movies...
The theater makes all their money on concessions (thus the ultra expensive popcorn and soda) one of those bags back then cost maybe $30 for mountain dew syrup (which btw pours out as an interesting sludge/slime that tastes nasty without mixing), it makes a crapload of soda, and as you know, popcorn kernels are cheap, the canola oil is also reasonable, but that is where they make the money (or did) not sure if the 3d surcharges go to the theater or not... I'd imagine the distributor keeps a good amount of that too!
Re: (Score:3)
I saw Prometheus in 3D at the Roseway Theater in Portland for $9 opening night.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
Decline? It's shit like this that gets me into theatres. Before Avatar came out, I hadn't seen a movie in a theatre in a decade. Since Avatar came out, I saw it, Up and Star Trek, all 3 in 3d, and two of three in IMAX. If you're not showing off top of the line equipment, I'll just watch it at home.
If my local theatre can display The Hobbit in 48FPS, I will attend. If they do not, I will not. Simple as that.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
Already invented: Speech Jammer [slashdot.org].
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Decline? It's shit like this that gets me into theatres. Before Avatar came out, I hadn't seen a movie in a theatre in a decade. Since Avatar came out, I saw it, Up and Star Trek, all 3 in 3d, and two of three in IMAX. If you're not showing off top of the line equipment, I'll just watch it at home.
If my local theatre can display The Hobbit in 48FPS, I will attend. If they do not, I will not. Simple as that.
Amen. I have better sound, video, and a pause button at home. Plus, the local metroplex wasn't keen about my showing up in jammies and slippers.
However, they do have a brand new IMAX theatre, so films like The Dark Knight Rises will get me there. The other draw is an adults-over-21 area with 2 screens that serve food and liquor. The food and drink are overpriced and mostly lousy BUT no teenagers with cell phones and nicer seating is terrific. Without one or the either....technology I don't have at home (yet)...or a dumbass free environment, I'm keeping my butt and dollars at home.
I will check out one or two films shot at 48fps, especially if one is The Hobbit, and see what I think. My local theatre is very good at the latest gear upgrades and I expect they'll go with the 24-48fps costs if it's at all feasible.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
It doesn't have to be 3D for 48 fps to look better than 24 fps. Likewise, a 70 mm film size doesn't have to be 3D to look better than a 35 mm film. I saw the original Tron in 70 mm when I worked at Disney (and a week before anybody else, too!) and it was amazing how much more clear it was than the 35 mm films I'd seen previously. Likewise, doubling the frame rate
Re: (Score:3)
If widescreen format really did give you more frames per meter of film, you wouldn't need an anamorphic lens to display it. No, you don't get more frames - they are roughly square frames, and they are "unpacked" with the anamorphic lens to the full width.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, 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.
Classic 2D is best (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a classic book like the Hobbit should be available in classic 2D.
Then again, I can't see most 3D theater experiences.
Re:Classic 2D is best (Score:5, 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.
Re:Classic 2D is best (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfect!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm expecting them to have shot at around 1/96.
According to the first Google hit for 'hobbit shutter speed' they shot it at 1/64. So it would be extra-stuttery but probably OK.
Re:Classic 2D is best (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they'll just give film theaters double the film (hopefully they have large platters!) and instruct them to hook the motors up to a 240V source instead of 120V.
I'm no electrical/mechanical engineer, but I'm pretty sure that you can just double the voltage on any given motor/gear system to double the speed with no negative repercussions.
Re:Classic 2D is best (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Replying to correct myself. They depend on frequency for speed. Current for torque, and voltage for not blowing up spectacularly.
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of Classic 2D, I wonder if they will just drop half the frames to get to 24
Why would they want to do that? Except maybe for when it hits TV with its 30 fps frame rate.
Our brains expect blurring with 24 frames/sec
Actually, your eyes blur fast motion but your brain keeps you from noticing it. Lessening the artificial blurring will make the video far more realistic, 2D or 3D. Doubling the frame rate will make your 2D movie much sharper. Plus, it will remove the "wheels going backward" in some scenes (
Re: (Score:3)
I was pretty sure the book was 3D.
Last I remember reading it.
Although the effects in the book were better and the acting was awesome. the 3d was perfect and caused no sickness or weird feelings at all.
Same as any other premium format (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Same as any other premium format (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, can't wait for the "laser show" version of LotR...
Along the same lines (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
My personal fear is that the forced switch will cause a lot of smaller theaters to close, particularly the drive-in ones
When do you live? The last time I saw a drive-in was like 15 years ago.
Uhm.. (Score:5, Funny)
So now I can sleep through this movie at 48FPS like I slept through the rest of the Ring movies at 24FPS?
--
BMO
Re:Uhm.. (Score:5, Funny)
So now I can sleep through this movie at 48FPS like I slept through the rest of the Ring movies at 24FPS?
-- BMO
The double frame rate of the film will carry over into your sleeping. You'll be able to sleep for 30 minutes during The Hobbit and you'll be as refreshed as if you took an hour nap during a Ring movie.
choices (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I, for one, will pay for higher frame rate. 48fps is even too low. I can see each achingly slow 1/24s frame as it crawls across the screen. Explosions and fast motion in action movies generally only take a handful of frames, and the illusion of motion is lost when I can see each one individually. No amount of motion blur will fix this. To me, watching action movies at a theater where I'm closer to the screen is an epilepsy-inducing stroboscopic nightmare that I generally avoid. It's moderately tolerab
Re:choices (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullfucking shit. When the exploding car is on the left side of the screen in one frame, in the middle in the next and on the right side in the 3rd frame, and all of them are blurry, I CAN SEE IT. It's a fuzzy mess and the brain will not piece it together. I don't give a shit about your worthless studies, because I have two of my own embedded in my skull.
The fact of the matter is that most viewers aren't sophisticated enough to know about various kinds of video artifacts. Doesn't mean they can't see it, it just means that they are either used to it, or don't have the vocabulary or experience to identify it. Asking unsophisticated viewers is useless. If you increase the frame rate, in the short run everyone will either not notice or think it looks weird, but in the long run everyone will love it and think older 24fps looks weird, and they won't be able to tell you why. And it will have its largest impact on action movies with fast motion. You can do a similar thing with audio: most people can't tell you whether one recording sounds better than another. But if you show them what MP3 recording artifacts sound like, suddenly they'll notice it all over the place.
Re: (Score:3)
Own a mirror?
False equivalency. Particularly with digital, there is literally no difference between a $5 audio cable and a $5000 audio cable. As opposed to a difference between 30, 60 and 120 frames per second - and yes, some people can tell the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
I begrudge them slightly. For every projector showing 3d that means fewer time slots for me to be able to watch the movie in 2d. Sure, it's not the end of the world, but is a minor inconvenience.
That's a good point. I don't often think of that because going to movies just isn't as important as it used to be. This is partly due to improvements in the cost and quality of home cinema (and you can have beer!) but also partly because it seems like there are fewer and fewer movies these days that are first-run must-sees. This may be because I'm older now and my values have changed, but it really seems to me like there's way too much mediocre cinema out there. The last three films seen in-theater were
fast frame more "real" than theater 3D (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
As significant as going to color? Really? Really? Are you going to tell us it is the greatest invention since man discovered how to make fire?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What was the point of that?
The universe is a 3D projection of a 2D surface? How does that impact those of us who are not stoned enough to think up that sort of bullshit?
Re: (Score:3)
There's no "frame rate of the universe" because events are not synced. Besides Planck length and time are not the physical limits of the universe.
3D Anyone? (Score:3)
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)?
Re:3D Anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
One person in a small minority with visual issues, responding to someone else in that minority, doesn't actually make any kind of point. It's not normal to get a headache from 3D done well, so you shouldn't project your personal variance from the average onto the general population.
Actually, it is quite common to get headaches from theatrical faux-3d. In fact, the people who suffer from this are those with superior visual acuity and visual processing in their brains - they perceive the difference between the depth perceived from parallax and focal distances and the forced changes in focal depth as physical impossibilities. Those of us who have visual issues or poor spatial processing are just fine with theatrical 3d.
If I were a theater owner I'd say "Hell no." (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:If I were a theater owner I'd say "Hell no." (Score:5, Interesting)
It does produce a better picture, despite the mixed reviews. Some people prefer vinyl over cd, which is at least arguable. And other people prefer DVD over Blu-Ray, for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. Some people don't like 120hz TV's, and others can't tell a difference. This industry has a lot of purists who prefer 35mm over digital, so a better digital to them still isn't "good enough", even though it is visbly better to the majority of people.
Investment implies long term demand (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Someone really hates high framerates... (Score:4, Insightful)
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'll pay for 48fps 2D (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Yay (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Ticket price will not go up soda and pop corn will (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Terrible (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Terrible (Score:4, Funny)
Don't you see copy protection when you see it?
No, but I do recognize a tautology when I recognize it.
This is the right way to do it (Score:3)
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.
Hobbits 4D (Score:5, Funny)
Framerate, baby! (Score:3)
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.
Edison -movie co-inventor- wanted 48 fps standard (Score:3)
So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:In other news (Score:4, Informative)
Just to check here: are you talking about watching films at the cinema, or films on/transferred from a Region 1 DVD? There are huge problems with transfering content from the cinema (24fps) to Region 1's NTSC format (30fps), as you might well imagine, and there's no way you're ever going to get a non-jerky pan when watching an NTSC-encoded DVD.
(Personally, I've never found 24fps (or PAL format DVD transfers) to be at all jittery, but that might well be differences in perception ... I do, however, avoid NTSC format like the plague that it is.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
That is a terrible misconception, it will be 'awful and distracting' only because you got used to films looking like films at 24fps and 'home video' having smoother motion. That's the thing though, 'home video' has had a quality advantage over 'cinema' in the smoothness department for a long time, it is sad that this increase in quality has become synonymous with poor films and videos. Maybe more ironic than sad.
All the other benefits of cinema will remain, higher picture quality, bigger screens, popcorn, b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Increasing the frame rate will make it look like a home video?
Yes. Home video was traditionally 50 or 60 fields per second. Movies have always been 24 frames per second, so we've been brought up to think that stuttering motion looks "cinematic".
This is probably the reason why some TV shows and music videos intentionally slow down the frame rate when they want to crank up the drama.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Higher frame rates are inevitable; we're just going to have to get used to them. Everything you cite with respect to the LotR scene is purely psychological conditioning in action. The transition to 48 FPS may be jarring and harmful to suspension of disbelief at first, but it still needs to happen, because 24 FPS sucks ass.
If we had always seen films at 48 FPS and someone came around suggesting that they would look better or more "cinematic" in 24 FPS, we'd laugh them out of the room.
Re: (Score:3)
That was true before 3D games came along, but now that everyone knows what 60fps looks like I don't think this association exists anymore.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC [wikipedia.org]
Re:In other news (Score:4, Informative)
Yep. Next time you go to a store that has a bunch of TV's on display, go find one that has the 240fps interpolation turned on and watch it a bit. Instead of looking epic, it looks like behind-the-scenes footage.
If that's not enough for you, try finding a few storiea about the Hobbit and the 48fps footage, you'll find comments like: "Day time soap opera."
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Next time you go to a store that has a bunch of TV's on display, go find one that has the 240fps interpolation turned on and watch it a bit.
Absolutely - it's a weird, and totally irrational, effect. I got a higher-frequency (interpolating) TV a couple of years ago and for the first month or two everything looked like - just as you say - "daytime soap opera" (i.e. as if it were shot on video). It's technically better, but it seems to trigger negative associations. Pity it doesn't work the other way (vis: ISTR some of the later seasons of Red Dwarf were run through a faux-cinema 'grainy' filter and they still weren't as good as the early stuff).
Re: (Score:3)
Much as I hate to defend Jackson, it's likely that the footage he was showing was production footage that hadn't been cleaned up or color corrected yet (i.e., glorified dailies). That's probably why it looked so bad, not because of the 48 fps.
Having worked on content at various frame rates I'm not inclined to agree. Sitcoms are typically done at 60fps, where dramas are 30 or 24. Remember That 70's Show? It was a 60fps comedy. I saw a special for that show once where they recapped a good portion of the series, and they got to the bit where Donna and Eric broke up. Instead of playing it back at 60fps, they dropped it down to 30, and it went from feeling comedic to feeling like a drama.
I cannot tell you the psychology behind this, but there is
TV vs. movie (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't you be both?
Why can't I want 72+ fps in my games yet appreciate the qualities that make film seem like film? One of the few things left that make movies seem like movies is the framerate. I can't stand watching anything original filmed in 24fps play on a 120hz tv with their special framerate-intrapolating software turned on. it's horrible. It turns something that was created as a work of art (let's assume I'm watching a good film) at 24fps look like something that the BBC spent 2 weeks and $20,000
Re:Not even 60 FPS (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 t
Re: (Score:3)
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).