'Avatar' Sequel Crashes Movie Theater Equipment in Japan (engadget.com) 75
Multiple theaters in Japan reported technical problems when playing Avatar: The Way of the Water. According to Bloomberg, one theater in central Japan was forced to reduce the 48 fps frame rate down to the traditional 24 fps. Engadget reports: Fans were reportedly turned away from other screenings and issued refunds. Some of the theater chains cited by fans as having issues, including United Cinemas Co., Toho Col, and Tokyu Corp., declined to comment on the problem. Not many movie theaters support high frame rate (HFR) 48 fps playback, as it requires the latest projectors or upgrades to existing ones. Normally, movie theaters would be aware of which formats they can play and plan accordingly. But HFR has been used so little that it would be understandable if errors cropped up.
Worth Seeing (Score:2)
Slashdot review. Is this thing worth seeing in the theaters?
Re:Worth Seeing (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably a better experience in theaters that supports 48 FPS than on your home TV
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting for the 120fps 4K at home.
Re: (Score:2)
and needs better sound then 5.1 or even 7.1
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Two hours? Two hours? Try Three hours and 12 minutes......
Re: (Score:2)
Way too slow. Need at least 480fps 8k to be even reasonably acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Don’t most tvs do 60hz these days? Pretty sure even my bargain Hisense does.
Re: (Score:2)
Many TVs attempt to add frames to increase the frame rate. But it is not always flawless with the frame rate sporadically changing as the TV fails to calculate suitable intermediate frames.
Having the source recording at a higher frame rate already is certainly the preferred solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're watching a movie that was filmed at 24 FPS, or 48 FPS as this sequel apparently was, then, yes, your 60p TV needs to either interpolate frames, or simply repeat some. This sort of thing has been true since the early days of analog TVs that ran at 30 FPS / 60i (or 25 FPS / 50i in some countries).
Re: Worth Seeing (Score:2)
Yea indeed. 24 fps Hollywood films are payed as-is at 25 fps (4% speed up) in PAL counties. In NTSC countries they employ pull down, which duplicates fields in a particular pattern. Ichijo mentioned 60i deinterlacing nicely to 60p, but thatâ(TM)s not really the same thing (an interlaced field is half the resolution of the frame, so something is being scaled and/or interpolated). 60 fps is irrelevant anyway when youâ(TM)re talking about about Hollywood content: 24, 23.976 (telecined) or 48 (HFR)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it's more the player and HDMI interface that needs to support it rather than the TV refresh rate.
Even traditional film projectors would have a refresh rate of 48 fps by showing each frame twice, but of course you couldn't run film through it twice as fast without some heavy modification
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but 48 doesn't map cleanly onto 60. So you have the choice of doing some janky-ass interpolation to get there, or dropping half the frames and running at 24 fps in "film mode" (which many if not most decent LCD TVs do actually support — all of mine have and/or do, AFAIK.)
Re: (Score:1)
Time for FreeSync or something similar in TV sets. The technology is already developed, lets adapt it for watching movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Some sets have this functionality, but I don't think anything will feed that kind of content. I'm pretty sure my shitty HiSense TV will sync to AMD.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprising that they still haven't sorted out a Blu-ray variation for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Worth Seeing (Score:5, Informative)
If you thought the original Avatar looked amazing enough for the common plot to not bother you, you will enjoy this one as well. Try to watch it in dual-laser IMAX 3D for the best experience.
Re:Worth Seeing (Score:5, Funny)
common plot
I didn't even realize until much later that I'd just had my mind blown by "Pocahontas." Still cracks me up a bit, haha!
Re:Worth Seeing (Score:4)
Avatar 1 was nothing like Pocahontas. I see this a lot and I think it comes from people just not knowing the story of Pocahontas more than she was a member of a native tribe that was visited by an outsider
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like Dances with Wolves or a hundred other White Saviour stories. Pocahontas' story depends on if you mean the real one it the Disney sanitized version.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess, but that's a pretty big category. Sort of like if someone said they saw Iron Man and it was "just another billionaire superhero story". Now granted, the story in Avatar is pretty shallow and predictable, but there are some pretty substantial differences from Pocahontas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are some Slashdot moderators so fragile that they consider this comment to be "flame bait"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's been associated with Fern Gully.
Re:Worth Seeing (Score:4)
If you thought the original Avatar looked amazing enough for the common plot to not bother you, you will enjoy this one as well. Try to watch it in dual-laser IMAX 3D for the best experience.
Every plot is derivative. There are very few really original films, particularly from major film studios, and even when you do get one that's considered a bit hit they still tend to have modest box office returns [wikipedia.org].
The impressive thing I found with the original Avatar film was the polish. Not just the visuals. All the characters were good, the story held together and didn't drag, it was a thoroughly enjoyable film to watch.
I haven't seen the sequel yet, the reviews aren't fantastic, but that might just be the fact it got over-hyped.
Re: (Score:2)
Every plot is derivative.
This plot isn't derivative. This is Fern Gully in 3D. In fact you need to start looking for incredibly minor plot deviations to be able to truly tell them apart, e.g. that the hero in this story voluntarily turn into a (what were the blue guys called again?), whereas in fern gully it was a fairy who shrunk the hero to save him from an accident.
There are very few really original films, particularly from major film studios
Actually most films are very original to the format. Only when you look across media (novels, comic books, etc) do you get to a lack of plot originality, but then tha
Re:Worth Seeing (Score:5, Interesting)
Every plot is derivative.
This plot isn't derivative. This is Fern Gully in 3D. In fact you need to start looking for incredibly minor plot deviations to be able to truly tell them apart, e.g. that the hero in this story voluntarily turn into a (what were the blue guys called again?), whereas in fern gully it was a fairy who shrunk the hero to save him from an accident.
I only know what I read from the Wikipedia summary [wikipedia.org].
But a short list of big differences include:
1) Humans know about the Aliens, they don't know about the fairies
2) The primary villains in Avatar are human, in Fern Gully it's an evil spirit.
3) The human turns into an Alien at the end of Avatar, the human becomes an ordinary human again at the end of Fern Gully.
All they really have in common is the premise "human sent to destroy an ecosystem is transformed into one of the people who live there". Most of the other similarities are common storytelling elements that derive from that premise.
There are very few really original films, particularly from major film studios
Actually most films are very original to the format. Only when you look across media (novels, comic books, etc) do you get to a lack of plot originality, but then that makes perfect sense given the relative cost of bringing new IP to a paperback vs motion picture.
Really? How many "man discovers [wikipedia.org] secret past [wikipedia.org] and he's totally badass [wikipedia.org]"?
The number of obvious remakes, sequels, book adaptions, and now franchises, should be a clue. The last thing Hollywood wants is a truly original story because it's insanely risky and, to be honest, if you want a blockbuster audience you need to bring in a lot of viewers who just want to relax and don't want to be challenged that much.
So instead of trying to make something super original you take a proven story and theme and find a way to make it feel new. Change the setting, try some different characters, try some modern twists on the story, and you've got a movie. This is exactly what Avatar did. Writers don't even need to consciously recall the original film because people feel when the story is getting away.
Oh, and want me to spoil at least 90% of movies for you? Here ya go [reedsy.com]. Watch almost any movie and you can predict the plot turns, you can probably predict who's going to die and what random elements are going to turn critical at the end of the film. That's not just writers being lazy, it's just how story structure works.
Re: (Score:2)
"Really? How many "man discovers [wikipedia.org] secret past [wikipedia.org] and he's totally badass [wikipedia.org]"?"
Not just men. Ever see "The Long Kiss Goodnight?"
3D (Score:2)
I wished my old compound eyes could see 3D effects. They used back in the rad 80s at Disneyland with its Captain EO show. I saw Avatar 1 in Arclight's Cinemara Dome when it was out. Same for other 3D movies (e.g., Captain America) and shows at other places including Disneyland again. :(
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Worth Seeing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first movie had a boring af story, so i have very little interest in seeing this new tech demo
The first movie had an incredible and award winning story. You just found it boring because you'd seen it before and you probably don't even remember watching Fern Gully as a child.
Re:Worth Seeing - not at all (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Worth Seeing (Score:2)
It's a long fucking movie.
It meets expectations....I saw it in the theater only because I did not want to wait.
If you oooh and ah over CGI and shit...maybe....if you just want to watch a movie....wait. On the other hand...it's only $15 or whatever.....
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand...it's only $15 or whatever.....
make that $24 per person, which is way too expensive a night out for a mediocre movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
I would go as far as to say it's only worth seeing in cinemas, and in 3D to boot.
The script is utter garbage. Real drek dipping into laugh out loud bad at times. As a 3 hour tech demo showing the future of mocap and how to make it look phenomenal, well, it's second to none. It absolutely defines the state of the art..So if you like tech for tech's sake (you are on slashdot) go see all 3 hours of it, but don't set your expectations on the story very high.
Best viewed on a big screen, the bigger the better
Re: (Score:2)
old flim days crashing can be big with Brain wraps (Score:3)
old flim days crashing can be big with Brain wraps and more like film getting stuck in the gate and burning up
Re:old flim days crashing can be big with Brain wr (Score:5, Informative)
Did you suffer a stroke?
No, he's just using jargon you don't recognize. I worked as a projectionist when I was (much) younger, so I can decipher the terminology, if not exactly the point. He's describing two different ways physical film projectors could fail before everything went digital.
The "brain" was a circular section containing a payout arm that pulled film out from the middle of a 6 foot horizontal platter containing the movie film. The platter's rotation rate was controlled by the swinging of an interior arm that the film spooled through. The movie was taken up on another platter, which wrapped as fast as tension on the film would allow, so the next movie was ready to go without the lengthy process of rewinding it. Each platter has a "payout" mode and a "takeup" mode. If you accidentally set the payout platter on "takeup", it would end up wrapping around the "brain's" outer rollers, winding it up such that it would eventually catch and snap the film. Thus, "brain wrap".
"Stuck in the gate and burning up" was another type of failure. The lamp in a movie projector is HOT - at least a 2000 watt xenon bulb (and go up from there) that you had to wear protective gear to change (face shield, leather gloves, and flak vest), and weren't allowed to touch with bare hands. Anyhow, you could literally light a cigarette with the beam coming directly from the lamp housing. So if the film got stuck in the "gate", the section that guided the film past the projection lens, it would literally melt in a second.
Re: (Score:2)
Cinema Paradiso film fire scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The most interesting failure I witnessed was when Edwards decided to save on projectionists by allowing untrained staff to start a film. They were running the same print through two projectors and forgot to set the interlock. Even worse, they were saving money by using Mylar leaders. So when the film got to the end, the first projector stopped, and the second continued instead of both stopping. This pulled the film tight between them and since the leader was Mylar, it did not rip. Instead the second pr
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap, I'm glad I never screwed up that bad. The worst that happen to me was an accidental brain wrap induced film break, which I suspect every projectionist does at least once.
And yeah, loose film is a nightmare. It's hard for people to fathom how much volume movie film can take up once it gets unwound. A several minute trailer just a few inches in diameter fills up an entire kitchen trash can. A feature-length film can fill up a small room. Never seen it myself, but heard some horror stories.
Re: (Score:3)
Much like the Lord of the Rings series, Avatar 2 and 3 were both shot at the same time, with Avatar 4 currently being written. We're in for a load of Avatar references in the next few years. Time to buy your action figures now.
Re: (Score:2)
No real explanation in the articles (Score:4, Insightful)
Of why a digital cinema system would not be able to play 48fps. I can't imagine it's the projectors which should support at least 60 since digital cinema has gone mainstream, cinema projectors are still mainly just DLP units like you get for home, just really nice ones and use standard inputs Like HDMI, DP and SDI all which all can do 4K/60.
I imagine this is either an issue with the fact most theaters don't have to change the framerate over all that often and they just flubbed it, or the ingest and playback system doesn't support it for some reason because everything has to be encrypted and licensed or either the projectors or playback system has to purchase a license to 48fps playback and these theaters didn't have it in time or forgot.
Re: (Score:3)
You need a very powerful light source for a cinema protector. For 48fps it has to be even brighter, because cinema projectors aren't like consumer ones. To give that film look they insert black frames between images, to stimulate a shutter. If the image is displayed for less time the ratio of image to black goes down, and more light is needed.
Re: No real explanation in the articles (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw Avatar 2 in 48hz, and all I could think was that the action scenes looked like either a video game, or a mid-1990s FMV video game. I kept thinking of Wing Commander III for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I kept thinking of Wing Commander III for some reason.
True enough. Those are the contexts where you are used to seeing smooth motion on-screen. However, I can almost guarantee that if you saw the next dozen releases at high frame rate, you'd never want to go back.
As screens improve resolution (4k is approaching, but not at, eye-limiting for most people), colour, and frame rate (120Hz seems to be the point of diminishing returns) it's less like watching a picture book and more like looking through a window, or even a live scene. For most movies, the more y
Re: (Score:1)
Hollywood films are still shot at 24 FPS because people think it's artistic
No. This frame rate is used because it is the lowest image presentement rate of analogue images at which the human brain interprets as smooth motion. You will note that this does not apply to digital images and never did. The replacement of 24 Hz analogue imaging (ie, film) with 24 Hz Digital Images (taken at a shutter speed that results in stationary images) is nowhere near the same thing -- and it is noticeable -- very noticeable.
Why "Digital Video" is shot at any rate less than 60 Hz (60p as in 60 hig
Re: (Score:2)
We used to work hard to get interframe motion blur on film with miniatures. It went from Ray Harryhausen to Empire Strikes Back quality (as well as sqrt(2) ratios).
The CGI systems can at times be less believable.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine it's the projectors which should support at least 60 since digital cinema has gone mainstream, cinema projectors are still mainly just DLP units like you get for home, just really nice ones and use standard inputs Like HDMI, DP and SDI all which all can do 4K/60.
Depending on the display technology 60fps may not be enough for 3D content which for shutter style glasses (which still exist in 3D cinemas) often project at 4x the framerate, rendering each frame twice for each eye. You need 192fps for that.
It's less of an issue for laser projectors like used in IMAX 3D and Dolby Cinemas since they are two projectors projecting the main frame once with slight different fundamental light frequencies.
Re: (Score:2)
3D in cinema use passive glasses - they use polarizers to block the light going to each eye passively. This way the glasses are cheap (which is needed as glasses aren't always returned).
3D in cinema always uses dual projectors because both images are projected simultane
Re: (Score:2)
48 Hz is a stupid ass frequency. Whomever decided to use 48 Hz as the frame rate should have their nuts cut off and fed to them. 24 Hz, 30 Hz, 60 Hz -- these are "standard" "Never Twice the Same Colour" frame rates. 48 Hz frames cannot be transported in "standards compliant" HDMI (Horrific Digital Maniac Interface) of any common current standard -- nor displayed on any common display device. The nearest frame rate which you could hope to use would be native 240 Hz. There is no way to transfer that over
Next time, settle for Michael Bay (Score:4, Funny)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Did the viewers see (Score:2)
HFR? high frame rate? (Score:1)
On what planet is 48Hz a high refresh rate? You can buy 144Hz 4k monitors right now and you can even get 120Hz 4k projectors.
Why only in Japan? Also, my opinions on film. (Score:2)
TFA says theaters "slow to upgrade," but seems unlikely this would only affect Japan. And why isn't the software smart enough about capabilities to degrade?
As for the film, I seem to be almost the only one who doesn't find the CGI of walking and moving natural. I did see one comment that it's motion capture badly interpolated from planes. I would be super interested to hear from a dance critic, rather than a CGI critic.
The plot, well his plots have always been emotionally simple. The storytelling was usuall
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if James Cameron uses machine learning in his software. This would be a good use case for it, as opposed to writing poetry or anything intelligent. Or deciding humanity's fate! (War Games came out almost the same year as Terminator.)
Re: Why only in Japan? Also, my opinions on film. (Score:2)
"Blue Pocahontas" got a second part? (Score:1)