Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Hobbit's Higher Frame Rate To Cost Theater Operators

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the playing-catch-up dept.

Lord of the Rings 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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Awesome (5, Informative)

dubl-u (51156) | about 2 years ago | (#40360887)

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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40360939)

Piracy. Of course.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40360943)

hat could it possibly be?

Piracy, what else?

Re:Awesome (5, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | about 2 years ago | (#40361029)

This brings up an interesting point -- will I be able to see this in 48 fps *without* gimmicky 3D?

Re:Awesome (5, Interesting)

DreadPiratePizz (803402) | about 2 years ago | (#40361297)

You can see non gimicky 3D right now: Prometheus. Say what you will about the film, the 3D is not a gimmick, and greatly enhances the experience. I felt like I was looking at real person when Charlie was looking in the mirror and saw the thing in his eye. Creepy as fuck. The cesarian was also creepy as fuck in 3D as well, not because of in your face effects, but because you really felt as if you were right there looking at real people. That's the future of 3D: subtle enhancement.

Re:Awesome (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361409)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361313)

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.

Re:Awesome (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361315)

This brings up an interesting point -- will I be able to see this in 48 fps *without* gimmicky 3D?

Hobbit will be released in 4 formats: 2D & 3D, both in 24fps & 48fps.

Re:Awesome (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#40361033)

"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:Awesome (2)

Creepy (93888) | about 2 years ago | (#40361133)

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've got the blu-ray, I'll watch it, but I don't think any less of DVD or streaming when I watch in those formats).

Re:Awesome (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about 2 years ago | (#40361327)

where the fuck do you go to the movies? holy shit $22?! the theatre near me was $6 for a 10pm showing just last week...

canada its worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361393)

10$ for NON 3d movie then you get a pop n popcorn for 17.07 and trust me i didnt buy the popcorn
NOR did i pay the govt did some free card for finishing an interview skills program.
WHAT a joke. GLAD i never pay myself you tax payers boy did you get stiffed
some guy sat there staring at me the whole time instead of the other 3 people in the theatre and hilariously the guy to my far left cammed the movie....HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361411)

Can that awesome premium run Crysis at 48 FPS?

I doubt it.

Re:Awesome (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40361413)

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.

Classic 2D is best (4, Insightful)

TedTschopp (244839) | about 2 years ago | (#40360889)

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 (1)

Lev13than (581686) | about 2 years ago | (#40361081)

Speaking of Classic 2D, I wonder if they will just drop half the frames to get to 24, or do some post-processing to add motion blur back in. If it's the former you'd think that the result would look very stuttery and unfamiliar. Our brains expect blurring with 24 frames/sec, so unless it's there the end result could be annoying.

Re:Classic 2D is best (4, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#40361123)

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 (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#40361127)

I don't feel like I see 3D either ("lazy eye" since I was very young / birth) so I don't feel like paying extra for it either.

No real need to go to the cinema either.

Re:Classic 2D is best (0)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#40361157)

Just show them your mutant card at the ticket office to get your discount :-)

Re:Classic 2D is best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361333)

Fortunately the classic 2D book will remain available.

In other news (1)

TorrentFox (1046862) | about 2 years ago | (#40360891)

It will also look like a home video and be awful and distracting

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40360997)

Increasing the frame rate will make it look like a home video?

Re:In other news (2, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 2 years ago | (#40361161)

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 (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 2 years ago | (#40361391)

What [wikipedia.org] are you talking about [wikipedia.org]?

Home video was traditionally 24 or fewer frames per second. (Unless by "traditionally" you mean the past few years when you could record digital video at more than 30 frames per second.)

Re:In other news (3, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40361255)

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:In other news (1)

Alastor187 (593341) | about 2 years ago | (#40361303)

Increasing the frame rate will make it look like a home video?

Yes home video is typically 60 fps, and the increased frame rate makes it much smoother and fluid. You can see the effect of this on most modern 120/240Hz LCD TVs. If you turn on the motion correction features it will make any source look smooth and fluid, even film, giving the appearance as though it was shot using a 'handy cam'.

Re:In other news (5, Insightful)

AnonGCB (1398517) | about 2 years ago | (#40361007)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361091)

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.

Because as we all know, bigger numbers automatically means superior art, just like stock prices and the technical specifications of computer processors. Now that we've objectively determined a proper sorting algorithm for works of art (i.e. films), we can finally end the minimalism movement and decisively declare that anyone who uses more colors, bigger canvases, or longer run times than the so-called "greats" is mathematically better. End of story.

Re:In other news (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 2 years ago | (#40361181)

I don't know how well it transfers to film, but in video games the difference between 30fps and 60fps is quite noticeable and 60 is definitely preferable.

Re:In other news (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361187)

We know that frame rates under 60fps look poor, and under 30fps look absolutely terrible. It has nothing to do with art, other than film not being a suitable medium for recording moving subjects due to the unacceptably low frame-rate.

Re:In other news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361203)

24fps IS horrible but it depends on the film. Obviously, 24fps is perfectly fine for movies that don't have fast motions. However, movies that rely heavily on fast motions like action films (which are popular) do suffer in fluidness during fast scenes. Because of this, faster fps is either provides the same or superior quality at the cost of new equipment (which they will eventually have to replace anyways as things break). It's not like these theaters have to start replacing equipment immediately but having content out there definitely makes it a better incentive.

Are you saying that improvements should be held back because it cost too much? If nothing is ever introduced because of that, many improvements would never have adopted.

finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361193)

48Hz will finally be able to clearly resolve the 30Hz oscillation of the reciprocating dildo. Again the porn industry may drive the standard!

Re:In other news (3, Informative)

shellbeach (610559) | about 2 years ago | (#40361301)

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:In other news (2)

jandrese (485) | about 2 years ago | (#40361037)

You are distracted when the video isn't a blurry jittery mess in action scenes?!?

Re:In other news (2)

TorrentFox (1046862) | about 2 years ago | (#40361155)

Motion blur can be artistic. It's mostly a matter of perception, but to me high frame rates remind me of handycam footage and generally low production value.

And apparently I am not the only one who finds this to be the case: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/9225905/The-Hobbit-previews-to-mixed-reactions.html [telegraph.co.uk]

In any case, it'll probably end up to be a generational thing, and I'll be screaming at these 48p weirdos to get off my screen.

Re:In other news (5, Insightful)

TheMMaster (527904) | about 2 years ago | (#40361299)

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:In other news (2)

TheMMaster (527904) | about 2 years ago | (#40361105)

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, but now with the added benefit of having natural looking motion. I don't see how that can possibly be a bad thing. I've been waiting for this 'breakthrough' for a LONG time, and I'm sure that most people will agree that it's an improvement.

Re:In other news (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#40361191)

Yes and no. 60fps looks fantastic if shot cinematic. The Garbage TV's that do 120 and 240Fps by faking it is what makes it all look wierd and odd. I hate the crap tv's that do that. They even ruin movies that were shot correctly at high FPS.

Re:In other news (1)

TheMMaster (527904) | about 2 years ago | (#40361253)

yes, no shitty 4 dollar 'picture processor' in a TV is ever going to really improve the picture. We're not talking about some trick to improve framerates here though. We're talking about a film that is actually shot at 48 frames per second, which as you point out look fantastic. I was not making the argument that higher fps == better viewing.

Anyone who values picture quality turns off their TV's 'frame enhancement' software anyway, right?

right? :)

Same as any other premium format (4, Insightful)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 2 years ago | (#40360899)

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 (4, Funny)

decipher_saint (72686) | about 2 years ago | (#40361047)

For a real niche, look at Planetarium productions.

I, for one, can't wait for the "laser show" version of LotR...

I'll not wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40360903)

...except for it to show up on the torrents. After paying a ticket "premium" for anotther 3d abortion a few weeks ago I'm through supporting the nonsense.

Along the same lines (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | about 2 years ago | (#40360905)

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.

Theater threshold (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#40360907)

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"

Re:Theater threshold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40360989)

Filet Sucks. Go Tbone or go home.

Re:Theater threshold (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#40361387)

Idiot. The small steak side of the Tbone/Porterhouse is a Filet. The other side is a strip.

The only thing you get with a tbone is a very thin steak.

Ribeye on the other hand...

:3 (2, Interesting)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about 2 years ago | (#40360921)

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.

Re::3 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361099)

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.

The problem is, not paying more for the ticket is simply unreasonable. If they go from 24 to 48, that's DOUBLE the frames - I'm not quite sure that doubles the cost, but it will be increased quite a bit. With games there's no monetary "cost" with frames since they're rendered on the fly anyway - 30 vs 60 FPS is purely a choice of performance and visual appeal. Not so with movies, and you can bet the extra cost will end up being covered on your end.

TV vs. movie (4, Interesting)

DrYak (748999) | about 2 years ago | (#40361365)

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.

Uhm.. (4, Funny)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#40360945)

So now I can sleep through this movie at 48FPS like I slept through the rest of the Ring movies at 24FPS?


Re:Uhm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361135)

Stop signing your posts manually, no one cares who you are

Re:Uhm.. (4, Funny)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about 2 years ago | (#40361137)

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 (4, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#40360957)

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:choices (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 2 years ago | (#40361379)

That's exactly my point too. I rather vote on good acting and content rather that super good quality visuals. besides, a shitty 3d movie is still a shitty movie. On the same subject and to prove my point further. Did any of you look at the previews of the "new" Spiderman ? I swear i saw diapers in his suit... Those actors are getting younger and younger (and sometimes shittier and shittier but we have to give them a chance right ? they are very young)

Re:choices (2, Interesting)

mcelrath (8027) | about 2 years ago | (#40361389)

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 tolerable on the small screen, when the angle subtended by motion is smaller, but I can still see the frames.

Back in the days of CRT monitors I played with refresh rate a lot to figure out what I could notice and what bothered me. 60Hz was tolerable, but above 80 was best. So, Hollywood: double it again, bring us 96fps films. Or, hey, you could really go hog wild and pick a refresh rate already in common use like 60Hz or 120Hz. Nah, the'll never do that.

fast frame more "real" than theater 3D (5, Interesting)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#40360971)

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.

Re:fast frame more "real" than theater 3D (1)

exabrial (818005) | about 2 years ago | (#40361097)

What? A person that is embracing a change in hopes that it'll get better as the technology improves? How dare you appose the will of the internet!

Re:fast frame more "real" than theater 3D (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#40361201)

Why are we doing this bullshit 48fps though?
Why not 120fps or more?

At 48fps it will still jitter when they pan quickly.

Re:fast frame more "real" than theater 3D (2)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#40361273)

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?

Art. Profit? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#40360977)

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? :)

Uh... no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40360983)

I already have quite enough disincentive to brave the movie theaters: 3-d makes me ill, snack prices are obscene, and kids/teenagers can't shut up long enough for anyone to enjoy the movie. It's certainly not an enjoyable experience any longer... I have serious reservations about paying what I do, never mind a price hike over a quality increase that I'm not going to be able to appreciate due to the 14-year-old behind me yapping, spilling popcorn, and kicking my seat.

I'll wait for it to come out on Blu-Ray, then enjoy both the great picture quality and theatrical surround-sound in the peace of my own home.

3D Anyone? (2)

Korin43 (881732) | about 2 years ago | (#40360985)

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? (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#40361073)

Seriously this. If I try to watch a 3D movie longer than the 10 minutes or so at an amusement park, I start getting a headache. And the cutoff of the 3D effect at the edges of the screen really pulls me out of the movie all the time.

Re:3D Anyone? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#40361213)

Stop sitting 400 feet from the screen. If you dont sit so close that the screen fills your FOV, you are not doing it right.

The back row is for kids to take acid and drink booze, not for watching a movie.

Re:3D Anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361231)

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.

Advances of technology (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | about 2 years ago | (#40360991)

Always involve some type of cost but what price? Is it worth it to view film and video in 48 fps? My personal opinion I would say yes. We've been stuck using 24 fps decades and having a smoother, less jerky viewing I think it's worth it. The biggest complaint from what I understand is that the higher frames displays the flaws in sets. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/hobbit-48-fps-footage-divides-audiences_n_1452391.html) Perhaps they can put an overlay or something while keeping the high fps to help fix that.

Re:Advances of technology (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | about 2 years ago | (#40361027)

Also I forgot to mention is that so far 3-D viewing is still difficult on the eyes at times and having film run at 48 fps will help reduce that.

Wonder no more. (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#40361001)

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.

If I were a theater owner I'd say "Hell no." (4, Interesting)

Picass0 (147474) | about 2 years ago | (#40361005)

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.

Maybe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361023)

t 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.

To state the obvious - at least obvious to me: You can't raise prices without limits. There's a point when folks just say, "Fuck it! It's too expensive!"

Yes, there are folks who perceive a difference - see any audio or visual cable that sells for way too much than what it's worth - go to Best Buy for an example.

But for the rest of us,. we actually have some sense and will go to a substitution - like NetFlix, or whatever else is available these days - I don't know and don't give a shit because GollyWierd just produces shit.

Re:Maybe. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#40361305)

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.

Premium? No way! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#40361031)

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 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.

High Frame Rate Yes, 3D No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361035)

I'm really looking forward to higher frame rate films, but wouldn't give a nickel for 3D.

Will The Hobbit be in 48 fps 2D? Or is the higher frame rate only to fix problems with 3D?

Increasing the price. Great idea! (1)

SilverJets (131916) | about 2 years ago | (#40361043)

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'll pay (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 2 years ago | (#40361049)

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.

Re:I'll pay (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#40361151)

I just want to see whether they get past the damn spider that killed me dozens of times right at the end of the Spectrum version before I finally managed to get home...

Bill Gates says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361083)

29.97 fps ought to be enough for anybody...

Someone really hates high framerates... (3, Insightful)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 2 years ago | (#40361113)

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 (4, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | about 2 years ago | (#40361163)

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.)

Nice try, Mr(s). Weta competitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361209)


Yay (5, Funny)

Tridus (79566) | about 2 years ago | (#40361215)

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.

Not even 60 FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361221)

It's not even 60 frames per second, so I don't see why anyone should be excited in the first place. If you're going to forcefully upgrade standards, at least upgrade them to something decent. 640x480 to 1920x1080 resolution is a good example of a decent upgrade. 24 to 48 FPS is *not* an example of a decent upgrade.

Re:Not even 60 FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361271)

Film doesn't do 60FPS. You can only get rates like that using video, which is not the same thing as film.

It's to get the jump on home theater viewing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40361285)

until people have 48fps display equipment in their homes, this looks like an attempt to get them to watch the movie at the theater through technological escalation.

Ticket price will not go up soda and pop corn will (3, Insightful)

mrnick (108356) | about 2 years ago | (#40361339)

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 (4, Interesting)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#40361343)

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.

3D is dead! Long live the new macguffin! (1)

kehren77 (814078) | about 2 years ago | (#40361347)

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.


phriedom (561200) | about 2 years ago | (#40361399)

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.

might be okay? (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | about 2 years ago | (#40361403)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account