Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Hobbit at 48fps...

Ouch. Sorry for the rant, but I can sum it up as:

Technical perfection is only true relative to the particular production.

If 4k 3d 48fps and a lot of CG is the right move for The Hobbit, it doesn't exclude DV for The Idiots or film for Old Boys, or models and optical effects for 2001 and Star Wars, or a gazillion dolls for Ran, or low rez B&W for Goldfever or 16mm for the French wave, or 16mm in Bourne, or wild sets for The Wall and Clockwork Orange, or ruggedness of Blue Velvet or...

Technology was chosen to tell stories, and the storiytelling are closely intertwained with tecnological choices in the movies I have truly loved.

New technology does not and never will diminnish past successes, it will only open for new.

Kinda...
 
Does anyone have a list of the theaters in the Northern NJ area showing The Hobbit in 4K 3D at 48 fps?
 
Curran Giddens said:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/05/02/douglas-trumbull-hobbit-frame-speed/

Interview with Doug Trumbull on The Hobbit and HFR.
Click to expand...

I like Doug and all the stuff that he's done. But when he talks about getting patent for different frame rates I think he sounds like a grumpy old man trying to capitalize on the wrong things... Shooting 120 and deal down to 24 with interpolation is done on a daily basis in edit suites all over the world. I can not even count how many times we overcranked and used motion esitimate timewarp to get back to real time for commercial and other effect shot. So the stuff he talks about getting patents for is kind of just as commonly used as a fade to black or mirroring a shot... I personally really hope he's not getting trough with it as I'm pleased to play back images in any rate that I want to, without being limited of patents. So I hope Mr Turmbull continues with his Winnie the Pooh stuff instead of claiming the rights of certain playbackspeeds.
 
Björn Benckert said:
I like Doug and all the stuff that he's done. But when he talks about getting patent for different frame rates I think he sounds like a grumpy old man trying to capitalize on the wrong things... Shooting 120 and deal down to 24 with interpolation is done on a daily basis in edit suites all over the world. I can not even count how many times we overcranked and used motion esitimate timewarp to get back to real time for commercial and other effect shot. So the stuff he talks about getting patents for is kind of just as commonly used as a fade to black or mirroring a shot... I personally really hope he's not getting trough with it as I'm pleased to play back images in any rate that I want to, without being limited of patents. So I hope Mr Turmbull continues with his Winnie the Pooh stuff instead of claiming the rights of certain playbackspeeds.
Click to expand...


I think he may be talking about a particular set of algorithms and stuff for doing it not the actual generalist technique. Like how there are loads of NLEs out there that do essentially the same things, generally in the same way as far as the user can see but behind the scenes the codes different.
 
Why don't people go to the movies?

@ $14.95 per seat, and $10 each for soda and popcorn it will cost a family of four $100 to see the Hobbit once at 48fps 3D in our local multiplex.

That's insane. It doesn't matter how grand of a spectacle the film maker creates, at these prices it's a horrible value IMHO.

Going to the movies used to be a common family activity for a Saturday afternoon. At these prices it is a rare treat for some and impossible for many.
 
i really think it's a price thing. that being said, people are still going in some numbers to really good content, or at least really well marketed content...

not everybody's gonna do it, some people prefer to sit at home, and that's fine. i mean, look at restaurants... they're hurting right now, too. and the obvious solution seems to be to open a restaurant/theatre, funny enough
 
Hmmm let me see:

spend $100, sticky theatre, rude people, big screen, big sound, 3D , one time experience
-or-
wait three months, spend $25, cosy theatre, relatively medium to smallish screen (picture size:viewing distance), pretty big sound, watch it whenever you like...

It's no wonder many stay home. The differences aren't that great for the extra cost. It's such a turn off I am disheartened. I don't know how theaters can continue to be relevant and survive, much less thrive now or in our children's lifetimes.
 
As for cost, I think movies used to be under priced in comparison to other forms of entertainment and recreation... Decent seats and snacks for 4 people at a professional sporting event: easily $150. One round of golf and snacks for 4 people: $180. Same goes for live plays, concerts, etc. I think movies feel expensive because they used to be so cheap. Even though there are many reasons to wait for the blu-ray, people still enjoy getting out and interacting with other people, seeing a movie when it first comes out.
 
$100, $150, $180... you don't see that as expensive for 1.5-3 hours of entertainment?

We aren't poor by any means but we can't afford to all go to many pro sporting events, we don't all golf and we only bring the family to a few shows a year. They are too expensive for us all to go. As a result those entertainment choices barely land on our radar.

If going to the cinema slips off of the family radar, it becomes less relevant to young people. If movie theaters become less relevant to their largest single demographic they will go out of business. Completely.

Andy Roberts said:
As for cost, I think movies used to be under priced in comparison to other forms of entertainment and recreation... Decent seats and snacks for 4 people at a professional sporting event: easily $150. One round of golf and snacks for 4 people: $180. Same goes for live plays, concerts, etc. I think movies feel expensive because they used to be so cheap. Even though there are many reasons to wait for the blu-ray, people still enjoy getting out and interacting with other people, seeing a movie when it first comes out.
Click to expand...
 
Also consider that movies are not live entertainment. Live is usually a one shot kinda deal. It's not like you have the option of waiting until the philharmonic will be available to play in your den. ( ;
 
Scott Crawley said:
$100, $150, $180... you don't see that as expensive for 1.5-3 hours of entertainment?
Click to expand...

Yes it is expensive and so is $4 Starbucks coffee, $100 Nike shoes, $11 lunch at McAllister's and a $500 iPad. Prices are consumer driven and when consumers continue to pay, then the prices stay high. The more people that stay home will also drive the price higher.

My only point was that movie theater pricing seemed equal to other choices out there and used to be unnaturally lower. I remember ticket prices at $3 and $4 but that was also back before $100 million movies.
 
Andy Roberts said:
Yes it is expensive and so is $4 Starbucks coffee, $100 Nike shoes, $11 lunch at McAllister's and a $500 iPad. Prices are consumer driven and when consumers continue to pay, then the prices stay high. The more people that stay home will also drive the price higher.

My only point was that movie theater pricing seemed equal to other choices out there and used to be unnaturally lower. I remember ticket prices at $3 and $4 but that was also back before $100 million movies.
Click to expand...

Things are expensive all around, but you can't compare going to the movies to all of these other things. They just aren't the same. For example if someone can't or won't pay $4 for Starbucks, they can get what they want elsewhere. This only true in cinemas to a lesser degree. If enough people do that, Starbucks will either change or vanish, but the coffee business will continue to thrive. In that regard your comparison is more valid.

It's a rat on a wheel to be sure, but this old wheel is breaking. Once it is broken it will be gone and my fear is that nobody will care to build a new one.
 
I'm assuming the IMAX showings would be 24p unless otherwise stated?

The theater closest to me has it in IMAX 3D, Real3D High Frame Rate, and Digital Cinema.

I was thinking I'll probably see it first in regular ole 24p 2d, and then will see it as it was intended by Peter Jackson with 3d and 48.
 
Ticket prices should be tied to the price of a (decent) loaf of bread. Simple stuff. 2, maybe 3x is okay... but 10x? If it's a crappy movie it better not cost more than a crappy, moldy loaf.

I realize they have to make money. That's the problem, the business model. Gotta go...
 
Loved 48fps 3D at 4K. ultra real. Peter Jackson was right. Should not be used for every other movie. But its a great addition to digital projections worldwide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top