The Hobbit May Change How We Watch Movies

LisaL as Chad has already pointed out many cinemas/theaters are not making huge profits now, so the only way they will be able to upgrade is by putting up ticket costs. This will be quite a dilemma for them; do they upgrade and put up the prices and risk driving customers away; or do they stay at 24fps and risk losing punters to competitors who have 48fps.

Were I in the business I would wait and see. 3D looked like being huge, but audiences preferring 3D have really dropped off. Many just don't see the point of paying extra to see the movie in 3D, others find 3D gives them a headache. Either way audience figures for the UK at least show that where audiences have a choice the majority are choosing 2D. Likewise with 48fps, will people be willing to pay the premium it will cost over 24fps? As 3D audiences seem to have found, it's the content that matters more than the technology. We will pay for the content, most of us are not so happy to pay extra for a technical gimmick.

I think it's great and not necessarily a gimmick. I think it'll be tricky as lots of cinemas can't actually play the movie at 48fps.

This coupled with 3D will mean that the movie(s) will hopefully be a cinematic treat: http://thehobbitmovie.co.uk/the-hobbit-movie-hobbit-video-blog-4.html

I might be wrong, since there's no perceivable difference using this frame rate, to me it will affect only those [rare] pirates doing video-camera 'screeners' in theaters. The resulting image will be rolling

I guess he finally found a gimmick to try and make this as successful as the LOTR movies.

So long as theaters dont jack up the price of tickets even more, then whatever.

dancinbojangles: It's probably that your eye expects a blur but the camera is fast enough that there isn't one. In the US a TV shows about one new image every 1/30th of a second (1/29.97 to be precise). If you take an image which is 1/30th of a second long then there will be some blurring. A camera can take an image in less time; say, 1/1000ths of a second if the light is good enough.

In that case you're seeing very crisp images, but your eye doesn't expect that. Since the framerate is just at the threshold of perception, you end up interpreting it as "a paper doll or claymation figure." If the TV had a higher frame rate, then it would be less of a problem since your eye would end up processing several projected images, which ends up giving a blur effect.

Does anyone else get a strange visual effect when viewing high-framerate video? I've only experienced it on TVs, but it's almost like the moving object is cut out of the background and being manipulated like a paper doll or claymation figure. I'm worried about this translating to the theater, but not entirely sure what it actually is.

I can't wait...

to see the inevitable 24fps release. Most theaters are hanging on by a thread as it is; how many do you think are going to "upgrade" to screen a single film?

@Jolly. A reason for 48 frames per second is because its twice the current 24 frames per second. Note though that most projectors show the same image twice or three times because, as you say, 24fps is less than 30fps so would be noticeable. While upping the frame rate to 30fps might be a technical solution, it's easier to double the frame rate. This makes it easy to still play films made for 24fps, and hand-drawn cartoons which have only 12 or 6 unique frames per second.

Don't decide until you see it. I saw high-frame-rate video in the 80s. I swear to God, it was in a Chuck E Cheese in the DC area. Nolan Bushnell and Douglas Trumbull had teamed up to build some demo theaters and show high frame rate footage from Brainstorm, as well as specially shot material, to try to promote the medium. The sense of reality was jaw-dropping - absolutely stunning. Much better than glasses-aided 3D, in my opinion. I can't wait to see it come true. Digital makes the technology switch more practical than with the old mechanical projectors.

@Jolly, you can't detect added detail beyond 30fps, but there is a noticeable difference in the "feel" of the video as you push towards 60fps, particularly in scenes with fast motion. Anybody who has ever built their own PC gaming rig can speak to the difference. It's subtle, but noticeable.

Two things. Firstly I recall a study some years ago which found that the human eye can't detect any significant difference beyond about 30fps. If that's true then this is nothing but a gimmick.

Secondly anonymous coward 60Hz is not 60fps and we're not talking 48Hz here were talking 48fps. Go an read up on the difference between scan frequency and frames per second.

Oh my...I can see in a not so distant future another re re re release of Star Wars at 48 fps.

Getting some sort of commission? Unlikely. No single company has a monopoly on 48fps (although Jackson is using a truckload of Red cameras this time around).

Technology advances. Just like still digital increasing megapixels, the size of the CCD, etc., all in the name of getting a better picture, film is moving in that direction as well. Advances are slower with movies because of the chicken and egg thing where you have to get theaters to agree to the upgrade. A lesser movie couldn't get away with this.

I'd say that a more likely reason is him wanting to do what the article says -- to have others follow in his footsteps. If the difference is noticeable, there will be no going back.

Jolly-I wouldn't be surprised at all

Would it be cynical to ask if Jackson is on some sort of commission from the manufacturers of this kit?

Let's hope it was actually filmed at 48hz -- the artificially interpolated 60hz feature on far too many TVs is so disgusting and horrible that I can't stand it.