|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: HFR - the reviews are in and it "didn't look so good"
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 06-15-2012 10:34 AM
quote: Ron Funderburg
How many invested in the seat shakers? That was an advancement in technologically or the speaker in the seat feed off the sub channel. Exhibitors can't invest in every piece of technology that comes down the pike or they will not be in business.
Do you really think a seat vibrating will get more customers in the theater? I mean get real.
Using adoption rates as a way of assessing value would be flawed, as theaters across the country prove time and time again that logic isn't always used in deciding how to equip an auditorium.
Save for one theater chain that I'm aware of, I think very few theaters use any kind of scientific process to determine what will increase attendance. The process I'm referring to is to have a control, then introduce a variable, evaluate the result, and then adjust by either changing the variable, or integrating the variable into the control, and introducing a new variable.
DBox motion seats or just basic Buttkicker-style seat shakers are a good example of this. I've heard only anecdotal reports from both the exhibitor's perspective and that of attendees. While it's not appropriate for every movie (not going to be something people will seek out for "Your Sister's Sister"), my guess is that people would check it out on "Rock of Ages" or "Battleship".
How many here have tried it? I've experienced Buttkickers, but I have yet to attend a theater with the DBox seats. My assumption is that I would enjoy the former (especially if it came with a "volume" control) but I would find the latter to be too gimmicky. I would pay extra for an access card or key of some kind that would enable buttkicker control in my seat for the right movie.
The high frame rate issue is a bit of a different beast because it requires a bit of an investment, but from the sounds of it, not a huge investment if digital cinema equipment is already in place.
If we look at 3D as an example, which others have done here, I think it's going to come down to the skill of the people involved. Avatar put the industry on notice because it was 3D done well by a guy who invested a lot of time into it. It was followed by a lot of dreck, but then, when put into the hands of someone with some skill, Hugo 3D was successful in its implementation of 3D.
I saw both the 2D and 3D presentations within a few weeks of each other, and while the 3D presentation wasn't any better in my mind to the overall enjoyment of the movie, I didn't mind it. I wasn't constantly reminded that I was watching a 3D movie, because the 3D wasn't the point of the movie (or the only interesting aspect of it).
That said, if there was someone that could be trusted to use HFR without sacrificing the story, I would say that Peter Jackson at the helm of a Middle-Earth fantasy (that he's portrayed three times before, with great success) is one of them.
Oh, and can we put any comparisons between native HFR and interpolated "smooth motion" HDTV artifacts away? There is no comparison, unless the HFR was done by conversion using the circuitry inside a $750 Samsung TV.
Native HFR at 48fps does not equal 24fps doubled to be 48fps.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 06-17-2012 12:35 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
have a control, then introduce a variable, evaluate the result, and then adjust by either changing the variable, or integrating the variable into the control, and introducing a new variable.
This is probably true, but history has shown time and again that the best way to increase attendance is to have better movies to show.
This whole HFR thing is one of those rare instances where you have to see it to know how it looks; it can't be described sufficiently to someone who hasn't seen it. When I first heard of it, I thought, how can it be bad if it looks "more real?" I have a feeling lots of people are thinking that same way. Well now having seen it, I can say, yup....it looks more real, and that's not necessarily a good thing. My bet is that many, many more people will feel the same when they see it for themselves.
I remember the reaction I had when I first heard surround sound. I was immediately impressed and wanted to see more movies that way. The HFR demo didn't give me that impression at all...not even a little.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 06-25-2012 10:48 AM
quote: Joe Redifer
So you paid more for a show that didn't yield any more enjoyment
Correct. I saw it first in 3D because I had read many good reviews on its 3D implementation.
I had the occasion to see it again soon thereafter in 2D, and while the 3D presentation was well-done, it wasn't necessary to enjoy the movie. While at the second show, I didn't feel like it was "flat".
I applaud Scorsese for his restraint when implementing the 3D element in Hugo. The movie wasn't about 3D, so it didn't take center stage.
If I had to do it over again, I would see it in 3D if there were no upcharge, but in 2D if there was an upcharge.
I guess I'm hoping that HFR will be the same way. In the hands of skilled people, I think it has the potential to make an improvement to a certain degree. For personal and professional curiosity, I will seek out an HFR show of The Hobbit, and expect to see it again in a non-HFR environment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 08-09-2012 11:35 AM
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057587
---
WB plans limited release for 48-frames 'Hobbit'
New format may not play in all cities; later installments may go wider
By DAVID S. COHEN
Warner Bros. is convinced that high-frame-rate movies are the next big thing -- but they're keeping the first HFR release fairly small.
According to source familiar with Warner's release plans for Peter Jackson's first "Hobbit," the HFR version will go out to only select locations, perhaps not even into all major cities.
People who have seen much of the film in 48 frames-per-second 3D tell Variety the picture now looks vastly better than the test footage shown this April at CinemaCon, which had not yet undergone post-production polishing and got a mixed reception from exhibitors.
But the studio still wants to protect the format by going into a limited release for the HFR version, hoping to test the marketplace and expand the HFR release for the second and third installments -- provided auds are enthusiastic. As of now, there are still no theaters ready for HFR projection, though some require only a software upgrade that will be ready in September. Warners is satisfied with the pace of efforts to ready theaters for HFR.
Since Jackson is capturing at 48 frames per second, it actually requires some expense to down-convert it to 24, the frame rate at which most theaters will play it. Filmmakers can't simply drop every other frame; they must add motion blur or the picture looks choppy.
Among vendors of projection gear, there seems to be little doubt that HFR is the future.
"It's going to be the next big thing," said Hany Adeeb, marketing & communications manager for Doremi Labs, the leading maker of digital cinema playback gear.
Don Shaw, director, product management for projector maker Christie says "High frame rate truly is night-and-day. Even the lay person can see the difference."
But d-cinema systems weren't originally conceived for a 3D, high-frame-rate world -- not all digital cinema projectors can even make the switch. The early generation of d-cinema projectors, dubbed "Series 1," simply aren't capable of showing high frame rate 3D.
More recent "Series 2" projectors can be upgraded, but the expense and difficulty of those upgrades varies. Theaters storing digital prints on a server, for instance, need to attach to each projector hardware called an "Integrated Media Block."
The easiest upgrade is for a series 2 projector that already has an IMB; in that case, the switch to 48 fps is just a software upgrade. Most recent "Series 2" installed used IMBs.
Each of the makers of the most popular 3D projection systems (RealD, MasterImage, Xpand and Dolby) says its systems are either HFR ready or easily upgradable, though several doubt each others' claims. One thing that won't be happening soon is a combination of 4K resolution -- which is already in some theaters -- 3D and high frame rates. Today's gear and networks can't handle that much data.
"That's going to be a forklift upgrade when that comes about," said Shaw. "That would require a full-scale replacement of all of the equipment in a movie theater."
High frame rates will be the subject of an expert panel at the SIGGRAPH conference at the L.A. Convention Center at 11 Wednesday morning. Among those skedded to speak is Doug Trumbull, who pioneered high frame rates with his Showscan system and is now working on HFR for digital cinema.
Contact David S. Cohen at david.cohen@variety.com
---
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic