This is topic Higher Frame Rate of Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit' to Cost Exhibitors in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001133

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-18-2012, 03:56 PM:
 
Higher Frame Rate of Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit' to Cost Exhibitors

quote:
The industry gathering in Barcelona kicked off Monday with a discussion about the higher costs for movie theater operators.

BARCELONA, Spain -- The prospect of Peter Jackson shooting his much-anticipated movie The Hobbit with a higher frame rate than the current standard set chins wagging as this year's CineEurope gathering got under way here Monday.

The four-day conference, aimed primarily at European theater operators, kicked off with exhibitors and distributors hearing that the filmmaker's decision to shoot his fourth J.R.R. Tolkien adaptation using 48 frames per second rather than the current 24 fps (25 in some parts of Europe) will cost them more. Still, exhibitors have largely signaled that they want to show the hotly anticipated movie.

Warner Bros. is orchestrating a worldwide distribution rollout plan for the film and will deliver it in multiple formats for theaters.

Delivering a digital film shot at that speed -- "frame rate" refers to the number of images displayed by a projector within one second -- enhances details and means sharper and more colorful images but will require upgrades to movie-projection systems to properly handle the shows.

European Digital Cinema Forum CEO David Monk, who has helmed a united effort to seek standards across the industry since digital movie delivery was first talked about more than a dozen years ago, said the adoption of higher frame rates is driven by the filmmakers. "Movie costs will be higher," Monk said. "And the films will cost more to distribute, and it will cost the exhibitors."

Filmmaker James Cameron, who has attended the European exhibition shindig in the past to extol the virtues of all things digital and 3D, also was cited during the panel called "What Next for Digital Projection?"

Cameron has told distributors and exhibitors alike he plans to shoot Avatar 2 and the film's third installment using digital equipment that delivers 60 frames per second.

"As we know, software updates are not free to exhibitors," Monk said. "They take time and money, and you have to shut down the systems to install. Then they have to be tested." He noted that the speed of adoption by exhibitors likely will depend on the box-office success of the titles using it. "It is a truth that commercial success tends to drive adoption in the digital industry," he noted.

Warner Bros. showed 10 minutes of 3D footage from The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at 48 frames per second at CinemaCon in April, and Jackson said in a videotaped message there that he hoped his movie could be played in 48 fps 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.

There are nearly 4,000 screens in North America that have Barco Series 2 projectors with the required software update to play 48 fps, plus Sony expects the majority of its 13,000 installed 4K digital cinema projectors to support the high frame rates by the time The Hobbit is released in December.

Other members of the panel at the conference -- staged in Barcelona for the first time after the show relocated from its Amsterdam home of the past 25 years -- included DLP Cinema director of technology Reiner Doetzkies; Dolby Laboratories marketing director Matt Cuson; and Oliver Pasch, head of European digital cinema sales at Sony Professional Solutions Europe. Nicolas Hamon, projection and sound manager at European theater operator giant Kinepolis Group, chaired the panel.


 
Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 06-18-2012, 10:05 PM:
 
It's not just a software update. A Barco (or NEC or Christie) projector with dual SDI video input will not do HFR. You need an IMB, this is pretty costly. Sony, I don't know.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-18-2012, 10:37 PM:
 
I don't think I'd charge a "premium" for HFR. It would fall under the same category as stereo sound: A one-time investment that would require no ongoing costs, unlike 3-D which you never stop paying for one way or the other.

I suppose there will be studio people who will try to sell it like 3-D though, touting all the extra money to be made.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-19-2012, 03:45 PM:
 
I hope so. That way it will die quickly.

And then look for movies to be "converted" to HFR in post just like 3D. Oh it will be so wonderful!
 
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-19-2012, 03:51 PM:
 
SONY say they don't need anything, at least the LMT300, don't know much about LMT200.

You need a HW upgrade for HFR 3D. You can run HFR 2D without an IMB, even though at 4:2:2 and only 10bits.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-20-2012, 05:04 AM:
 
Wasn't there a big HFR demo at Showwest -- I mean CinemaCon (poor choice of a name, I thought...makes you think right away of Cinema Con Artist) Anyway, didn't it turn into one big puke fest when it was over? Didn't everyone say it suck gas? Didn't they have to had out vomit bags and ask everyone to please deposit them in the receptical as they flee the theatre? Didn't they have a $4 surcharge for bags?

So what's wrong with Jackson. Didn't he SEE people puking in the isles or read their nasty blogs afterwards?
 
Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 06-20-2012, 05:55 AM:
 
The question is will there be 35mm prints down converted to 24fps? if so that's what I'll see.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-20-2012, 10:24 AM:
 
quote:
...means sharper and MORE COLORFUL images
(Emphasis added)

Is this really true?
 
Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 06-20-2012, 10:55 AM:
 
Sony can do HFR with a software update on both servers out in the wild.
Anyone unfortunate enough to have (why would they at this point?) an older system shouldn't technically be playing as those systems can't meet DCI spec.

IMHO HFR looks great at past 60fps. 48 is still crumby and looks way too much like a video. The motion just looks weird.

I can't say the color is impacted. That's stupid. But the sharpness is there, you loose the normal breakdown of details that you would see on a pan and such as that.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-20-2012, 12:16 PM:
 
Normal human vision doesn't have perfectly sharp "resolution" when you pan your eyes. And no it will not have more colorful images. That's just stupid.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-20-2012, 12:33 PM:
 
I don't quite see why everyone here hates HFR. I have not seen the DLP version, but I have seen 70mm Todd-AO (Oklahoma) at 30fps. Motion is smoother and the image appears sharper than with normal 24fps film. Even 25fps is an improvement.

I don't remember hearing anything bad about Showscan when that format was popular.

Shouldn't all of these same advantages apply in this case?
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-20-2012, 01:09 PM:
 
With the exception of MGM's THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM and HOW THE WEST WAS WON, the only two three strip Cinerama films that told a story, THIS IS CINERAMA and all of the others were in the speed of 26fps. MGM also wanted to play TWWOTBG and HTWWW in regular theatres so that is the reason the two films were shot at 24fps.

-Claude
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-20-2012, 02:26 PM:
 
quote: Frank Angel
Anyway, didn't it turn into one big puke fest when it was over? Didn't everyone say it suck gas?
Yes, and yes.

But Peter Jackson is today's version of George Lucas: It's new, therefore it must be better.

I saw the demo in Vegas. The "scenery" scenes looked great, but the indoor stuff is where the weirdness kicked in. This has been discussed in other threads and I can't put my finger on exacly WHY I didn't like it but I didn't. And, didn't talk to a single person who did. The best comment I heard was along the lines of "Well, it was different." Which is what people say when they don't like something but they're trying to be nice. The only "raves" were coming from the stage.

To be fair, we were in the midway section of the auditorium (not the balcony, but not the front area either) so the 3-D picture was not as close as I like to sit for 3-D. And, we were a bit off to one side. Maybe from the front half of the house it would have looked better....maybe? And I'm still reserving final judgement until I see some finished footage. (The demo at Vegas was unfinished stuff.)
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2