|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 16 2012, 12:46pm
Post #1 of 23
(963 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why 48fps will get a limited release
|
Can't Post
|
|
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/...-hobbit-48fps-360464
In the last line Dan Fellman explains "the option of digital cinema satellite delivery is not yet ready to accommodate a 48fps movie, and so The Hobbit’s initial release will use a 48fps Digital Cinema Package (the digital equivalent of a film print) shipped to theaters on hard drives."
What this means is that, because digital projectors do not use film, they acquire their movies by downloading them off of a satellite stream. It's this download process that is currently incapable of supporting 48fps. So a select few cinemas will have a hard-drive version sent in post (similar to how film is distributed) so that they can display it at 48fps.
So if anyone is going to ask their cinema if they are capable of displaying 48fps. If they answer yes, it does not necessarily mean The Hobbit will be shown that way. Because they need the digital package version rather than the download. (I doubt cinema staff will know anything about this, so it could get confusing)
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Aug 16 2012, 12:48pm)
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Aug 16 2012, 12:54pm
Post #2 of 23
(500 views)
Shortcut
|
Everyone should do their homework when deciding which theater to go to for 48fps.
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Aug 16 2012, 1:07pm
Post #3 of 23
(533 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That argument doesn't make much sense.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because digital films have been shipped on hard drives for years, that's nothing new.
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Aug 16 2012, 1:18pm
Post #4 of 23
(471 views)
Shortcut
|
I'll be emailing all the cinemas in a reasonable radius from where I live. If I can get a ticket, I might just go to London.
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Aug 16 2012, 1:29pm
Post #5 of 23
(482 views)
Shortcut
|
... what the big problem is with downloading a 48fps film. It's basically data, zeroes and ones, only bigger since it's double the frames. So, if bandwith doesn't allow for faster transfers, start with your downloads a little earlier.
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Aug 16 2012, 1:43pm
Post #6 of 23
(490 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Perhaps the current Integrated Media Block isn't fast enough
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So the harddrive they're sending can push data faster? If they can't download it, then it sounds like a hardware issue.
I'm just guessing here.
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens
Aug 16 2012, 1:51pm
Post #7 of 23
(473 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not sure I agree with that.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As I understand it shipping hard disks is by far the most common form of digital film distribution with only a few of the larger chains using downloads.
I am not at all sure there is an implicit "because" before the article's comments on this.
LR
|
|
|
Mithrandír
Lorien
Aug 16 2012, 4:17pm
Post #8 of 23
(394 views)
Shortcut
|
As far as I know, none of the largest cinemas in Norway are using the kind of distribution the article mentions. They used to download the films via sattalite, but now they mostly use super broadband or "cabel" which gives extreme downloading speeds. BUT, a film in 5k is large, typically 5 terrabytes, or more and the high speed tech. is not a decentralized technology. Which means that in my case it only operates within Norway. So norwegian cinema is not able to "download" the hobbit from the distributor at high speed, which means that in all probability the 5k version will not be distributed to our cinemas if the high speed technology isn't decentralized.
Social Science's biggest problem, is social science.
"The ring has awoken. It's heard its masters call"
(This post was edited by Mithrandír on Aug 16 2012, 4:25pm)
|
|
|
Mithrandír
Lorien
Aug 16 2012, 4:27pm
Post #9 of 23
(384 views)
Shortcut
|
Our cinemas mostly gets digital films from Hollywood and the like from hard drives.
Social Science's biggest problem, is social science.
"The ring has awoken. It's heard its masters call"
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 16 2012, 5:43pm
Post #10 of 23
(385 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Right, but not 48fps ones, I guess
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I assume it's an expensive process delivering such a big movie via hard-drives. Maybe that's why they chose only select cinemas.
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Aug 16 2012, 6:47pm
Post #11 of 23
(347 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sure there are many reasons for its limited release
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As everyone here knows, I for one hope this technology proves to be a dead end.
Though I sympathize with PJ, as it is never a fun thing to see something you have championed and advocated for so long go nowhere.
|
|
|
R11
Lorien
Aug 16 2012, 9:42pm
Post #13 of 23
(285 views)
Shortcut
|
The limited release in 48 fps is simply a result of a pulling back due to the public backlash that resulted from their ill fated showing of the unfinished footage at the cinema-con. I'm sure it scared the heck out of the studio and gave them a shot of reality regarding the difficulty with which change and public perception often happens. Beyond the poor decision to show the unrepresentative, unfinished footage to an audience that had no understanding of what they were supposed to be looking at (and therefore completely misinterpreted/reported what they saw), there's a giant, entrenched base of film lovers who will take every opportunity to bitch loudly about anything that threatens their beloved status quo.
Personally I would have loved to see the first film in 2D, 48 fps. For me 3D is simply a distraction which takes away more than it adds. But it would have been sweet to see the movie without strobbing and with the increased clarity from reduced motion blur. Sadly that's a combination that I'm sure will not be an option now on this go round. I could catch a 3D/48fps showing but the higher frame rate is really a much more minor thing that would be nice to have but isn't worth watching the 3D to get, for me.
ron
|
|
|
Snaga
Lorien
Aug 16 2012, 11:41pm
Post #14 of 23
(259 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It would be nice if WB or some other source posts which theaters will have the 48fps
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
package as December nears.
Let me be the first to invite anybody at these boards to post a thread if they find any information on this.
"Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!"
-Faramir
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Aug 17 2012, 7:20am
Post #15 of 23
(227 views)
Shortcut
|
And it seems likely they will, since PJ (and the studio) will be inundated with questions regarding where they can watch it.
|
|
|
TheRealBeren
Rivendell
Aug 17 2012, 11:33am
Post #16 of 23
(229 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I reckon not even open air cinemas will feature The Hobbit.Pitty
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Next thing you know, The Hobbit will get a limited release overall and you wouldn't even be able to watch the film, unless driving 500 km to the nearest multiplex.
(This post was edited by TheRealBeren on Aug 17 2012, 11:34am)
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Aug 17 2012, 1:02pm
Post #17 of 23
(208 views)
Shortcut
|
I have every intention of seeing this "event", but I can't be driving around to find out who is going to have it in 48fps. If we don't get it here in Indy, Chicago is too far for me to drive to see it. If we don't get it, I doubt Cincy will have it either.
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Aug 17 2012, 3:09pm
Post #18 of 23
(228 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It sounds callous and disrespectful
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I hope the 48fps release receives the bad press it deserves, and that this so-called "innovation" goes the way of the dodo.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 17 2012, 3:51pm
Post #19 of 23
(206 views)
Shortcut
|
No offence, but you haven't seen what The Hobbit looks like in 48fps, so you can't possibly say that it deserves bad press. Seeing, what sounds to me like a bad example of 48fps doesn't mean that you now know more than Peter Jackson or James Cameron about cinematography. None of us know what 48fps looks like on a project this expensive. Even the Cinemacon audience only got a brief and unfinished taste. Do you really think that they'd push a technology that requires such a huge and expensive change if it didn't genuinely add something to the experience?
I hope that somehow you get a look at the 48fps version and I hope that you find you really like it. Something tells me though, that even if you do, you'll refuse to admit it.
|
|
|
R11
Lorien
Aug 17 2012, 5:26pm
Post #20 of 23
(197 views)
Shortcut
|
I think you are likely spot on with these comments. Unless a person actually views a real, high production value movie made using higher frame rate then they really have no basis to make all encompassing, sweeping generalizations condemning the practice. When I read continued comments about soap opera look it's a giant red flag that indicates that the person was reacting to something other than higher frame rate. The stark look of the early soap operas was a direct result of low production values. When ever someone makes odd comments about something like that without really even having given it a realistic chance you just have to suspect some kind of agenda or other motive. Why get all jacked up over something that's really relatively minor to begin with anyway?
ron
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 17 2012, 5:35pm
Post #21 of 23
(193 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You put it nicer than I did...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't want to come across as if I'm attacking SA. I have great respect for him and I know he understands Tolkien much better than I do. But I'm a big technophile, and I've seen and liked (to some extent) 48 and 60fps. so I'm a little sensitive to his negative comments.
By all means, express a concern for the use of the format. But you can't say in a matter-of-fact way that it is bad until you've seen it in full - which at this point nobody has.
|
|
|
cameragod
Lorien
Aug 17 2012, 8:38pm
Post #22 of 23
(192 views)
Shortcut
|
|
both of you have put it nicer than I would
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm tired of the attacks based on an imagine viewing of some fictional doco that he can't even tell us what it was shot on.
I would suggest he is flogging a dead horse... but that is another thread.
All artists are prepared to suffer for their work, but why are so few prepared to learn to draw? :BANKSY
"A Cameraman without a camera is just a man." Stephen Press
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Aug 17 2012, 10:06pm
Post #23 of 23
(247 views)
Shortcut
|
Just to test my feelings on it. I am indeed open to having my mind changed.
But from what I have seen of 48fps, coupled with early reactions to the Hobbit at that speed, I do not expect it to be much different than my expectations.
In general, my visual tastes are very specific, and I can't see in what form this will work for me.
|
|
|
|
|
