Why did IMAX go with 2k over 4k? Probably because they were doing a simultaneous rollout of digital IMAX theaters across the country and 4k projectors would have been expensive, especially with their system of two projectors per theater. Maybe they thought that people would assume that two 2k projectors was the same as one 4k projector (which it most certainly is not). IMAX is working on a laser projector system that will be higher resolution, but it's not ready for primetime yet.

As for how you adjusted for different frame rates on film, you would have to project the film at the same framerate it was shot, otherwise you would get speed up or slow down.

So far this movie is sitting at 79% with a 7.3/10 average. Part I scored a 65% with a 6.6.

At the very least, it shows improvement thus far.

I did not care for the 3D/48fps on the last movie, so I'm gonna skip it on this one.

Agreed. It was too distracting for me. After about 30 minutes in I didn't notice as much but not worth the extra scratch IMO. I'll stick with 2D.

for those who ARE interested in the high frame rate presentations here's a somewhat complete list of the participating/upgraded theaters

http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/index.html

the exclusion of Regal Bethesda (Maryland) (screen 10) is one omission I've noticed.

Oh sweet, The Landmark is getting it. Although I might prefer it in a digital IMAX, because the two-projector system provides superior brightness.

It just seems odd that an IMAX ticket costs more and uses a projector with less resolution, what advantage is it supposed to offer? Though the whole concept of digital IMAX kind of defeats the purpose of the IMAX anyway, since IMAX is all about shoot with special film cameras and stuff. Though they'd obviously have to have a DCP system since not many real IMAX screens are around anyway.

I'm assuming that if the film had slow motion or something, it'd be converted to the 24 FPS print (now encoding) to be projected that way? I can't imagine a projectionist would have to readjust for a slo-mo scene.

Explains why it's so much less expensive than film prints then.

How exactly did they develop? I assume different regions use different TV standards when they set up the TV broadcasts in their respective regions? Hasn't film projection always been 24 FPS? I'd assume that DCP is universal too?

The costs do increase for rendering more frames, but it's not a straight linear progression - rendering twice as many frames doesn't necessarily cost twice as much for the effects. Most of the cost in digital effects is in the man-hours used creating the models, physics engines, animations, and lighting effects. The actual frame rendering is on the tail end of that and mostly just a question of asking a computer to render the same finished scene from a different angle, or at more individual points in time.

Most film projecters have shutters that open and shut a number of times on a single frame before the next frame is advanced. So for a 48hz shutter, the sequence is:

shutter closed - frame advances
shutter opens
shutter closes
shutter opens
shutter closes
next frame advances

See wikipedia for more info.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector#Shutter

Doubtful. Theaters will just be installing newer projectors with more/better features as they are released, but not necessarily replacing existing digital projectors for a while. Their costs should stay the same even as the tech improves, so 3D tickets should stay the same.

Many of them do, especially nowadays. But they've been growing in the past decade, and aren't everywhere. Also, the corporate structures of separate divisions and such means distributors still get a cut that's taken out of what the studio gets, even if it's the same parent company.

For The Hobbit, having two studios involved makes things more compliicated. Thus, WB Pictures is handling international theatrical distribution, but "on behalf" of MGM. So MGM gets a cut of international box office, but after WB international deducts their distributors fee.
http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies...bbit-worldwide

Yes, New Line hedged its bets on Lord of the Rings, and thus had less upfront risk, but at the expense of not getting a share of the international box office.

The Golden Compass was likely an instance of the pre-selling working out for New Line, since that movie didn't perform as well as they had hoped.


Yes, changing the native framerate of a film means matching it so everything in the film projects at the correct speed in the new framerate.

You do know how slo-mo shots are achieved, right? They shoot the scene at a higher framerate, say 120fps, then play it back at 24fps in the theater, causing the shot take 5 times longer to play back then it did to shoot.

Basically, the countries that had 50hz AC used a 50hz refresh rate on TVs, while countries that had 60hz AC used 60hz on TV. This was due to the early TV tech working best when the electron gun reset at the same rate as the AC oscillation. And it's been carried forward for the purposes of backwards compatibility, although nowadays TVs can be set to any number of refresh rates, regardless of AC source.

Film, however, has not always been 24fps. Silent films were shot at any number of various framerates, sometimes depending on how fast the cinematographer could literally hand-crank the camera. They were likewise projected at a variety of framerates, and not necessarily the same as what the film was shot at. Framerates were often lower than 24fps, which is what led to the rise of the "Keystone Cops" effect when films shot at, say 15fps are screened on a 24fps projector/telecline for TV, making all the action look unnaturally fast.

When sound was introduced, the film industry had to decide on a standard so that the sound was always played back at the correct speed, as people are really sensitive to changes in pitch in sound, moreso that speed changes in imagery. 24fps was settled as a compromise as the slowest speed still capable of providing reasonably smooth motion, while not using too much film. It was never the ideal speed, with Thomas Edison bemoaning the use of any film speed lower than 47fps.

DCP was a standard set by the DCI to insure compatibility between movie theater projectors and the materials the studios send out. At 2K, the DCP standard supports 24, 25, 30, 48, 50, and 60 fps.

Voltage. US chose 60 Hz because that was their electrical standard and that's the same reason the UK chose 50 Hz for their TV's.

Based on the FAQ at that link, am I right to assume that IMAX 3D is an option, but IMAX 3D HFR is NOT an option? That's what it seems to say, but I'm not 100% certain.

In other words, is it true that the only HFR option is 3D non-IMAX?

I would strongly prefer 2D HFR, but that doesn't seem to be an option anywhere, just like last year.

This can also be achieved in post-production, and it's quite noticeable that they've just duped frames. Was very common in low-budget / exploitation films back in the day.

Wouldn't that primarily depend on whether or not they're FX shots? I'd assume 48 FPS of a dialogue-heavy film with mostly static shots would be less expensive.It sounds like the rendering is mostly time-consuming, hence all of the render farms out there. Most film projecters have shutters that open and shut a number of times on

I get more homework from you than I ever did in school .

Granting that, does this extra FPS still matter for anything that isn't 3-D?

I remember that, in the fallout of MGM, there was a big battle for The Hobbit and Bond, apparently hugely legally complicated.

That does make business sense.

But if they hadn't pre-sold it, wouldn't they have stood to make more off of the international box office?

That I did know, yes.

I'd assume it has to do with what kind of TV you have too, I'd imagine different ones do different things?

So it's still basically been the standard for at least 50 years then?

It still sounds like projecting film at anything other than 24 FPS is relatively new, is there precedent for it?

Wouldn't it be easier to adjust digitally?

I used to do something similar on Final Cut Pro back in my student days, I'd assume digital makes it easier.

Just in case people have missed it. Just like with the first movie, certain IMAX screens will play the movie in 24fps and others in 48fps. From IMAX.com, here is the list sofar for all Digital IMAX screens that will show The Hobbit in 3D + 48 HFR!

http://www.imax.com/community/blog/p...imax-theatres/

No... you cannot see The Hobbit in 2D IMAX.

Interestingly enough, Edge of Tomorrow, Godzilla, and Jupiter Ascending are all being distributed by WB, who is also distributing this movie. If all of those trailers play before this, it come across like they're expecting a theater full of geeks and nerds.

Digital IMAX will offer The Hobbit in 3D HFR (all the HFR presentations will be in 3D). Film IMAX will offer The Hobbit in 3D at 24 frames per second. There are IMAX projectors capable of doing 48fps, but the print would be too big for any existing platter.

All 2D presentations are 24fps.

Thanks to both of you who answered. Looks like I'm seeing it in IMAX Digital 3D HFR, but not until next Friday.

I still wish 2D HFR (Imax or non-Imax) was an option. I'd pay extra specifically for that kind of screening. The 3D in The Hobbit didn't do much for me. Also, I learned today that calling this film "The Hobbit 2" pisses off the nerds.

Not all Digital IMAX screens will be playing the movie in 48fps. Theaters not willing to spend the extra thousands of dollars to upgrade the Digital IMAX projectors will play The Hobbit in 24fps.

I didn't say ALL Digital IMAX screens. I said that Digital IMAX will offer The Hobbit in 3D HFR. Some will be HFR, some won't.

Planning on trying to catch a HFR show Friday evening then the IMAX 3D Saturday afternoon. Friday evening depends on how tired I feel.

Well, it gives more detail and smoother motion in general, even in 2D. However, WB doesn't appear interested in providing a 2D HFR version of The Hobbit in theaters.

The situation with The Hobbit occurred before MGM went bankrupt; in fact, New Line and MGM had either reached an agreement or were really close right before MGM went bankrupt. The situation existed before LOTR was produced even, where one studio, MGM, had distribution rights, but another, first Miramax then New Line, had production rights.

Yes, but then they also could've lost a lot more money if it hadn't done well, potentially bankrupting the studio.

Longer than that, likely over 80 years. Wikipedia notes the framerate being standardized since around 1928-1930, while the Academy Ratio, devised to help standardize the ratio of sound films, and presumably also the framerate, came about in 1932.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratio

The original Kinectescope, the precursor to projected motion pictures, was typically shot and screened at around 38-40 fps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetoscope#cite_note-54

Showcan, developed in the late 1970s with 60fps film, has already been discussed in this thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

Maxivision 48 was an attempt starting in 1999 to establish a 48fps film standard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxivision

Aside from that, a few attractions at theme parks have used high frame rates. Peter Jackson has cited Star Tours, shot at 60fps, as an influence on his decision to film The Hobbit in HFR. Peter Jackson shot the King Kong attraction at Universal Studios in 60fps.

And of course, US TVs have been showing video at 60hz since at least 1941:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntsc

Many TV shows shot on film, like Friends and such, shot at 30fps, which translated to 60 interlaced frames well.

In fact, one of the complaints about 48fps The Hobbit feeling like "A TV show" is partly due to us viewers being so used to associating the smoother motion of a higher framerate with video instead of film.


As for homework, the links I provide are optional, but provide far more info and detail that I can provide in one post, and often can provide any answers to questions you might have after reading one of my posts. A lot of my knowledge on film is basically from journeying through the rabbit hole that is the internet every time I had a question about some aspect of video/film production.

tmrw is the day for the release of my fav movie, hav been waiting for this

I saw this last night at a special preview. It was very well done, and I enjoyed it more than the first one. The sfx/cgi for Smaug was impressive, and Cumberbatch nailed it.

So what color is Smaug?

Everytime I read this title out loud, I think it's about Shanghai.