3 ms·

The big question is - will people pay more for tickets at 48fps? If not, then it's not in the interests of the distributors/chains to pay to upgrade.

redthrowaway 16y ago
Per the article, the purported advantage is that it offers an experience that a) can't be had at home, and b) people actually want (unlike 3d). In so doing, the creator argues that it has the potential to reverse, or at least mitigate the trend of declining viewership. If that's true, then it could be financially worthwhile even if ticket prices don't go up.
- AndrewDucker 16y ago
  This is true if people do actually want it, and are willing to pay for it (whether they're going to a 48fps showing over a 24fps one, or they are paying for a showing when they wouldn't otherwise have done so). Personally, I like 3D, but I'm aware that not everyone feels this way.
  - redthrowaway 16y ago
    I'd say 3d, when properly used, is a useful tool in moviemaking. That said, it should not be a format and studio reliance upon it will lead to them, in the best case, producing movies that are suited to it, which are few. This technology, on the other hand, is at least purported to be one which can be used for all films and increase quality across the board.
    - AndrewDucker 16y ago
      I definitely agree on increased quality. I see flicker quite a bit, and I'd love it if movies had high frame rates. I'm just sceptical that this can be sold to the general public.
      - redthrowaway 16y ago
        That's a legitimate concern, hence my suggestion of A/B testing. There's a very real chance the average moviegoer won't care, in which case the cost is minimal.
crististm 16y ago
If the experience is no better than what I get at home, then I will not pay for a premium ticket... Going to the theater should give you an experience that is either not possible or too expensive to get at home. So the only way they will survive is if they get you this experience without paying a premium for it (the _normal_ experience would be HD@home)

redthrowaway 16y ago

Per the article, the purported advantage is that it offers an experience that a) can't be had at home, and b) people actually want (unlike 3d). In so doing, the creator argues that it has the potential to reverse, or at least mitigate the trend of declining viewership. If that's true, then it could be financially worthwhile even if ticket prices don't go up.

AndrewDucker 16y ago
This is true if people do actually want it, and are willing to pay for it (whether they're going to a 48fps showing over a 24fps one, or they are paying for a showing when they wouldn't otherwise have done so). Personally, I like 3D, but I'm aware that not everyone feels this way.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  I'd say 3d, when properly used, is a useful tool in moviemaking. That said, it should not be a format and studio reliance upon it will lead to them, in the best case, producing movies that are suited to it, which are few. This technology, on the other hand, is at least purported to be one which can be used for all films and increase quality across the board.
  - AndrewDucker 16y ago
    I definitely agree on increased quality. I see flicker quite a bit, and I'd love it if movies had high frame rates. I'm just sceptical that this can be sold to the general public.
    - redthrowaway 16y ago
      That's a legitimate concern, hence my suggestion of A/B testing. There's a very real chance the average moviegoer won't care, in which case the cost is minimal.

crististm 16y ago

If the experience is no better than what I get at home, then I will not pay for a premium ticket... Going to the theater should give you an experience that is either not possible or too expensive to get at home. So the only way they will survive is if they get you this experience without paying a premium for it (the _normal_ experience would be HD@home)