2 ms·
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
by 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 agoThis 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 agoI'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 agoI 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 agoThat'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.