The Hobbit 48FPS 3D where does BD Stand? - Page 2

The Hobbit is scheduled to be released in theater Dec. 19, 2012. That would put the home video release around the end of April, beginning of May 2013 - over two years from today.

LOL - we going to argue about this for the next two+ years?

I hope so

"1080p" is a marketing term that has been over-hyped. 1080p TVs can accept up to 60 fps. 1080p in the Blu-ray standard is limited to 23.976/24 fps - and film makers like James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Douglas Trumbull and others have talked about the limitation of that rate. 1080i on Blu-ray can hold the full HD resolution at up to 30 fps or 60i video - though not in 3D.

But like I said, I think other formats, including 1080p48, should be added to the specs if that's what they're using, and to keep the format relevant and not become outdated soon.

An Exercise in Futility

I suppose if it will be around April-May 2013 when the consumer version gets released, that will give them a bit of time to work on standards/formats for encoding at at least 1080p res at 48 fps in 3D too. As well as working on standards for cables & TVs etc.

As usual, all this bickering is quite pointless. I think ultimately the answer is that the BDA really needs to create a new "profile" level for Blu-ray to accommodate a lot of the technical advancements that have been made over the past few years (and are coming up).

• Support more layers per disc (100 GB quad layer should be the minimum considered. The higher the better)
• Support for obvious new data rates (48p, 60p) and full-resolution 3D at those rates
• Higher spin rate/bandwidth for the above
• While they're at it, give us 4:4:4 color at 12-bit (I think most new TVs are capable of this or close to it by now)
• Maybe even support for 4K video. I personally don't think it's necessary for the home, but if the CE companies are going to push it on us, I'd rather they bake it into an official spec sooner rather than later.

As a movie lover, I'm really dismayed by the rapid adoption of crappy streaming. We need to keep Blu-ray as a viable option for home delivery. I think staying on top of these advancements and keeping Blu-ray at the forefront of quality will help keep the format going. If they do this right, and with adequate foresight, it should last the rest of the life of spinning media.

And 1080p50 too, and >1080p60 too. And 7680x4320p120

Motionblur isnt because of 24P. You can shoot 24P without any motionblur. But it will not look very good without motionblur for most content. Even showscan need some motionblur because it will also look stroby, it doesnt however need they same amount of motionblur as 24P does.

it's called "house specialty"

I don't think people should argue about it. I think discussing it is much better. It is a cool topic to discuss and will be informative and interesting.

It's like when sound got added to films and it changed everything. Or colour. Now there's big changes happening for 'film' production/display which haven't changed much in years (even when many cinemas converted to digital they kept a lot of the same limitations of 24 fps film). Now things could change a lot, and they won't be limited to just 24 fps. They could choose from many frame rates/looks and have multiple rates in a single film if they wanted.

What exactly are you trying to say?
Are you trying to insult people again instead of discussing the topics in the thread?

But how long is that? Like it or not, phsical media may very well become a niche product in the not too distant future. I agree that they would need to add support for more layers before they could consider support for things like 4k and 3D in 1080p/48. But the market could shrink enough to not make it worth the investment.

Actually, adding bandwidth to the physical media may be the only hope left for it. I think the BD people are praying that everyone adopts 3D so that double the bandwidth is needed to get full 1080p 3D into your home. Broadcast bandwidth grows slowly, and they are currently stuck with side-by-side half resolution 1080. So if suddenly you need 1080p48, you need 4x the bandwidth of 1080p side-by-side. Physical media may be the fastest way to get that into your home.

The problem is, the masses have already shown that they don't care about the incremental quality improvements that the additional bandwidth offers. If Netflix streaming "HD" is good enough for them, then why would they care about 1080p/48? IF 3D gains mass appeal, I expect we'll see a repeat with low bitrtate SBS broadcasts being "good enough" vs. full rez Blu-ray.

Does anyone consider current 3D BD to be a huge success? I don't. And if that is true, then what is the motivation/incentive to expand the 3D BD platform to accomodate a higher frame rate?

Exactly. James Cameron may care, and some of us may be interested, but the vast majority of the market probably doesn't even know the difference, much less be willing to pay for it. We are way past the days when things happened because those who make the choices make them simply because they think it's the best thing to do. Everything has to have a ROI.

P.S... I think before we ask if 3D BD is a huge success, we have to first determine if 2D BD is a huge success.

James Cameron does care. He is one of a handful of directors that go outside the box to use technology to improve cinema production and presentation. Chris Nolan is another with his groundbreaking use of IMAX 15/70 for a big budget film.

But there is nothing that says that these technological advancements will immediately dribble down to home video. Only in one instance has home video been above professional cinema . . . the use of 7.1 SS and that "advantage" no longer applies.

And as it has already been stated, a handful of movies shot at 48 or 60 FPS does not mean the industry is changing over to make it a standard. They have experimented with cinema tech for over 50 years. Few of the improvements stood the test of time.

That higher frame rate could work in 2D too - at 1080p or whatever other format they also decide.

For a long time, most cinemas were only capable around 24 fps, but TV broadcasts could show 25p/50i/60i/720p50/720p60 etc.

Has any director announced they are shooting a 2D film in a higher frame rate? Not to my knowledge. Only 3D films.

But you don't watch a film at 24 FPS. You see it at either 48 or 72 FPS

You know what I mean, there are only 24 unique images per second, the others are repeats, flashing the same image multiple times

LOL - it's worked for quite some time hasn't it?

Am I understanding this correctly - that The Hobbit is going to be shot digitally and not on film?

Yes, they are using Epic cameras from Red.

Most Projectors have been limited to that for quite some time.

There are no film solutions for 3D.

Huh? Of course there are. The vast majority of Imax 3D movies to date have been captured on film. 3D existed LONG before digital cinema.

How many IMAX cameras are in the world? What was the longest sequence in a film shoot with IMAX cameras?

I don't know, nor do I care to research it, as it's not relevant to the point. The industry has certainly shifted to digital for 3D, but not because there are no film solutions, it's just that the digital solutions are much more practical.