Originally Posted by BlackoutsBox
You are on AVS a super geeked out tech forum. The views of people here don't represent the public. Half of regular people can't see the difference from dvd to blu-ray. Theaters are just glorified blu-ray players now. Still alot with only 2k projectors.
I disagree. The views are pretty similar to the public in terms of sci-fi/action/big budget films. eg. people saying they would buy the 48 fps verison of the Hobbit - on Amazon I'm quite sure the Hobbit films on Blu-ray have been some of the top sellers. The first Hobbit film grossed a billion dollars so it's obviously a successful film. edit: Yes I agree the forum is more into Blu-ray than the general public or eg. Amazon (I guess it's more like 50/50 DVD/Blu-ray there for top sellers). But I disagree that half of regular people wouldn't see the difference between a dvd and Blu-ray - especially if they were watching a quality Blu-ray (assuming good TV able to display the HD well) with a high effective resolution (not just that it's encoded at 1920x1080) - and not blurry/low quality HD - particularly on more static scenes.
The box office receipts from HFR were horrible
But again you're not giving any evidence. If they really were horrible, what were they?
Here's one site:
According to Warner Bros. and IMAX, the HFR screenings did well, with IMAX HFR 3D screenings pulling in a huge $44,000 per screen over the weekend, compared to $31,000 for standard-rate IMAX and an average of $21,000 for all six formats.
So a site with some actual figures says that the HFR screenings did well. If you have actual figures proving the HFR screenings did not do well please link to them/quote the figures.
Then they pulled it from most theaters.
I thought they were only having it at a certain number of theatres because it was a new thing and they didn't want to have too much risk. Also, the cinemas had to do tests to make sure they could do 2K/3D/48 fps and switch to different fps too. So it was a risk.
If you want proof, here is a video of HFR 2nd night opening:
It's not actual numbers. Actual box office receipts eg. showing average receipts of HFR showing them to be bad compared to other films would be proof.
As for Avatar.... that will be at 60p (supposedly)
He still hasn't decided or stated what it will be only that he said he may do 48 or 60 and would prefer 60 (edit: Doug Trumbull I think has been suggesting/wanting him to do 120 fps - I suppose that it could be possible that he would - it's probably an easier conversion to 24 fps than from 60 fps (even if not exactly the same as if it was shot at 24 fps).
As for a 48p blu-ray. Not possible. It's not in the blu-ray spec. They would have to have a whole consortium agree and somehow release new firmware.
There was no Blu-ray 3d format when Blu-ray started (other than anaglyph) but there was later when it was added to the specs. The BDA task force has been working on updating the Blu-ray format for a while now for things like UHD, HFR etc. The spec should be finalised next year and the players/discs may be out next year too. While we don't know all the specific specs, we've heard it is supposed to include UHD ("4K") at up to 60 fps. Whether that includes 48 fps or 3D at that res they haven't said but it's still HFR (up to 60 fps) at 4x the current BD pixel res, and they might well add HFR 1080p 3D too. So we should find out for sure next year when the specs are released.