Peter Jackson's 48 fps version of The Hobbit said to be a 'limited release' only

[carlweston]

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/08/the-hobbit-48-fps-film-limited-release/
interesting.

"All told, we can't deny Peter Jackson's caused some madness since announcing the scheme to shoot his upcoming Hobbit film at a high frame-rate, rather than sticking with the more common 24 fps, Hollywood-style method. Regardless, rumor now has it Warner Bros. is supposedly planning a "limited release" of the 48 fps version because, according to Variety, the studio "wants to protect the format" by choosing to go the select-viewing route -- that said, WB's allegedly hoping to "expand the HFR release for the second and third installments." Still, nothing's set in stone just yet, so we'd hold off on throwing any temper tantrums (or celebrating, depending on which side you're on) until we hear something official from Warner."
Via:Engadget

 

[androbot2084]

So will the Hobbit 48 fps be available on 720p Blu-Ray?

 

[hempo22]

So will the Hobbit 48 fps be available on 720p Blu-Ray?

don't think so unless the change the standard. Right now it only support 24, 50 and 60p in 720.

 

[androbot2084]

I suppose 48 fps will be pulled up to 60 fps by doubling every 4th frame for 720p delivery.

 

[Gillvane]

That's disappointing. I don't live in a big city so I probably won't have an opportunity to see teh 48 fps version and I was really interested in seeing how that looks on the big screen.

 

[roxics]

Always thought the Blu-ray spec seemed a little short sighted. Especially the lack of 1080p/60fps. But variable frame rates would have been a better route.

So is this choice for limited release based purely on a technological limitation. Like the lack of digital projectors that can show 48fps in theaters or is is more about the studio just being conservative? A friend and I were discussing it and he was saying the theaters just aren't outfitted for it. But I've also heard it's just the studio being conservative. Don't know which to believe.

 

[Samuel H]

My guess: it's because a huge investment is needed on the part of the theatre owners, and they're unlikely to jump blindly on that train after the poor showing at Comic-Con

 

[stefancolson]

My guess: it's because a huge investment is needed on the part of the theatre owners, and they're unlikely to jump blindly on that train after the poor showing at Comic-Con

It's even worse that that! The 48fps screening that got such a negative reaction was at CinemaCon, the official convention of NATO (the National Association of Theater Owners). So the very same people that make the decision whether or not to upgrade their equipment to be able to screen the film at 48fps are the ones that hated the high frame rate footage so much.

 

[androbot2084]

That is very short sighted of the theatre owners. I would love to pay theatres to see the Olympics in 4K projected at 120 frames per second. At home all I get is 1080i and every time there is fast action the picture falls apart.

 

[roxics]

It's even worse that that! The 48fps screening that got such a negative reaction was at CinemaCon, the official convention of NATO (the National Association of Theater Owners). So the very same people that make the decision whether or not to upgrade their equipment to be able to screen the film at 48fps are the ones that hated the high frame rate footage so much.

NATO huh. Whoops.

 

[androbot2084]

Blu-ray supports 3D 720p at 50 and 60 frames per second.