undefined | Better HN

0 pointsredthrowaway15y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

AndrewDucker15y ago· 2 in thread

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.

redthrowawayOP15y 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.

AndrewDucker15y 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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse