High Frame Rate (HFR) movies: time to overcome resistance? Also, on anachronistic nostalgia. And why I rarely go to movie theaters these days.

This week, indulge me in staying a little longer with discussions on the video theme; since I view audio and video technologies as members of the same family, there will be references and detours made about audio in this post.

Although I think 4K is plenty of spatial resolution already for home use (discussed years ago at the advent of UHD BluRays), there is one obvious way to increase the perceived resolution of video playback - improve the "time domain" performance.

While basically everything about motion picture technology has evolved - aspect ratio changes from 4:3 (silent film) to widescreen, frame sizes (35mm various forms, 65/70mm, various digital sensor sizes), B&W to color, higher effective resolution, transition from analog film to digital - isn't it amazing that the cinematic framerate has remained at a mere 24fps, and commonly 180° shutter rule for motion blurring (more geeky testing here)? Since the dawn of the "sound film" in 1926 - almost exactly a century ago! 

High Frame Rate (HFR) movies - movies that were filmed and projected at more than the "cinematic" 24fps - typically 48fps or 60fps - have been simply uncommon for feature presentations to this point. Perhaps reminiscent of multichannel music which had its starts and misses over the decades (eg. 4.0-channel quad back in the '70s), HFR also had a time in the '70s and early '80s when the company Showscan was trying to achieve higher image quality with 65-70mm film at 60fps. But like quadraphonic audio, the technology of the day wasn't really good enough for practical, economical, trouble-free high-fidelity visual reproduction.

Imagine what kind of physical demands would have been necessary for this. Showscan ran the film at 4.68ft/s or 281ft/minute! Clearly a costly endeavor (estimated $2-3M just for the negatives and processing to make a movie back in the '80s) plus imagine the pounds of film to send out to all the theaters, maintenance needs, plus potential damage to the film after a number of runs. How many showings would have been needed for a decent return on investment?!

No surprise then that full-length films were never released in this format. (Here's an interesting brochure from 1990 of their High Impact Cinema prototype, and their 1987 company prospectus.)

There's a great interview article with Douglas Trumbull about Showscan from 1984 in the American Cinematographer magazine. Here's a quote from the article of what the format subjectively intended to achieve and the sound side:

"Water movement, such as ripples and splashes, have a smoother quality, showing details of water never seen before in films shown with a 'slow motion' effect. Lightning is seen as it appears in life. There is no strobing at all, even in a rapid pan or tilt shot, yet there is no blurring of the image...

"We keep the sound system separate from the film the pictures are on," Trumbull pointed out. "We aren't trying to shove it down the side of the frames. It's a six-track Dolby system, made to be heard from front channels, surround speakers and subwoofers for subaudible vibrations..."

Thankfully, with technological improvements, we can achieve the promise of Showscan with significantly better results digitally in the last decade - both visually and audibly. Yet, are we taking advantage of the technology? On the audio side, I think we are with all kinds of multichannel formats including object-based audio like Dolby Atmos and DTS:X. But visually, we are still missing the key ingredient of the Showscan-like cinematic experience - framerate.

Trumbull passed away recently in 2022 at 79 and he continued the high frame rate work through his life - for example, a video with Trumbull about digital capture at 120fps from 2010, a framerate that can be decreased down to 24, 30 or 60fps without complex interpolation:

With 60fps video quite common now on YouTube, we can easily capture 60fps videos on our phones/cameras, and achieve >60fps while gaming, I don't think it's a stretch that in time, perhaps not long from now, the negative psychological associations of the "soap opera effect" as a kind of "hyper-realistic" impression causing resistance in viewers by associating the smoother motion with television (historically 30fps progressive and 60fps interlaced for NTSC) will dissipate.

I know everyone has their opinions on this but I find that when the video is shot in HFR, the smoothness and life-like motion looks natural and quite enjoyable (of course depends on the content and film maker intent). Yes, while I can of course enjoy 24 fps, I find myself distracted by the motion judder/stutter increasingly more often than I'd prefer when I watch films projected in the theater. The "soap opera effect" for me was not so much the framerate smoothness but rather the often over-sharpened, low-resolution scanlined, interlaced, look of old broadcast video that distinguish itself from film in the past. Not that I have any time to watch them, but I had a peek at a modern soap opera broadcast (The Young And The Restless - 50 seasons now!) on HDTV the other day and it looked quite good compared to the pre-2000's impression I usually think of with that negative "soap opera effect" connotation.

The smooth "look" of captured HFR (not the artificial interpolation of a TV pushing content to 120/240Hz) will obviously be different compared to 24fps, but instead of being dissuaded by nay-sayers, I hope movie creators will continue to explore such smoothness that accurately removes motion judder, reduces stutters, and induces less motion blur in their projects.

Another concern I've heard about filming in higher framerate has been that CGI effects will take more time to render. I spoke to a friend working in a VFX company here recently and he wasn't particularly concerned. With faster computers and tools like AI frame-generation in the 2020's, this has already taken a huge bite out of the processing burden with basically no major visible issues (in a way correlating with improvements with GPU frame generation in gaming).

In practice, while the movie wasn't great, I have a copy of Ang Lee's Gemini Man (2019) ripped to my movie server in 4K/59.9fps + Dolby Vision + Dolby TrueHD-Atmos, the only movie at this technical level to demo when visitors are curious to see what Showscan-like performance would look like. It's also a good test to confirm that your video streamer, HDMI receiver, cables and display are capable of error-free high bitrate + high frame rate reproduction.

Image quality of the ending fight with the car explosion and gatling gun shootout scenes looks fantastic in Dolby Vision + 60fps HFR.

Scene from 4K/60fps HDR10/Dolby Vision BluRay Gemini Man (2019) - here's a YouTube clip.
Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (2016) also from Ang Lee is the other 4K/60fps movie commonly available in HDR10.

From Gemini Man (1:27:57). This looked very impressive at 4K+Dolby Vision+60fps!

One of these days, maybe we'll be able to experience Titanic (1997), Avatar (2009), The Hobbit Trilogy (2012-2014), Avatar: The Way of Water (2022), The Wild Robot (2024), Kung Fu Panda 4 (2024), and Sonic The Hedgehog 3 (2024) in HFR at home as all these popular movies were created at least in part in 48fps.

I believe only The Hobbit movies and Avatar: The Way of Water have been projected in the theaters in their native 48fps HFR (maybe the first Avatar as well). Whether these sci-fi, fantasy movies are the best showcases of the technology is up for debate. I think undoubtedly the water effects in Avatar 2 with 3D and HFR look great and Doug Trumbull I suspect would be very impressed!

Of the movies above, I'd love to watch The Wild Robot in 48fps as an animated feature (my pick for Best Animated Feature for 2024 - Flow won at the Oscars); imagine Pixar and Disney computer rendered movies also done in crystal clear 4K/HDR 48/60fps. 

Notice that 48fps is not a standard HDMI framerate currently although interestingly we see 10K/48fps and 12K/48fps listed in the HDMI 2.2 Chroma Table from the HDMI Forum, so perhaps there's recognition that this frame rate could be useful in the future:

Regardless, even if native 48fps isn't available, high quality framerate interpolation to 60fps would look excellent. What's really needed are curious filmmakers willing to experiment, creating more of this kind of content and exposing the public to what "higher fidelity" movies look like; time-domain clarity would be especially beneficial for action sequences.

Here are some interesting HFR-related clips. First we have James Cameron from 13 years ago talking about Avatar 1:

To me, Avatar is basically an extended CGI rendering in the hybrid sci-fi/fantasy genre. It's what the future might look like for interactive gaming merged with movie storytelling. IMO, HFR will add to these kinds of experiences which already demand major suspension of disbelief:

Here's the trailer for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in 1080P/48fps:

I wouldn't mind experiencing that again at home with the action sequences presented at twice the number of frames and battle scenes on a virtual massive scale.

Beyond animated movies and action shots, I think it's quite remarkable and unfortunate that nature documentaries like Planet Earth III (2023) or Blue Planet II (2018) are not already using 60fps for their UHD BluRay releases! Boy, some major missed opportunities I think for not "pulling out all the stops" to go as far as possible with the quality of "real life" imagery. Imagine seeing a cheetah running at real-time speed in smooth 60fps, or the undulation of an underwater scene not artificially interpolated by a TV but the actual smooth 60fps capture.

Would be cool to see this waterfall with all its detailed droplets in HFR. Planet Earth III Ep. 4.

How about smooth, more realistic motion of this school of fish? Blue Planet II Ep. 7.

No need for all this motion blur of the rays swimming by! Planet Earth III Ep. 2.

Here's a thought: instead of just marketing up-interpolation video DSP like "TruMotion" (LG), or "Motionflow" (Sony), or "Auto Motion Plus" (Samsung) that smooths framerates to 120/240Hz, create a "Classic Cinema" profile for UHD players, TVs, displays, and projectors that down-interpolates HFR material to 24fps. By doing this, any content can have that juddery, motion-blurred quality of the sub-flicker-fusion "cinematic" frame rate as an option.

Allow film-makers then to be free to create content at higher framerates to utilize the resolution that modern interfaces like HDMI can easily handle. By equipping this same down-interpolation ability in movie projectors, theaters can then choose whether they want to project movies at the HFR rate or "classic" 24fps based on local demand. Cinemas can then tailor how many HFR:SFR (Standard Frame Rate) showings daily. Even if currently the demand is lower for the HFR version among average moviegoers, over time, I suspect we'll see a cultural shift towards technically more realistic-looking smoothly captured motion.

Not only will HFR (say 60fps) make the image more realistic with less blurring, this will also increase the base color quality; those chroma compressed 4:2:0 frames (discussed last time) presented to the eyes at 60fps will also have 2.5x more color samples/second. I think this would be a win-win for everyone interested in making and consuming videos/movies. It might even be interesting for display manufacturers to explore best ways to interpolate framerates down to achieve the "perfect" cinematic look and videophiles might even want options to tweak personal preferences around how this is done in the home theater with their software.

In the audiophile world, we already have hi-res digital audio of all sorts from PCM 24/192+ to DSD256+ that can be transferred down to LP/vinyl quality if the listener prefers. The current 24fps framerate looks like movies are still stuck with LP/vinyl quality! Hopefully at some point things can move forward.

[Currently in early 2025, still very slim pickings for 60fps UHD BluRays. See discussion of HFR video/movies here; there are a few more European and Japanese releases listed.]

 

A Criterion Collection / Super Deluxe Edition (SDE) model for HDR+HFR UHD BluRays?

Would it be feasible to release "premium" HDR+HFR UHD BluRay discs aimed at collectors and home theater enthusiasts? 

I remember lusting over Criterion Collection special editions back in the days when DVDs were being introduced and now in the modern era of spatial audio, there are many Super Deluxe Edition multichannel TrueHD-Atmos BluRay albums that quickly sell out (like the recent Roxy Music Avalon with Bob Clearwater TrueHD-Atmos mix out of stock in less than a month).

Imagine limited runs of "HFR Special Edition" UHD BluRays for movies where such a version exists (and can be licensed). I would love to own such a special edition of The Wild Robot, Titanic, the Avatar series. If Peter Jackson has already put in the effort to film and create his 48fps version of The Hobbit trilogy, I want to own that at home! If there are 60fps versions of documentaries like Blue Planet II, gimme that also! 😍

If wholesale change cannot happen quickly, then gradual changes that feed the demanding perfectionist videophile/home theater enthusiast market might be a powerful way to catalyze interest, encourage the development of new content and in time create the acceptance for HFR to be mainstream and psychologically shift pure 24fps as a "nostalgic" century-old relatively arbitrary specification from a time when physical film stock was expensive and the capture/display technologies had limited mechanical capabilities.

Anachronistic home videos...

A look at intentionally nostalgic film-making...

Let's shift gears a bit to the other direction from high-tech HFR and talk about intentionally nostalgic retro-fidelity image quality.

As an audiophile who has written over the years about LP/vinyl and demonstrated resolution comparisons, it's obvious that subjective preferences are driven more by psychological factors with ties to nostalgic feelings. The dissonance comes when some of these "analog" audiophiles insist that LP's are the "best" format in existence for high-fidelity audio when they're obviously not.

Two things can be correct at the same time:

1. What is "best" is not necessarily defined by the perceptible quality alone (even if the person claims it is). This is subjective. It could be the feelings evoked - nostalgia, comfort due to the audible noise floor, frequency response seeming "natural" even if highly colored. It could also be because of the physical nature of owning the product like an LP, enjoying the artwork/packaging, appreciating the ritual of the playback process, and having pride in the turntable hardware.

2. Objectively lower-fidelity sound can be subjectively preferable. Low/compressed dynamic range can push up audible details in less ideal listening rooms. Colored tonality sounds pleasant at times. Noise from dirt, dust, scratches could all add to the impressions in #1.

Ultimately, because the arbiter of "best" is up to the individual, he/she is the only person who judges for themselves and I have no argument with what anyone prefers even if I feel I need to be candid about the quality of certain hardware not being capable of true hi-fi transparency. 

This is why I use the term "euphonophile" to describe the subjective intent of some to seek subjectively preferable sound despite deviations from objective transparency/high-fidelity.

This distinction might be present in the world of cinema hobbyists also? I'll make up another neologism and call this "eutheaphilia" - thea referring to the Greek for light, sight, spectacle and vision. Thea (also Theia) is the goddess of sight. We can see this meaning in the word "theater".

Since it was Oscar week last week, I found an interesting example of a movie that can appeal to that eutheaphilic nostalgia - The Brutalist (2024). An excellent film with important, deep themes (go watch the movie and have a look at discussions like these). Visually, I was very impressed by how it purposefully aimed to recreate the "analogue" esthetic of older film complete with film grain noise, and every few seconds, you'll see flickers of dirt and dust baked in through most of the movie!

Here's an example still-frame captured at 1:45:21:

This looks like an old movie down to the embedded dust in the image. Whether that's considered nostalgically pleasing or just dated-looking is in the eyes of the beholder. Other parts of the film, especially the external shots look significantly better with brighter lighting.

Here's one of those outdoor scenes. Looks good, some tasteful vignetting on the edges. Organic film-looking. Good amount of details with easily noticeable film grain as intended.

The purposeful nostalgia that the film maker created based on a '50s esthetic enhances the darker emotional themes, the grain adds to the grit and dirt in the construction process of a post-War era, film grain also adds a layer of apparent detail to the textured raw concrete in much of the architectural shots later on. It's fascinating that in the lead-up to the Oscars, there was controversy because of the use of modern AI and digital techniques in the production. Purists apparently complained about the 4K/6K digital editing, as well as the use of AI in making the dialogue/accents sound more genuinely Hungarian.

I don't know who these purists are that might complain, but in 2025, what else did you think was supposed to happen? And does it really matter? A movie, just like a studio album, ultimately consists of captured "performances" artistically edited to tell a story. When we play back the movie/album, we're creating each time a derivative performance using modern electronic technologies (for movies, everything from streaming to your small smartphone screen to playback at the local IMAX).

To insist on some kind of "purity" of an analog chain based only on anachronistic devices (hand-cranked film camera, anyone?) and techniques (razorblade splicing of film, anyone?), while perhaps interesting skills, is rather niche and anyone expecting such things in a modern production should be examining their own perfectionistic psychology. It's Adrien Brody on screen playing László Tóth, a fictitious character anyways; it's all a work of fiction, all they're aiming for was an impression of  the 1950's as created in the 21st Century. This is similar to Christopher Nolan and his choice to use 70mm film to create a kind of emotional look and feel; the difference in resolution is noticeable though.

For us in the audiophile world, the freak-out in 2022 about using DSD256 captures of master tapes to press LPs based on the digital master by MoFi is along the same lines.

Modern euphonophilic audiophiles who strongly seek out "all analog" playback for 2-channel stereo is akin to the purists who were disappointed that The Brutalist's use of old film technology was augmented by modern techniques, and not 100% "genuine". Let's be clear vinylphiles, unless you're totally going vintage early-pressing vinyl, or only buying specialty audiophile pressings of master tapes before the '80s, newer music likely all have been through digital processing such as the 16-bit/50kHz Ampex ADD-1 Digital Delay since 1979 - see patent here - which would have at best functioned around 12-bits given technology limits back then.

[I was told about this years ago chatting with the late Arny Krueger, a highly passionate objectivist since the days of Usenet who passed away in 2018. Alas, didn't have an opportunity to bring it up until thinking about it just now.]

BTW, the UHD BluRay of The Brutalist will feature HDR10 and DTS-HD Master Audio - neither of which quite fit the anachronistic visual aesthetic, do they?! 🤔 The movie sound mix was done in Dolby Digital surround, so while they went with the old-skool video esthetic, they didn't try to aim for a '50s sound which would have been 2-channel tape; maybe at most 3-channel stereo like RCA Victor Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence.

Oh yeah... One more thing, we see this logo at the start of the movie:

VistaVision was created in 1954 shooting the 35mm film horizontally which added more space (hence resolution) for widescreen presentations, used nicely in The Brutalist for the architectural shots - here's more on VistaVision. Sure, it might have been "high-fidelity" image capture in the 1950's when Cecil B. DeMille shot The Ten Commandments (1956) using this, but not in the 2020's; again, this noticeably isn't native 70mm Dunkirk-level resolution or modern 4K+ digital fidelity.

Like VistaVision, it's interesting to think that vinyl was "high-fidelity" in the 1950's but we should be very careful about making that same claim in the 21st Century! Regardless, LP's can sound great when done well and anomalies like the noise floor and crackles are usually noticeable just like 35mm film grain and dust, potentially adding that euphonophilic / eutheaphilic benefit.

In summary - HFR, inevitable use of modern technology, and going to watch movies in the theater...

So while here in early 2025, I can only dream about a world of home theater/video which is free of juddery 24fps for action shots, let's think about the possibilities.

1. For me, it would be great to see more UHD-HFR BluRays, 4K/60fps-encoded content like Gemini Man (but better movies 😉). While the current HDMI 2.1 standard doesn't support 48fps, we can use modern interpolation techniques such as Video Topaz AI that already perform excellent framerate conversions better than a TV display. Actual 48fps HFR video up-interpolated to 60fps will look stunning; I've already played with this myself.

2. Imagine being free of a century-old standard like 24fps (1926) while also free of legacy analogue frame rates from the days of broadcast NTSC (1953 standard, 29.97fps), PAL (1962, 25fps), and SÉCAM (1961, 25fps). By extension, there's no need for non-integer numbers like 59.94fps in the 21st Century.

Basically, why not update the standard and lock the modern cinematic playback rate to 60fps as the universally compatible digital framerate worldwide for new content? 60fps is the average critical flicker fusion frequency; 48fps is still a bit marginal. This will open up opportunities for filmmakers knowing that viewers will be able to enjoy everything up to that HFR quality in modern hardware, compatible with basically every display technology worldwide.

In the future, maybe the "standard" can be increased to 120Hz with next generation players, but like with all things perceptible, diminishing returns will kick in quickly!

Just as we have movies already with variable aspect ratios like Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight from 2008 with IMAX portions in 1.43:1 mixed with widescreen 2.35:1 (see list here for other films), the filmmaker can also vary the effective frame rate. Imagine most of a movie at base 30fps, nostalgic / emotional / tender / intimate scenes gradually dropping down to 24fps to squeeze out the "cinematic" effect, and then explosive action presented at a heart-pounding 60fps with dynamic surround sound of course.

I've seen complaints about Avatar: The Way of Water flipping back and forth between 24/48fps being distracting (as per this video talking about the 3D HFR showing). I'm sure there's skill/art to make sure framerate changes aren't unnecessarily distracting (the director could purposely make it distracting if desired!), maybe through gradual transitions sort of like fades, modulating the frame rate over seconds or even more gradually over a minute might be worth experimenting with (this could add an interesting extra level of "dynamic range" to the emotional tone, the change smoothly imperceptible to the audience). TrueCut Motion from Pixelworks already produces "motion grading" tools for doing this.

[Addendum: I commented on the idea of MAYA (Most Advanced Yet Acceptable) in the discussions below as perhaps the best way forward when we're trying to challenge a century-old frame rate tradition! The idea of "familiarity with a twist".

Maybe what is worth advocating for is not "HFR", but "effectively" Variable Frame Rate "eVFR". Even though the data stream might be set to 60fps for example, the actual framerate changes dynamically, giving filmmakers the ability to exercise creative freedom when they need to. Sure, stick with 24fps for all the usual movie content but amp it up when you can during those action sequences, maybe do it gradually so as not to be jarring for the viewer.]

I think we should consider HFR as an evolutionary tool for moviemakers. Instead of hyping it up or enticing viewers to check out "Look! HFR version!" in the theaters (like Peter Jackson and James Cameron have done, resulting in 24fps apologist rebuttals 🙂), just go ahead and use it to convey clear motion when needed as per the director's vision. People complain about all kinds of things like the use of unsteady cam, editing being too tight, lighting too dark, color palettes ugly, etc. At every turn, someone somewhere is going to call anything different/new a "gimmick", claim that it "ruined the film", and all kinds of hysterics. That's what it's like to disrupt expectations and eventually once it's more mainstream, it'll be seen as progressive in retrospect.

I think the use of HFR in movies is inevitable if visual technology still is evolving with higher technical capabilities; otherwise, are we to be happy with stagnation?

At a time when cinemas are struggling for all kinds of reasons, I'm more likely to put my money down for a good visual ride than D-Box rumbling seats or even just a large IMAX screen that still looks flickery! After a movie runs in the theaters, there's still money to be made in the physical product (like with vinyl) so a special edition UHD BluRay with 4K+HDR+HFR can further differentiate it from less expensive standard 1080P BluRay (DVD still around but smaller demand).

Finally there's the streaming version with lower-quality compressed 4K+HDR without HFR to save bandwidth; the quality would be between the 1080P BluRay and premium 4K+HDR+HFR UHD BluRay product. As I suggested above, if players and displays implemented a "Classic Cinema" down-interpolation mode for converting everything to 24fps (even a simple 60fps-to-30fps with maybe some extra motion blurring is probably adequate), then viewers can always make their own choice.

3. Why not start with "grass roots" enthusiasts? Limited edition HFR UHD BluRays as per SDE or the Criterion Collection would be an interesting angle. There is collectors' value attaching these as premium products. Again, I believe this will help overcome the psychological viscosity of 24fps and create interest in HFR for enthusiasts.

There was a time when companies like Sony would squeeze out performance and sell special editions like the Superbit Edition of DVDs back in the early 2000's with better picture quality and DTS soundtrack. HDR+HFR UHD BluRays would be soooo much cooler than those and would genuinely be different with potentially better "director's vision" presentations! 🤓

4. Intentional "classic look" movies such as The Brutalist, like lo-fi albums are based on artistic choice. But regardless, modern productions use the technologies of our time whether in the creation process or inevitably in playback (unless you have a 35mm cinema projector handy at home!). Whether you're watching movies or listening to an LP, there is no need for neurotic anachronistic, "analog purity" because that's just pretentious!

While there are plenty of euphonophiles in the audiophile hobby who seek a preferred sound quality and eschews verifiably neutral objectives (ie. claiming measurements as unimportant), I haven't visited enough home theater or video/cinemaphile forums to know if there are many insistent "eutheaphiles" who feel that objective techniques to improve fidelity such as color calibrating displays is not worth testing/doing! I suspect home theater enthusiasts are by nature more sensible. 🙂

Something else I wondered about: in the audiophile world, pure analogue adherents who only play vinyl or tapes and avoid digital are not uncommon, are there video enthusiasts who only use anachronistic technologies like CRT displays, VHS/Beta tapes, LaserDiscs, etc.? Has there ever been an analog video medium that has made a "comeback" in popularity like LP/vinyl?

While there's nothing wrong with preferring the look of video tapes, just don't tell me that Betamax has superior color and resolution compared to good ol' BluRay. 🤔

To end, I know that the movie Industry wants us all to go back to the cinemas.

In fact, Sean Baker said that in his Oscar speech last week for the movie Anora that won the Best Motion Picture. As much as Hollywood might want that, to be honest, I don't feel a need to go to the theaters to watch movies as frequently as I used to 10-20 years ago. I suspect this view isn't uncommon. The reasons are multifactorial.

First, just like with music, after all these decades, there are a lot of titles out there already, thousands streamable (Netflix alone typically 4000-6000 movies at any one time depending on country), obviously unavailable at the cineplex. Here's a look at the yearly number of feature films created from 2009-2014, as reported here:

Typo fixed...

Already a decade ago, from the USA alone, something like 700-800 "feature films" are being released per year. Seriously, how many of those can people with busy lives watch? Based on IMDB statistics, as of December 2024, there are almost 700,000 movies listed:

Even if we say 95% of the films are junk or just not up our alley, that still leaves 40/year that one might like! That means around 1000 films over the last 25 years since 2000.

And that's not including some phenomenal TV series out there with multiple episodes each. We are literally saturated with material to watch these days, and let's not forget all the stuff created for YouTube that can be compelling. So given all that's been done, what draws us out to catch the latest movie at the local theater? Probably not much unless the flick is being billed as a kind of "must watch" ground breaking or cultural phenomenon (like say Avatar 2 maybe).

In 2024, I went to the movie theater a total of 4 times only: Wicked with extended family, A Complete Unknown with my wife who enjoys Dylan's music as I do, and 2 Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF) indie foreign movies (from Japan and China) with good reviews in the international circuit. I watched about one movie every couple of weeks last year so maybe in total 25 titles this past year, most of which obviously streamed online, and maybe a quarter of those are new releases (like The Brutalist, The Wild Robot, Anora, and Conclave most recently). So at best, I only have time to watch a tiny fraction of what's released every year that I might actually like. I'm sure I've missed a ton of stuff I would enjoy - suppose there are no new movies, there's enough out there already for a lifetime of enjoyment!

So, if I'm not drawn to the theatre because there's too much content to compete for my attention, does the technical quality of the movies attract me to the theaters? Don't make me laugh!  Except for the large IMAX screen, the visual experience at most of the theaters here are obviously sub-par compared to my own 4K HDR screen and multichannel audio (recently upgraded to 5.2.4) at home. I might want to be at the theater with the kids and extended family or with friends socially for a change in setting, but that's basically all.

I've felt this since the early 2000's when I got my 48" 720P Samsung DLP HDTV rear projector, experiencing the high-def, bright screen for the very first time. And over the years with larger screens like my LG 55" 3D/1080P by 2010, and current Vizio 75" HDR 4K by 2017 (awhile already!), the relatively dim, flickery look of the local big screen projectors, variable sound quality dependent on seating position, just do not immerse me in the experience any more. Why would I pay all that money when I can rent a fine 4K stream or buy a UHD BluRay for less - especially if I can make my own popcorn for pennies?! Where's the value? Technically, after all these years, they can't even provide HFR content for the big picture, big sound, extravaganzas I would likely pay full price to watch with the family. 😒

No, Sean Baker, I would not feel like I'm getting my money's worth watching a drama like Anora on the "big screen". (Regarding Anora, to be honest, I just found it to be a rather simple film with bombastic profanity, attempting humor that fell flat for me, and wasn't ultimately deep enough to think about after the end credits. I don't understand the attention it got.)

Anyhow, as I was walking out of the Top Gun: Maverick showing at the IMAX in 2022, I remember wondering what those non-CGI jet dog fights would look like if filmed and presented at 60fps with low motion blur. Would that increased realism/fidelity add to the excitement? Hmmm, maybe Tom Cruise and company can push the technical envelope with higher temporal resolution in Top Gun III!? I'll show up to the theater for that. 😁

In the more immediate future, Animal Farm (2025) is supposedly coming this July, produced in HFR and 3D. It has been a long time in production so let's see if it's any good. And then Avatar: Fire and Ash in December this year. As I suggested, I don't think there's need to hype HFR, as per Nike - film makers should freely "Just do it!" as per their intended vision.

Some parting music thanks to The Drifters (1965), "Saturday Night At The Movies" - an ode to simpler times before consumer technology brought large screens and immersive soundtracks home. Performed by Robson & Jerome (1998) in this video:

Addendum - April 2, 2025:

For an amazing example of the use of HFR in cinematography, check out the Netflix miniseries Adolescence (4 episodes, 2025) which is presented in 50Hz. That digital 4K resolution with framerate smoothness adds to the realism of the show and certainly to my eyes has none of the "soap opera" cheap feel at all.

Very impressed!