How much would you pay to see a movie in 8K HFR Autosterocopic 3D at 360 degrees? With 4D effects?

Suppose such a theater were set up for Avengers Infinity War I and II. How much would you be willing to pay to see such a movie shot that way? Something happening on the screen no matter which direction you looked from, a screen 4 times the resolution of a 4K TV, all in 3D, no glasses required, with blowing wind and temperature (and possibly water effects) so you feel like you're actually in the movie?

We have 3D movies that require glasses. Tech is a few years off yet for massive theater screens that can be 3D without glasses.

We have HFR movies. We have 360. We have 8K. We have 4D.

But almost NEVER, do we ever combine all these into a single experience. What sort of movie would you want to see with all these experiences combined? And how much would you pay to watch a movie like that? Even if you had to stand up for the whole movie because there'd be nowhere left to put seats?

For the tech vocab challenged:
- 8K = 7680×4320 resolution. (Way bigger than IMAX.)
- 4D = The movie can soak your shirt. Or make you smell peanut butter. Like at a theme park.
Autosteroscopy = No glasses to see in 3D.
- HFR = High frame rate. Like "Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," shot in 48 frames per second.
- 360 = All directions. Like a theme park attraction.


Most Helpful Guy

  • I guess a fair price could be anywhere from 50-100...


What Girls Said 0

No girls shared opinions.

What Guys Said 3

  • Considering I don't know what half of those words mean, I'm just going to assume that it's just a huge fancy movie with a bunch of unneeded fatures that add a shedload of cost onto the ticket.

    I'd rather just pay $8 on cheap night to watch it in 3D.

    • 8K = 7680×4320 resolution. Bigger than IMAX. By a lot.
      360 = Panoramic.
      HFR = 48 frames per second, rather than 24. The Hobbit was shot this way. 48 is similar to 50p temporal, which is double the temporal resolution of PAL television, for reference. 24 FPS is similar to 29.97 FPS, which is the NTSC standard framerate for old-school television.

      4D = theme-park-like effects added to simulate effects from the movie, such as getting splashed when a character in the movie gets wet, or the seat rocking when they get knocked into a building.

      Autostereoscopic = Able to render itself 3D without you having to wear glasses to see the effect. The Nintendo 3DS can do this using a parallax barrier, since it has a small screen.

      It'd be a nightmare to storyboard a feature-length superhero movie that way. Also... what does "cut" mean in 3D panorama anyway?

    • Show All
    • The 3DS only works at all in any sense because it's small enough to utilize a parallax barrier method. However, larger screens and parallax barriers don't work. Multi-angle autostereoscopy requires a super-expensive process. Like insanely expensive. Most other methods are direct-angle-view-only, which is impractical.

      One thing is for sure: anaglyph is dead. While it is the single most reliable multi-angle method, nobody wants to hurt their eyes using it anymore.

      As for my vocab: This is what having a TV production degree and being able to do nothing with it for 6 years gets you.

    • That genuinely made me laugh pretty hard. Considering it's 12:33AM for me right now, I may or may not have woken others up.

      Anywho, considering what you said, I'd say the base price each ticket would be around the same price as Leafs tickets (a couple hundred $CAD). But considering very few people would buy the tickets, they have to make them more expensive, so I'd say upwards of $500, $600 (CAD) even.

  • My whole social security information.

  • Absolutely nothing.

    My eyes would hurt

    • From seeing 3D WITHOUT glasses? I know the glasses can cause eye strain, but does the Nintendo 3DS hurt your eyes too? Autostereoscopy eliminates the need for glasses to see a 3D movie. But it's currently prohibitively expensive to implement in a typical movie theater.

    • Show All
    • The last movie I saw was Star Wars because it's freaking Star Wars.

      Otherwise I don't want to see movies like Batman vs. Superman because that would be a total headache.

      Though I'd probably see the new Jason Bourne movie in that format because it relies very little on CGI

    • Good point. But if Bourne is the only selling point, then I can see why the format suffers so much.