Es sind nicht die ersten 10Minuten sondern ein 10Minuten zusammenschnitt.


Quelle

Allerdings auch noch mit folgendem Hinweis:

Bei der Technik müssten nur die BD Player mitziehen oder? Die TV's haben ja Bildwiederholfrequenzen von z.b. 100hz. Oder bringe ich da gerade was durcheinander?

Bei der Technik müssten nur die BD Player mitziehen oder? Die TV's haben ja Bildwiederholfrequenzen von z.b. 100hz. Oder bringe ich da gerade was durcheinander?

LCD, Plasma und Co. haben ja auch Hz Werte?

Also ist egal wie viel Hz ein LCD hat, er könnte auch einen Film mit 48fps darstellen?

Most current HDTVs run at either 60 Hz or 120 Hz. The latter is an even multiple of 24, but not of 48. Even if these 120 Hz televisions were designed to accept a 48 Hz input signal (none are), some form of frame repetition pulldown would be needed to adapt the content to the screen’s native rate. That would introduce judder, which is counter-productive to the smooth motion effect that Cameron is looking for. Or the TVs could use frame interpolation to “guestimate” what the extra in-between frames should be. As mentioned above, that’s a process that has very poor results on most HDTVs. I’m sure that Cameron doesn’t want his $300 million blockbusters to look like soap operas.

Some HDTVs run at 96 Hz or 240 Hz, which are even multiples of 48. Even so, we’re still left with the problem that these TVs have simply not been built to accept a 48 Hz input signal. Nor is the Blu-ray format capable of transmitting at that rate. To watch these new 48 fps films at home in their original frame rate, we’ll need an all-new video format and all-new TVs. This, just on the heels of the industry’s attempt to push us all to 3D.

The transition to 3D has been difficult enough, but viewers can at least see and understand the difference between 2D and 3D. Most will have a hard time discerning any difference between 24 fps and 48 fps. There’s not enough benefit in that to justify the investment and expense.