James Cameron Shooting Avatar 2 in 60fps...

[Luis de la Cerda]

Why is the film experience supposed to be better when it looks more realistic? I don't get it. I can appreciate the value of projecting 60fps 5k 3D for a documentary of the space station or whatever. I like the idea of it feeling like being there. But, IMHO, narrative is not about "being there". There's no place for the spectator in a narrative.

What I think makes 24fps so effective for storytelling is that it looks like a different world. Like a glimpse, undisturbed by our presence as spectators, that is completely out of our reach. Selective focus works so well because it enhances the effect. In this glimpse, like when reading a novel, we don't get to choose what we want to see, because we are not part of the world inside the narrative.

The exact opposite of this is videogames, where you have a physical presence and walk around the world as the story unfolds. In this scenario, we are in fact responsible for the decisions that lead to the actions of a character and a high frame rate + 3D enhance the experience.

Watching "Saving Private Ryan" makes me feel sorry for those who lived through such hardships, while playing "Medal of Honor" is more like a roller coaster ride.

 

[Robert Berger]

60fps

60fps

James Cameron has announced that he's researching ways to shoot 60fps 3D for Avatar 2. I don't know about everyone else, but the 60fps/48fps/Motion Flow thing is completely lost on me. Looks like home video to me, I think it's god-awful... I should also mention that I hate 3D.

60fps is the best!! I saw in de ninety's showscan wich is 60fps and it gifs you more debt and more rest to your eye's and brain. So 60FPS in 3D is the best for you.

Robert M. Berger
R1# 1265 and soon Epic

 

[Stuart English]

Higher frame rate imaging

Higher frame rate imaging

Two comments :

Any single frame shot at 48 fps with 1/48th shutter will have the same motion blur as a frame shot at 24 fps with 1/48th shutter.

Just as 60 images a second broadcast camera video cannot be used to judge a potential 60 fps cinema image, you cannot use the "motion smoothing" used in LCD HDTV's to judge it either. Some fundamentally different image processing, they just happen to share a 60 ips base.

 

[Thor Melsted]

What I wouldn't look forward to is rendering Avatar @ 60p. Especially since render times don't tend to ever decrease--complexity and quality only increases.

+1

That was my first thought when he started talking about this.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Maweh navi'a maweh!

That means "calm down people" in Navi I probably should not talk as my link to Jim's work is closer than that of most, but I will say this.

I stated in another thread about 2-3 months ago that you could count on Cameron pushing for at least 48 fps for Avatar 2, and only if, he could not get away with 60 fps. It bears to reason that if he feels strongly about higher frame rates being fundamental to improve the 3D experience, which he does, and given the fact that existing projectors can already show material at 48/60 fps, it is a no brainer that Jim would use his hard earned, and totally well deserved (anybody said $ 4.8 billion box office?) clout to shoot and exhibit at those higher frame rates, especially when it was very easy for him to convince studio heads that this will go a long ways in making 3D even more palatable to wider audiences. Regardless of what anybody thinks of the merits of Cameron's work, and I happen to think he is a genius of the highest magnitude, I assure you all that the one thing he is, and widely acknowledged by his peers, is the most technically savvy player in Hollywood. Ask Spielberg, ask Lucas, ask Bay, Nolan, ANYBODY, whatever James Cameron says in terms of technological know-how, is considered the law of the land. Period. As well it should.

I remember leaking some impressions about Avatar footage I had seen way before the movie, or even the official clips, premiered and where I said that hate it or love it, Avatar would be a technological tour de force unequaled in film history. For one, the 3D in Avatar is hands down the best 3D ever shot and shown, and that is, in a 3 hour film with an average of one cut every 7 seconds! Amazingly, the 3D is the least important of Avatar's achievements, as the virtual cameras and editing are far more impressive and game changing than very convincing 3D. If in doubt, buy yourselves the latest 3 disc Avatar Blu Ray and watch all the behind-the-scenes features for a glimpse of Cameron EDITING the movie while moving his virtual camera around an empty stage, while choosing angles, lenses, pov, shot length, etc, etc, etc. Amazing stuff really. My point? Whether you hate or love 3d, hate or love Cameron, Avatar was the BEST 3D ever done. I urge anyone to point me to a better ACTION film in 3d, not to a nature documentary. Again, the point is not whether those who hate 3d will change their minds once Cameron embarks in the 48fps/60fps ship, I doubt those people's minds can be changed. That is their prerogative. My point, however, is that Cameron has earned the benefit of the doubt. Reserve judgment until you see the films. I have seen tests of 3d at 60 fps and it is mind blowingly good, no streaking, no blurring or strobing, and of course, a much sharper and cleaner feel to the image given the faster shutter. It feels CONSIDERABLY easier to fuse the images and "see" in 3d while changes in convergence plane during cuts are much more easily digested. I respect those who don't care for 3d, I truly understand their plight, and it won't much matter what technological advancements are done to improve 3d, they'll hate it just the same. Which is why I would suggest staying out of discussions such as this one. Now, for those who do care about 3d, in whatever degree of acceptance or passion, you owe to yourselves to wait until you see 60 fps or even 48 fps footage, it will look a LOT better than you think such a "minor" adjustment has any right to provide, much, much, much better.

 

[Paul Leeming]

Great post Rudi, thanks for the insight

Cheers,

Paul

 

[Elsie N]

Great post Rudi, thanks for the insight

Cheers,

Paul

If only it had more whitespace.:mellow:

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Have you seen TRON 3D on a proper IMAX screen? It's fantastic.

Hey Tom, I did. Paid nearly $20 for the ticket. And yes, while it looked great (although I found the 3D aspect of Avatar slightly more immersive) ... I agree with what some of the posters have said regarding darkness of the glasses. It was compounded by the fact that Tron was a dark/low-light movie already ... but the dark tint on the glasses really made some of the details hard to see at times. I found myself moving them down from my eyes during certain scenes just to see if I was missing anything on screen. And this is coming from someone with better than 20/20 vision who frequently works in the dark and barely uses light in the house. So like others have said, I think this is definitely an issue that needs to be resolved ....

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Maweh navi'a maweh!

That means "calm down people" in Navi I probably should not talk as my link to Jim's work is closer than that of most, but I will say this.

I stated in another thread about 2-3 months ago that you could count on Cameron pushing for at least 48 fps for Avatar 2, and only if, he could not get away with 60 fps. It bears to reason that if he feels strongly about higher frame rates being fundamental to improve the 3D experience, which he does, and given the fact that existing projectors can already show material at 48/60 fps, it is a no brainer that Jim would use his hard earned, and totally well deserved (anybody said $ 4.8 billion box office?) clout to shoot and exhibit at those higher frame rates, especially when it was very easy for him to convince studio heads that this will go a long ways in making 3D even more palatable to wider audiences. Regardless of what anybody thinks of the merits of Cameron's work, and I happen to think he is a genius of the highest magnitude, I assure you all that the one thing he is, and widely acknowledged by his peers, is the most technically savvy player in Hollywood. Ask Spielberg, ask Lucas, ask Bay, Nolan, ANYBODY, whatever James Cameron says in terms of technological know-how, is considered the law of the land. Period. As well it should.

I remember leaking some impressions about Avatar footage I had seen way before the movie, or even the official clips, premiered and where I said that hate it or love it, Avatar would be a technological tour de force unequaled in film history. For one, the 3D in Avatar is hands down the best 3D ever shot and shown, and that is, in a 3 hour film with an average of one cut every 7 seconds! Amazingly, the 3D is the least important of Avatar's achievements, as the virtual cameras and editing are far more impressive and game changing than very convincing 3D. If in doubt, buy yourselves the latest 3 disc Avatar Blu Ray and watch all the behind-the-scenes features for a glimpse of Cameron EDITING the movie while moving his virtual camera around an empty stage, while choosing angles, lenses, pov, shot length, etc, etc, etc. Amazing stuff really. My point? Whether you hate or love 3d, hate or love Cameron, Avatar was the BEST 3D ever done. I urge anyone to point me to a better ACTION film in 3d, not to a nature documentary. Again, the point is not whether those who hate 3d will change their minds once Cameron embarks in the 48fps/60fps ship, I doubt those people's minds can be changed. That is their prerogative. My point, however, is that Cameron has earned the benefit of the doubt. Reserve judgment until you see the films. I have seen tests of 3d at 60 fps and it is mind blowingly good, no streaking, no blurring or strobing, and of course, a much sharper and cleaner feel to the image given the faster shutter. It feels CONSIDERABLY easier to fuse the images and "see" in 3d while changes in convergence plane during cuts are much more easily digested. I respect those who don't care for 3d, I truly understand their plight, and it won't much matter what technological advancements are done to improve 3d, they'll hate it just the same. Which is why I would suggest staying out of discussions such as this one. Now, for those who do care about 3d, in whatever degree of acceptance or passion, you owe to yourselves to wait until you see 60 fps or even 48 fps footage, it will look a LOT better than you think such a "minor" adjustment has any right to provide, much, much, much better.

Great post Rudy and I agree with you, even though I'm not an industry insider by any means ... I always got the impression Cameron has a greater grasp of all the technology (and pushing into new frontiers) than any other director. Whatever you want to say about his storytelling or scripting, I respect him deeply for that.

I also remember seeing this video with his rig, while I was just barely starting to learn about Red (I'm new to this) ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=142gTbBDzWM

And now, I can't help but think he certainly must have (or be) considering shooting Avatar with the Epic and either Atom or TS5 rigs. Or the Deep Atom that Ketch announced .... I mean, I know he's into creating custom stuff and his budget is virtually limitless -- but the Epic is ready to shoot now, and it's taken Jim and the Red team YEARS to develop this technology. There's no way Cameron is going to design a better camera system or piece together something between now and whenever he begins filming. Even if it's 2012.

Anyway, maybe it's wishful thinking but I'd really love to see what happens when a technology genius like Cameron gets hold of the industry advancements that Red has been pushing

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Here is my take on Cameron. There is no doubt that he has a knack for implementing bleeding edge movie tech. The virtual camera was pretty innovative for sure but stuff like facial/performance capture had been done before and stereo rigs are nothing new. He is probably the most technically savvy film director around but he is not a movie Tesla like everyone makes him out to be. He is like Edison, he has a lot of brilliant elves working in his camp. He hires people like Vincent Pace and rounds up a lot of fx companies like Weta and the Foundary to work his magic.

He is passionate and talented but I hate how people scrape and bow and kiss his feet like he is some kind of movie tech god. Because of him, you can't do anything big budget without 3D. If I wanted to make a movie based on the video game Mass Effect with a $250+ million budget, I would have no choice but to shoot in 3D, there would be no way that I could convince studios to let me shoot 2D. So, yes, Cameron has the ability to change everything just because his movies make a lot of money and the studio heads are trying to repeat his success by forcing other directors to copy him. That is wrong in my opinion.

Cameron movies make a boatload of cash regardless of the movie tech involved. He draws a crowd, plain and simple. Tron was visually impressive but did not draw the audience that Avatar did. Cameron was in the right place at the right time and his film took off but only a year later, Tron struggled to make a profit even though it was clearly trying to run the Cameron game plan to success. In the end Tron doubled it's budget ($170 million into $360 million worldwide) but today that is hardly impressive, especially when you consider the jacked up 3D ticket prices and IMAX exhibition. A movie like True Grit was far more successful, turing a budget of $40 million into $155 million profit. True Grit made almost the same amount domestically as Tron without IMAX and 3D. Why? Because it was a much better movie. True Grit is currently 6th in the box office and Tron is 12th. Good reviews and word of mouth will take you farther than every fx gimmick in the world.

And this gem is for anyone who thought that Avatar was great film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0&feature=related

Just for laughs, not trying to insult Avatar fans.

 

[M Most]

He is passionate and talented but I hate how people scrape and bow and kiss his feet like he is some kind of movie tech god.

I'm guessing that you have neither met nor worked with him, because if you have, you might very well have a different opinion.

The only thing that bothers me in this thread is that so many here refer to "shooting" Avatar, and talking about a camera choice - because the fact is that except for a few scenes, very little of Avatar was "shot" with anything other than a computer's virtual camera. The camera choice for the few live action scenes and elements had very, very little to do with what the picture looked like or the nature of the stereoscopic 3D.

 

[Elsie N]

I'm guessing that you have neither met nor worked with him, because if you have, you might very well have a different opinion.

The only thing that bothers me in this thread is that so many here refer to "shooting" Avatar, and talking about a camera choice - because the fact is that except for a few scenes, very little of Avatar was "shot" with anything other than a computer's virtual camera. The camera choice for the few live action scenes and elements had very, very little to do with what the picture looked like or the nature of the stereoscopic 3D.

Very good point.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I'll grant you that Avatar used 3D as well as I have seen it used outside of the nature/science documentary genre. That said, even the best 3D to date is still mediocre at best as Evin pointed out. I look forward to good 3D stereography in the future, and perhaps James Cameron (with whatever elves he may employ) with his clout and willingness to experiment with things like higher frame rates will lead the way.

Not a 3D fan yet, but willing to be converted :lurk5:

Cheers - #19

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I'm guessing that you have neither met nor worked with him, because if you have, you might very well have a different opinion.

The only thing that bothers me in this thread is that so many here refer to "shooting" Avatar, and talking about a camera choice - because the fact is that except for a few scenes, very little of Avatar was "shot" with anything other than a computer's virtual camera. The camera choice for the few live action scenes and elements had very, very little to do with what the picture looked like or the nature of the stereoscopic 3D.

You've mentioned that several times ... I don't think anyone is saying it was shot in the same way a typical movie is. However, whether it's green screen or CGI added or whatever, pretty much any scenes capturing the actors must be "shot" with a real camera, right?

 

[Joseph Ward]

What about 5K @ 72fps Stereoscopic 3D with HDRx in actual underwater scenes?arty:

Can someone shoot this, please, and post a link of video/images on Reduser?

 

[Julio Quintana]

What footage did you see projected at 48fps?

I've always wanted to see Douglas Trumbull's showscan footage shot on 65mm film and projected at 60fps. I heard a bunch of accounts of how amazing it was.

I've spoken with Doug Trumbull about that test, and he said it was like looking through a window, but it was completely innappropriate for narrative filmmaking. We didn't discuss 3D. It is still just an opinion, but I thought I would throw it out there.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

I'm guessing that you have neither met nor worked with him, because if you have, you might very well have a different opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I would certainly never turn down a job with him, no one in their right mind would. I just hate how everyone kowtow's to him like he is the greatest thing to happen to the film industry. He is a tech geek with a ton of money to throw around. I have no problem with his innovation, he is very talented in the visual department and knows more about 3D than anyone else but just because it works for Cameron does not mean that everyone else should be forced to follow in his footsteps.

I know that in the end, the film industry is all about profit but movie attendance was down around 40% from last year so obviously 3D is not the magic solution that it has been cracked up to be. It has been overexposed and forced down our throats. I am fine with a couple of big "event films" like Avatar and Tron in 3D but I fear that anything that can be shot in 3D will be shot in 3D. I am sick of the high ticket prices and so is the public. They would rather set up a netflix account than pay an arm and a leg at the box office for schlock. What Hollywood seems to forget time and time again is that good films draw audiences, not 3D. People actually read sites like rotten tomatoes because they don't like wasting their money. Positive word of mouth can be 100% more effective than a billboard on every block. I guess I dislike 3D because it seems like an excuse to jack up the prices for tickets and 3D blu ray discs. The extra cost is driving people away. The industry keeps trying to establish that it is so much better than home viewing but no matter how nice a home theater system you have, you will still drive to the theater if a film screams "must see". I guess what I am trying to say is that we need better films, not expensive tricks.

 

[Craig Ryan]

It would be cool if the little live action bits in Avatar 2 are shot in HDR and rendered with tonemapping like that 5D HDR footage on vimeo. That, combined with 60p, might match the look of the CGI look established in the first film and could also blend everything better. Then it would really look like a video game, which must be what Cameron is trying to do. Or just make the whole movie CGI.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Don't get me wrong, I would certainly never turn down a job with him, no one in their right mind would. I just hate how everyone kowtow's to him like he is the greatest thing to happen to the film industry. He is a tech geek with a ton of money to throw around. I have no problem with his innovation, he is very talented in the visual department and knows more about 3D than anyone else but just because it works for Cameron does not mean that everyone else should be forced to follow in his footsteps.

I know that in the end, the film industry is all about profit but movie attendance was down around 40% from last year so obviously 3D is not the magic solution that it has been cracked up to be. It has been overexposed and forced down our throats. I am fine with a couple of big "event films" like Avatar and Tron in 3D but I fear that anything that can be shot in 3D will be shot in 3D. I am sick of the high ticket prices and so is the public. They would rather set up a netflix account than pay an arm and a leg at the box office for schlock. What Hollywood seems to forget time and time again is that good films draw audiences, not 3D. People actually read sites like rotten tomatoes because they don't like wasting their money. Positive word of mouth can be 100% more effective than a billboard on every block. I guess I dislike 3D because it seems like an excuse to jack up the prices for tickets and 3D blu ray discs. The extra cost is driving people away. The industry keeps trying to establish that it is so much better than home viewing but no matter how nice a home theater system you have, you will still drive to the theater if a film screams "must see". I guess what I am trying to say is that we need better films, not expensive tricks.

I don't dislike 3D Andrew, so don't necessarily see eye to eye with you on everything ..... however, everything in this above post is pretty much spot on. As you hint at with your Rotten tomatoes comment, one of the things that Hollywood execs forget is that social media has totally changed communication and people's perception and buying process. Whether it's Rotten Tomatoes or Yahoo movies (I check both) I simply won't see a film if the ratings are low ... (below a "B" overall on Yahoo, or below 70% on RT) -- and I don't think I'm the only one. I think there have been a lot of recent big budget movies that studios had high hopes for, only to have box office numbers plummet after the first weekend due to poor reviews and no word of mouth. (Pretty much anything with Angelina comes to mind, lol). That's one of the overlooked factors in Avatar's success ... yes there were haters and critics, but the reviews and word of mouth were VERY positive overall -- and so it had tremendous staying power, domestically and all over the world.
Also agree with you on ticket prices getting a little out of hand -- I think I paid $18 or $19 last time when I saw Tron in IMAX 3D ... so for a family of 4 (when you throw in drinks, popcorn) that's easily $100 to go see that together. Or $50-60 for a couple.

I don't think 3D is the holy grail, and quality content is and will always be king -- and I think eventually studios will see the relationship between review/ratings and ticket sales, and may be a little more conscious of ensuring that get stories get made ...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm guessing that you have neither met nor worked with him, because if you have, you might very well have a different opinion.

Well the question then: is he really technically skilled for a director (who are often ludites) or is he really technically visionary. My personal impression is that he's quite technically proficient but no more so than lots of people I know. It doesn't help when he and his colleagues walk around talking about "Inventing" using a monitor rendering a mocap scene since that's been a pretty obvious direction for a very long time and even used pretty widely.

Again I'm not saying he's not technically proficient or brilliant or someone I wouldn't love to meet and work with--I just haven't seen any evidence that he's way ahead of the curve except in technically inept circles. And from every example someone provides of his vision I'm usually not terribly impressed. But I'm sure to the average studio executive he's like a time traveler from the distant future.

It's one of those cases where I half expect the next film to "invent" a tapeless workflow.

And I always feel the same way with Steve Jobs. "I've invented a phone with a touchscreen." "Wait you mean like a smart phone?" "Yes! But I made the buttons bigger and capacitive touch screens which actually work with fingers are finally affordable." "Oh cool, I didn't realize that touch screens finally had came down in price enough." 'ALL HAIL THE VISIONARY STEVE JOBS!'