James Cameron Shooting Avatar 2 in 60fps...

[Michael Dearworth]

Sorry to be the noob here, but why don't people like higher frame rates? From what I've read, it seems like 24fps gives it a more "filmic look", but I don't understand why people are saying 60fps looks like crap or home video. I would think a lower frame rate would look worse. Anyways, sorry to slow down the discussion.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

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.

I agree with your last statement. One of the things I am not a fan of is the use of live action and 100% cg scenes in the same film. I personally believe that the best 3D is in animated films. The 3D in Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon looked much better to me than the live action 3D in Avatar. The totally cg scenes looked spectacular but the live action stuff just looked off and it strained me eyes at times. Cameron has shown that his facial capture tech works so why not make everything in cg that way the transition from live action to cg would not be so jarring. I don't mind hyper-realistic cg I just don't like it when they try to blend it with real sets and actors, it just looks strange. In Tron, the cg Jeff Bridges stuck out like a sore thumb and it really took me out of the experience. When everything is cg, you know it is fake but you don't really notice it that much but the second you mix it with live action, it screams fake.

I love video game trailers and would totally see something like this in theaters in 3D. With super realistic renders and motion capture, it would look amazing and the 3D would look better than any live action 3D around.

Just imagine this with Avatar quality renders, facial capture and 3D:

Make sure to watch these in HD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=750KflE-Yew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V1PwpoDqzM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94-4c0eJikk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0RuR3FREFw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnEej1RfqTs

 

[Emanuel A.]

I guess I am being pessimistic but I see this as the beginning of the end. Once Cameron starts shooting 3D at 48fps, everyone else will. I hate that he has so much power to screw everything up. Movies are going to start looking like video games, it is really upsetting frankly. I wish film would never die but it is going to. Frame rates will increase and movies will start looking more like real life. I guess everything has to go eventually.

Mirror of its time as every media

 

[James Forrest Kelly]

Sorry to be the noob here, but why don't people like higher frame rates? From what I've read, it seems like 24fps gives it a more "filmic look", but I don't understand why people are saying 60fps looks like crap or home video. I would think a lower frame rate would look worse. Anyways, sorry to slow down the discussion.

The higher the frame rate, the more you can see movements in the camera, thus it can make it look jumpy or bumpy like a home movie. My thoughts on this however are; If you are a good cinematographer, it shouldn't matter if you shoot at 24fps or 2400fps.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I do hope they make a 24fps print for us simpletons.

...and maybe black and white for that old filmic look... uke:

Sorry, I love 60 fps....bring it on

 

[Matthias Hutter]

Sorry, I love 60 fps....bring it on

:iagree:
, lets see what the majority thinks of 60fps 3D when its used in cinemas.
Hint: People will l??e it. :biggrin5:

Regards, Matt

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Another thing, fight sequences will look strange in 60 fps. 24 fps hides a lot of stuff and missed punches will certainly be more evident. Not a big deal just though that I would point out that more sharp frames is not always a good thing.

 

[Eki Halkka]

...and maybe black and white for that old filmic look... uke:

Sorry, I love 60 fps....bring it on

Well, 60 fps is clearly technically way superior reproduction of reality. But we're Pavlov's dogs, trained to drool with the 24 fps flicker. It's the "movie look" - not because it's good or better, but just because.

I guess we need stuff like Avatar 2 to slowly train off that fixation from our heads - but it'll likely take years, maybe a whole generation to happen fully, to the extent the audiences around the world are ok with it.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

Well, 60 fps is clearly technically way superior reproduction of reality. But we're Pavlov's dogs, trained to drool with the 24 fps flicker. It's the "movie look" - not because it's good or better, but just because.

I guess we need stuff like Avatar 2 to slowly train off that fixation from our heads - but it'll likely take years, maybe a whole generation to happen fully, to the extent the audiences around the world are ok with it.

This exactly what I was thinking. 24p is good to you start moving the camera. If you move it slow enough its still good.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Well, 60 fps is clearly technically way superior reproduction of reality. But we're Pavlov's dogs, trained to drool with the 24 fps flicker. It's the "movie look" - not because it's good or better, but just because.

I guess we need stuff like Avatar 2 to slowly train off that fixation from our heads - but it'll likely take years, maybe a whole generation to happen fully, to the extent the audiences around the world are ok with it.

If people like the look of 24 fps, why mess up what already works? Don't fix what isn't broken. 24 fps has been the standard for years and the vast majority of people who see 48+ fps will not like the look. It is not what they are used to and it will take away from the movie experience.

Have you seen Public Enemies with its 360 degree shutter look? It looked ugly and frankly, it pulled me out of the story and many people around me said the same thing. I am not saying that no shutter and 48 fps are the same thing but it is just an example of how a radically different look can detract from the film itself.

The film industry is trying desperately to get people in the door at the box office and the last thing they should do is radically alter the projection frame rate which will most likely be rejected by the public. Over time people will get used to the high frame rate look but the transition will not be smooth. It will lose studios money in both production and in theaters.

 

[Geoff McLeod]

60fps looks cheap. This look has been defined by generations of cheap interlaced video cameras. All we are seeing here is a new generation of people who are being told that 60fps is good because it can capture movement better. I think most of the people who like this rubbish never had to deal with deinterlacing video footage in post production in order to achieve the progressive look of film. 60fps, 3D it's all just a commercial scam to make people buy new tvs and pay more for a movie tickets.
3D is okay with animated children's movies, but who wants to see a romantic comedy in it. I hope 60fps will go the way of imax and quadraphonic audio payers. All monumental attempts to 'guild the lilly' and sell us more useless junk.

 

[Eki Halkka]

If people like the look of 24 fps, why mess up what already works? Don't fix what isn't broken.

Because it actually IS broken ;-)

24 fps is inadequate to capture motion in a truly fluid way. But we, the dogs, take this error as an advantage. We take the poorer quality as the more expensive looking one, and the better quality as the cheap one. The only reason why people like 24 fps is the fact that we've watched this kind of stuttery motion for a century in movies, and we've thus been trained to associate this lack of real quality with an imaginary perception of quality.

And yes, that includes me too - 99.9% of the work i do is 25 fps progressive (i live in a PAL land). But i don't fool myself into thinking it's factually superior to higher frame rates (even compared to interlaced), it's rather just more fashionable at present time.

But fashions DO change.

 

[Eki Halkka]

I think most of the people who like this rubbish never had to deal with deinterlacing video footage in post production in order to achieve the progressive look of film.

Oh, i did, all the time... and as said, i do like the 24 (25) fps cadence, the look, otherwise i wouldn't have spent the hours refining my de-interlacing techniques way back when - i was willing to throw away a lot of the already very limited PAL resolution to get the look - and i probably still would be, if i was handed interlaced footy for post ;-)

But at the same time i know this preference is pretty much irrational, lacks any factual quality-based merit.

 

[Stuart English]

The Movie Experience

The Movie Experience

The film industry is trying desperately to get people in the door at the box office and the last thing they should do is radically alter the projection frame rate which will most likely be rejected by the public. Over time people will get used to the high frame rate look but the transition will not be smooth. It will lose studios money in both production and in theaters.

You may well be correct, I am sure the same was said about sound, color and 3D. However until any of these technologies are tried how would we know?

60fps looks cheap. This look has been defined by generations of cheap interlaced video cameras. All we are seeing here is a new generation of people who are being told that 60fps is good because it can capture movement better. I think most of the people who like this rubbish never had to deal with deinterlacing video footage in post production in order to achieve the progressive look of film.

I agree that interlace is bad on a number of levels - but we were discussing the merits of shooting and displaying 48 fps or 60 fps progressive on 35 mm optics... not 1080i HDTV or 480i SDTV.

But at the same time i know this preference is pretty much irrational, lacks any factual quality-based merit.

For me that's the key point. As most here have not seen 48 fps or 60 fps progressive images on the big screen, there seems to be a lot of negative statements about what that DOES look likes, and not a lot of discussion about what it MIGHT look like..

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I for one have not seen 48/50/60p recorded material displayed at those rates.

I actually think it's gonna be cool, and I guess that when history is written, magic motion is going to be presented as an interrim step towards the new framerates.

fast cameras - like the current breed of digital cinema cameras - is the first step towards this.

I see a lot of prohibitive hindrances, though, but I think it mat well turn out supergood... in the end.

 

[Eric Lange]

He can shoot it at 200fps in the sixth dimension for all I care. It'll still be shit.

That’s the funniest one liner I have seen in a long time [and I have a lot invested in s-3d!]


I have to admit I have a very responsive eye. So for example I can clearly perceive the flicker of fluorescent tubes. Ever since I was kid every time a camera pans in a mild action sequence at 24fps, all I see is almost an interleaved blank screen with diagonal shuttering effects and some colorful imagery bordered by diagonal slices. That has always bothered me. “Persistence” of vision, such that it is doesn’t work so well for me in those circumstances. So I definitely welcome a higher frame rate so at least I can actually, for the first time SEE what is actually happening when things start to move and not be distracted by rolling shutter/panning artifacts.


There was also this theory, that before digital transfer really got going that film had more of a slight 3d or deeper feel to it because of the constant jitter in the film gate. This seems to give film an appearance of a bit more life.


For decent S-3d higher frame rates are essential.


The basic look of what we present on screen is going to change. There is really nothing that can be done about that. It won’t have a video look and it won’t necessarily have a total filmic look, just a high quality and unique look of its own.


I think the thing that’s going to be interesting is to finally see what the SONY 4k Q67 type imagery will look like. The new SONYs have a GLOBAL SHUTTER so I wonder if that alone will make the imagery far more sterile looking than any rolling shutter CMOS system at a higher frame rate?



Ta.

Eric

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Because it actually IS broken ;-)

24 fps is inadequate to capture motion in a truly fluid way. But we, the dogs, take this error as an advantage. We take the poorer quality as the more expensive looking one, and the better quality as the cheap one. The only reason why people like 24 fps is the fact that we've watched this kind of stuttery motion for a century in movies, and we've thus been trained to associate this lack of real quality with an imaginary perception of quality.

And yes, that includes me too - 99.9% of the work i do is 25 fps progressive (i live in a PAL land). But i don't fool myself into thinking it's factually superior to higher frame rates (even compared to interlaced), it's rather just more fashionable at present time.

But fashions DO change.

I understand all of that but you must remember that the public by in large, does not understand the technical process behind motion pictures. You could ask 100 people at the movies what frame rate films are shot at and I would be surprised if five people knew if they even know know what frame rate is at all.

The public does not care. High frame rates will appear different and distracting. You could tell them that it is better till you are blue in the face but they are used to the movie look and they don't like it when movies look like live television or soap operas. I am all for new technology but this is one thing that I am strongly against.

24 fps has done a wonderful job of capturing motion for decades, why does it need to be changed? Fast pans look like crap at 24 fps, I get it. You know how to solve that problem? Don't Pan quickly! We don't need to change the frame rate, it is fine as is.

And I don't get why everyone responds to the "48 fps looks like crap!" statement by saying that people felt the same way about color and sound. Yes, there were some that were upset by the switch from black and white to color or the addition of sound but the public embraced the change.

I understand that we have been conditioned to like 24 fps and that if 48 had been the norm from the beginning, that 24 would look like crap but I am fine with that. I am fine embracing the inferior format because it looks better to me. Most people will feel the same way.

 

[Eki Halkka]

And I don't get why everyone responds to the "48 fps looks like crap!" statement by saying that people felt the same way about color and sound. Yes, there were some that were upset by the switch from black and white to color or the addition of sound but the public embraced the change.

Well, it's the same thing. And we will see how public will react to higher frame rates once the public actually gets to see high production value films done with higher frame rates in theaters. Not before.

As far as "don't pan fast" argument goes, well, it's the same as "we don't need more sensitive cameras - just don't shoot with low light" or "we don't need more resolution - just don't shoot detailed scenes" or "we don't need more dynamic range - just don't shoot high contrast scenes" etc. I find it a bit silly.

24 fps is fine as a chosen style, effect or artistic choice or whatever, but it's not inherently better than other rates. We've had improvements in spatial resolution and fidelity, but the temporal resolution is still stuck in the 1930's...

 

[Michael Olsen]

The discussion of quality is interesting.

What definition of quality do people want? Do people want something that looks exactly like real life? That would certainly have an element of quality as it perfectly represents the world around us - or at least the world around us as seen through our own flawed ocular organs.

Or do they just want something that looks nice - whatever that means? Impressionism, for instance, is a very visually pleasing aesthetic, but really fails to represent how the world appears to us.

Ultimately, I suppose, this is for us to explore. Who knows - maybe there is something beautiful between Science and Art.

 

[conrad gaunt]

I wasn't that interested in 3D until I teamed up 4.5k rc with my Loreo 3D lens.. now I often shoot family snaps in stereoscopic. Without two cameras its the most stereoscopic fun you can have..