Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

James Cameron wants higher frame rates to be the future of movies....

For me personally as long as I have to wear some glasses to watch 3d, its a useless technology. A step up in resolution is not however, yet seeing it from Camerons perspective he is right about the fps. The only reason 24 frames is what looks "right" is because everybody is used to seeing it in theaters. So yay for more fps...
 
Right, yeah, i agree. But thats why i think the term "genius," or ,"master filmmaker," ir whatever other terms have been thrown at cameron are misguided and completely untrue, and they are the kind of comments that keep making him believe tht is crappy stories are ctuallu good ones. I think he is a good business man, marketer, and hardworker, but a great filmmaker? No. The man thinks like a studio exec. I think he used to be a good filmmaker, but has never been and is not a genius by any stretch. Name me one thing that avatar did, besides the 3d, that peter jackson and weta did not do better in the lord of the rings trilogy.
 
Someone help me understand post on this. You shoot at 48 fps and then what Apps allow you to maintain that framerate all through post without making it slo-mo? I'm specifically interested in Premiere Pro, Storm, and even how Redcine handles this footage?

As you may have guessed, I'm not well schooled in post work.
 
Elsie N said:
Someone help me understand post on this. You shoot at 48 fps and then what Apps allow you to maintain that framerate all through post without making it slo-mo? I'm specifically interested in Premiere Pro, Storm, and even how Redcine handles this footage?

As you may have guessed, I'm not well schooled in post work.
Click to expand...

It's not so much what you do in post, as what you do in camera. Just select the timebase you'd like your project to be in (Red allows up to 59.94) and shoot. Do the same thing in your editing suite - set the project timeline to that same timebase and drag your files in - any modern editing suite will allow you to do this and it's almost exactly the same as editing at 24 fps, you just have larger files and a lot more rotoscoping to do for special effects work :)

Edit: not so much for film, but for people doing TV work for HD, commercials etc I do believe a 59.94 timebase is the future because that's how the signal is delivered so it just looks nicer to not have to force a conversion. For the theatre I believe frame rate should be an artistic choice specific to the movie.
 
Jake Bastian said:
It's not so much what you do in post, as what you do in camera. Just select the timebase you'd like your project to be in (Red allows up to 59.94) and shoot. Do the same thing in your editing suite - set the project timeline to that same timebase and drag your files in - any modern editing suite will allow you to do this and it's almost exactly the same as editing at 24 fps, you just have larger files and a lot more rotoscoping to do for special effects work :)

Edit: not so much for film, but for people doing TV work for HD, commercials etc I do believe a 59.94 timebase is the future because that's how the signal is delivered so it just looks nicer to not have to force a conversion. For the theatre I believe frame rate should be an artistic choice specific to the movie.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jake,

Your answer caused me to have one of those "slap-youself-on-the-forehead" moments. 'Cause I'm pretty sure I've seen the 48 fps timebase in PP. (This computer doesn't have PP installed so I wasn't able to immediately check) I was thinking needing to use 24 fps at double speed and that the camera only went to 29.97 timebase. (Duhhhh)

It's clear now.
 
Last edited:
Jake Bastian said:
Edit: not so much for film, but for people doing TV work for HD, commercials etc I do believe a 59.94 timebase is the future because that's how the signal is delivered so it just looks nicer to not have to force a conversion.
Click to expand...

Only in the US and a few other countries (Japan, for instance). The rest of the world - which includes most of the world - uses 25fps or 50 interlaced fields per second, and has for many, many years. That is the primary reason 24fps was adopted for most dramatic production in the US, as it is easily converted to both 60i (using 3:2 pulldown) and 25p (by speeding up the material 4%) without additional artifacts and/or motion anomalies. Using 59.94 as some kind of universal standard frame rate is a very, very US-centric point of view and not really applicable to the world as a global market.
 
M Most said:
Only in the US and a few other countries (Japan, for instance). The rest of the world - which includes most of the world - uses 25fps or 50 interlaced fields per second, and has for many, many years. That is the primary reason 24fps was adopted for most dramatic production in the US, as it is easily converted to both 60i (using 3:2 pulldown) and 25p (by speeding up the material 4%) without additional artifacts and/or motion anomalies. Using 59.94 as some kind of universal standard frame rate is a very, very US-centric point of view and not really applicable to the world as a global market.
Click to expand...

You're right, I guess I should have specified that in my post. I'd actually prefer the US to adopt PAL standards as I think they are much more pleasing to look at than NTSC - and not just because the frame rates are better, it seems like the colors come out nicer as well. I guess I should have said 59.94 or 50 for TV work.
 
M Most said:
Only in the US and a few other countries (Japan, for instance). The rest of the world - which includes most of the world - uses 25fps or 50 interlaced fields per second, and has for many, many years. That is the primary reason 24fps was adopted for most dramatic production in the US, as it is easily converted to both 60i (using 3:2 pulldown) and 25p (by speeding up the material 4%) without additional artifacts and/or motion anomalies. Using 59.94 as some kind of universal standard frame rate is a very, very US-centric point of view and not really applicable to the world as a global market.
Click to expand...
Mike, with technological advances, do you see any chance for a world standard?
 
For broadcast and hard goods distribution, no, not in the foreseeable future. But broadcast and hard goods are not the only means of distribution, and might not even be the primary means as we go forward. So if you look at the wider world of media, the majority of it will likely be on platforms that are not format dependent. They might be aspect ratio specific (i.e., 16x9 for most screens) but not format specific. Already you can see that in the fact that almost all modern LCD's and plasmas can display 1920x1080, 1280x720, and standard definition at various frame rates. That becomes even more free form if you're talking about computer monitors, which is what modern LCD's and plasmas have essentially become.

So the answer is basically no, but the wider answer is that it likely won't matter because "standards" are less necessary than they were in a world of broadcast and hard goods dominated distribution.
 
M Most said:
For broadcast and hard goods distribution, no, not in the foreseeable future. But broadcast and hard goods are not the only means of distribution, and might not even be the primary means as we go forward. So if you look at the wider world of media, the majority of it will likely be on platforms that are not format dependent. They might be aspect ratio specific (i.e., 16x9 for most screens) but not format specific. Already you can see that in the fact that almost all modern LCD's and plasmas can display 1920x1080, 1280x720, and standard definition at various frame rates. That becomes even more free form if you're talking about computer monitors, which is what modern LCD's and plasmas have essentially become.

So the answer is basically no, but the wider answer is that it likely won't matter because "standards" are less necessary than they were in a world of broadcast and hard goods dominated distribution.
Click to expand...

The great thing about standards is that they're standards. Not sure how much experience you have in post-production, but in post, there's so many different options now that it's a pain in the ass to do a lot of things. It seems like every camera has a different format for whatever reason, and with shows now shooting on multiple camera types it makes for a clusterfuck. So standards are good in the sense that they speed things up and make it easier to work with.
 
Mark Collins said:
Not sure how much experience you have in post-production
Click to expand...
It's easy to tell how much experience a person has by how fast people on the forum jump to ask them questions when they show up to post.

I'd put M Most up there with David Mullen.

Mark Collins said:
there's so many different options now that it's a pain in the ass to do a lot of things.
Click to expand...

As irritating as it can be to find solutions to incorporating different codecs, I'd say having many different options is more of an advantage. What would be really cool is to be able to jump between timebases in the same timeline depending on what mood you're trying to set for a given scene or shot - it could develop enough to where certain genres are associated with certain frame rates. I love having options :)
 
M Most said:
Only about 30 years.
Click to expand...

Well played, Mr. Most, well played. I guess that you've learned patience and self-restraint in the post-pro suite in addition to all the rest.
 
"Here is some fried foobarbletch."
"Oh... I don't like that."
"Have you ever tried it?"
"No, but I don't like it."

Seven year olds trying vegetables... or a group of creative professionals contemplating a new way of expressing creativity?

: )

Lucas
 
Brennan Klensch said:
Right, yeah, i agree. But thats why i think the term "genius," or ,"master filmmaker," ir whatever other terms have been thrown at cameron are misguided and completely untrue, and they are the kind of comments that keep making him believe tht is crappy stories are ctuallu good ones. I think he is a good business man, marketer, and hardworker, but a great filmmaker? No. The man thinks like a studio exec. I think he used to be a good filmmaker, but has never been and is not a genius by any stretch. Name me one thing that avatar did, besides the 3d, that peter jackson and weta did not do better in the lord of the rings trilogy.
Click to expand...

Filmmaking doesn't necessarily mean "fine art"...Cameron could be "genius" at mainstream entertainment film. And given his consistent success, I'd say it's hard to argue with that.
 
Gabe Conroy said:
Filmmaking doesn't necessarily mean "fine art"...Cameron could be "genius" at mainstream entertainment film. And given his consistent success, I'd say it's hard to argue with that.
Click to expand...

Commercial success yes, artistic no. I'm saying phrases like "he is a filmmaking genius," is just feeding his already somewhat large ego (I'm not saying anything that's not pretty well known). He thinks his own films are works of art. They are not. They are hours of hard work in production and in post production which he himself is either directly responsible for or directly oversees. This and he's a techy that likes to push the technology of filmmaking farther. Is this an admirable quality? Of course. Does it make him a filmmaking genius? No. It's great that he got a lot of people in theaters to see Avatar. What's not good is when a good portion of that audience walks out saying "that was stupid." He ran a campaign for avatar on the advent of the 3d technology used. It was, at best, a gimmick to distract from his obvious lack of attention or care for the story or characters. I was genuinely excited for Avatar and I was genuinely dissappointed (and I wasn't close to being the only one who felt this way).

I'm just saying when studios read the kudos that he gets because he did a techincally slick film, they ask him and others to keep cranking out the same thing, which is gimmick, not art (or ingenuity for that matter)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top