Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Jim Cameron high-speed Camera Test at CinemaCon

T

TimK

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Did anyone happen to see Jim Cameron's presentation at CinemaCon last week? Apparently he showed some 3-D footage that he shot at 48fps, and 60 fps, then projected at 48 & 60 fps. I heard it looked fantastic. Just wondering what camera he shot this with?
I also heard that Cameron was leaning towards making "Avatar 2" in this format. Anyone out there attend this, and have impressions?
 
Avatar 2 on Epic would be fantastic if it were to happen. With number of VFX and 3D work in those films, it certainly seems like a no brainer.
 
James Bender said:
Dear Mr. Cameron,

Stop it. We like 24fps, not a 60fps soap opera look.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

There was just a long discussion on this in the Hobbit Thread. There were some interesting points made, but I think the most important one is that having seen Peter Jackson's and James Cameron's past work and eye for visuals, it's important to trust them and hold back judgement until you see it in person. I've heard nothing but great things about this footage project so far...
 
James Bender said:
Dear Mr. Cameron,

Stop it. We like 24fps, not a 60fps soap opera look.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

'Soap Operas' are shot at 60i. 48p or 60p are completely different to look at.

Whilst I agree that 24p has become the 'norm' for film 'looks' in cinema it has severe limitations for some types of film making. Faster frame rate shooting will open new possibilities for directors and DPs - not to mention VFX artists. Our eyes do not work at 24p - why should our movies? Dogma?

Rarely have I seen a discussion on this not bogged down in knee-jerk, sight unseen reactions. Few have seen projected footage at 48p or 60p. Most who have are impressed. Withold judgement until you've seen it.
 
There goes our RED Ones. . .

Stephen
 
Shot @ 60fps and projected @ 60fps looks great for 3D and not 2D and stop cursing James Cameroon for promoting 60fps!
 
James Bender said:
Dear Mr. Cameron,

Stop it. We like 24fps, not a 60fps soap opera look.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between Liking something because it's the standard you are accustomed to and improving on a system that is no longer efficient.
Why is film shot (primarily) in 24 frames per second then "flashed" two times for a playback rate of 48 frames per second? 24 frames was the most efficient use of film stock.
More frames cost more money in film stock. The comment about "soap operas" is very interesting. Soap operas use live 3CCD video cameras, (some of the best in the world) at over $1000,000 per camera and they don't skimp on lighting. You have made the point that cameras with 3CCD chips do not look as good as film. That is a point well taken. Now look at what RED has done.
They have built a CMOS sensor with a Bayer filter and OLPF, the result is more like the "film" look than any other camera to date.
The downside to CMOS has always been the introduction of "noise" in the blacks, but with the RED products the "noise" is manageable to the degree that it gives the R3D's a smooth semi grainy "film" look. So with non-linear storage cost dropping by the day it makes a lot of sense to use different frame rates to achieve a "better Look".
I will judge it when I see it, but realize there are very successful film makers moving in this direction for a reason!

People that think outside the box are the most enlightened! Don't ask why the frame rates are changing, ask why Not!

Dave
 
Let's see this before we make any judgement.

I'd be really surprised if it looked like utter crap, and the only gain would be for Western Digital...

24p is - like many other things - not a result of ideal conditions, but a practical comporomise, and does not vaguely recemble gow I "see".
60i neither.

48p/60p in 3D sounds compelling for the kind of look cameron was going for in avatar...

I'm with Graeme. Framerate should be an artistic choice and not a religious belief...
 
But it does detail that he tested on EPIC! - Amongst Alexa and Phantom.

3D is different to 2D when talking about 48fps. If we still retain a 180/ shutter it will surely still retain a certain filmic characteristic will it not? The only difference is the realtime playback. The positive is the removal of the nasty stuttering.
 
Interesting comments in Daily Variety about Doug Trumbull promoting 120fps for certain films.

But then there's this comment:

There is some pushback, however, because many feel the look of 24p, film grain and other artifacts of filmmaking actually help the audience suspend their disbelief. Without this "proscenium effect," the argument goes, auds see actors in makeup on a set instead of characters in a story, or, at least, everything starts to look like a soap opera, so those picture improvements may be counter-productive to dramas.

I think this is a very important consideration. I vividly remember the 60fps Showscan film demos for SMPTE back in the early 1980s, and at the time, I commented to other post people that I thought it looked like "very high quality video, but kind of distracting and oft-putting." I feel like 24fps is so ingrained (no pun intended), any faster frame-rate might call too much attention to itself.

The other thing that users should consider is that doubling (or quadrupling) the frame rate also greatly increases the amount of data you're going to have to deal with, both for acquisition as well as in post. I'm reminded of the new Sony 4K camera that shoots uncompressed 16-bit data, with 1 hour of material taking up 1 terabyte of SSD. And that's only at 24fps. Imagine 3D, then imagine 48fps 3D. I can imagine post facilities that will potentially have to deal with hundreds of petabytes' worth of storage for a single project, which is going to be extraordinarily time-consuming and expensive.

I think the reality is that a 2K workflow still works very well and looks great for a wide variety of projects. Bear in mind that a lot of these have been up-rezzed to 4K for theatrical release and held up very well. I still say: it's much more about the lighting and the lenses than it is about the "K."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top