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 Shooting Avatar 2 in 60fps...

Sterling Wescott said:
There are are very few things I will become sanctimonious about.
This is one of them.

Fuck 3D.
Click to expand...

Brad Webb said:
who-cares.jpg
Click to expand...

Tim Whitcomb said:
MARK PETERSON cares, that's who... guy's company makes BANK doing 3D. As does Cioni and Freebairn and all the top pro contributing to this forum and dont forget

KETCH ROSSI CARES!
Click to expand...


Having replied to the thread without reading all that rplied, but now I did...

Must say..

@Sterliing,

even so I respect deeply every ones opinion, I don't so very much when the use of "F" words is implemented, so not cool ;)

@Brad,

well so much for sharing opinions that really bring absolutely no good to any one ;)

@Tim,

THANKS BUDDY!!
 
Michael Olsen said:
Will we actually be seeing this in 60fps per eye? Or will that boil down to 30fps? each?

I'll be interested to see how it looks on the screen.
Click to expand...

It's 60fps per eye already. Active shutter strobes faster than movie frame rate.
Could be doubled when the sequel comes out. Hopefully.
 
KETCH ROSSI said:
Well, I tough of shooting with additional cameras, side buy side of the 3D rigs, to shoot 24fps, off course this cameras will
have to be all set yup with ND's and even so the lighting will be taken care of at best, still remain the issue of composition,
as I will be composing with 3D Depth budget in mind, and IMO FG and BG cross objects will not work well for 3D as they
do on 2D and vice versa, curious to see what James has in mind ;)
Click to expand...

... and camera motion wants to be adjusted to either 3d or 2d ... to tell the story with the impact ... i am not sure, that just placing a third eye on the rig will do a good service ... either one of them will probably suffer ...

I would tell a 3d story completely different than a 2d story.

i would also think, that dramatic lighting may significantly change with each technique ...

guess, at the end it is like shooting two movies on one set, which in a double shot scenario may be tiring for the actors as well ... and then, the directors dilemma, getting a cool performance in one setup and missing it in the respective other ...

... alternatively, doing it both in parallel restrains the movement (and composition,as you have mentioned) of either one ...

sounds like a nightmare - creative process wise ...

given the "user experience" is what counts at the end ... (rather then the fame for having it pulled of)


Then:
Whatever the reasons of JC are, to shoot 60fps, he is right. ... :sifone: ...
 
Detlev Eller said:
and KETCH +1

... i also think, that the tone of this thread slipped slightly of ...
well, respectful conversation.
Click to expand...
My angry first post probably didn't properly set the tone. For that I apologize... I've edited it to be a bit less aggressive, haha.
 
Most importantly, will he shoot the live-action scenes (if there are any) at 4K? The 1080p footage looked soft blended with animation last time.

I wonder if Cameron has talked to Red at all?
 
Detlev Eller said:
... and camera motion wants to be adjusted to either 3d or 2d ... to tell the story with the impact ... i am not sure, that just placing a third eye on the rig will do a good service ... either one of them will probably suffer ...

I would tell a 3d story completely different than a 2d story.

i would also think, that dramatic lighting may significantly change with each technique ...

guess, at the end it is like shooting two movies on one set, which in a double shot scenario may be tiring for the actors as well ... and then, the directors dilemma, getting a cool performance in one setup and missing it in the respective other ...

... alternatively, doing it both in parallel restrains the movement (and composition,as you have mentioned) of either one ...

sounds like a nightmare - creative process wise ...

given the "user experience" is what counts at the end ... (rather then the fame for having it pulled of)


Then:
Whatever the reasons of JC are, to shoot 60fps, he is right. ... :sifone: ...
Click to expand...

Detlev,

it wil not be a placing of the Third camera on the rig, can't do that on Atom,
but will instead be a third camera placed completely independently of each 3D rigs,
again we are talking about testing, not the actual plan on shooting an entire movie,
but if we can do it we will, same thing as I wish to film the takes in both English and
Italian on set when possible, so to have both an English Original version of the film
as well on e in Italian, rather then doing Voice over dubbing.

All about testing to see what we can do ;)
 
I find current 3D offerings unsatisfying so if 60fps gives the subjects a more solid appearance I say go for it. IMHO the whole "looks like video" thing is more a result of conditioning than anything else. Some argue that there is a mental processing component that 24fps allows time for, that faster rates do not - I'll leave that debate to the neurobiologists.

There are some that believe shooting 2D and dimensionalizing in post is actually better when done right. Strains my credulity but the proof is in the projection. Perhaps the early post conversions were just poor.

In any case, my thought is to build a rig with an Epic capturing hi-res 2D in the center with 2 "lipstick" cams attached like antennas to capture depth information (perhaps as spline models) that is used to "map" the hi-res 2D image onto 3D forms created in post using the data from the depth cams. The cool thing about this concept, assuming it works :biggrin: is that the 2D part could be just as good as ever and the 3D part could be finessed in post to facilitate shot to shot depth issues, etc.

Cheers - #19
 
The way 3D has been done till now; 2x24fps, 2K, shallow dof, dim projectors, is a waste of time.

High framerate, high resolution (4K native each eye projected is a minimum), deep dof, new ways of lighting for 3D, different way of designing sets than for 2D, Dual 4K DLP projection @80.000 lumen(minimum) or single 4K projection with laser light engine 80.000.

This is minimum technical requirements if 3D wants to succeed as something more than a gimmick and become a new story telling movie language.
 
If Cameron thought the footage looked worse then 1080p/24fps 3D, he wouldn't switch to the new frame rate people.
 
I'm not sure we couldn't get accustomed to 48 or 60 fps. However, 24 is obviously the visual precedence we have, and I don't think it's a good idea to forget that.

What does look bad is TV interpolation from 24 (or 30) up to 60. That looks terrible, and we all know it. "But it's good for sports..." Anyways.

I'm a fan of experimentation. I may watch the breakdowns and behind the scenes for Avatar 2, but I may not bother watching the movie... We'll see.
 
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.
 
Yea bring that 48p and 60p in 3D 4K,we need more immersion (or nausea :D). No matter what others are saying I'm definitely interested in new aesthetic, only hope it doesn't look as dull as videogame.
 
3D at 60 fps

3D at 60 fps

If Cameron thought the footage looked worse then 1080p/24fps 3D, he wouldn't switch to the new frame rate people.
Click to expand...

Having helped bring the first season of Monday Night Football in HD (at 60 fps progressive) and projecting that to 20 ft screens, I say bring it on.

Yes, it's a different visual aesthetic, but he may be correct, this high a frame rate may be what 3D needs to tell the best story.

Either way, we should applaud his willingness to experiment.
 
Stuart English said:
....Either way, we should applaud his willingness to experiment.
Click to expand...

So I'm not the only one to see that Experimenting with FPS for 3D could be a great thing.. Finally;)

We look forward t our tests with Epic and Atom at48fps and 60fps, and I do
believe that we will be very happy with the results even the ones at T*1.3 ;)
 
... historically, comparing PAL with NTSC ... sports did always benefit from the slightly higher frame rate in NTSC world ... movies looked always better in PAL land ... didn´t it?

... my thinking goes like this:

... as long as we are exposed to rapid camera movements AND have something the eye can fix on ... as in "A BALL, A HORSE or A RAAAAAACE CAR" ... the higher resolution in time helps ... it has the "real touch" of continuous fluid movement.


Storytelling seems to benefit a lot from the lower frame rate ... supporting the "dream like" way of perceiving the images ... which is more fragmented and blurred by nature.


Different tools for different purposes ... arn´t they?

But maybe, just maybe ... we 24fps lovers are just nostalgic antique dinosaurs ... and the next generation of motion picture purveyors will look at it with a fresh set of eyes ... so to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top