James Cameron Shooting Avatar 2 in 60fps...

[Detlev Eller]

Off Topic

Off Topic

All about testing to see what we can do

which is great ...

And since VO oftentimes lacks emotional intensity given by the actor,
it is a nice experiment ...

... then - double, triple, quadruple language takes may be a valid approach for commercials or short form things ... (as in experimental) ...

I just think, that in the context of a motion picture, the price that is paid is FOCUS & DEPTH.

Focus to dig deep, will be diminished, since our mind can only focus on one thing at a time.

Being in "THE ZONE" to perform best, cannot be switched easily neither (from the actors and directors point of view) ...

I speak and think fluently in 3 languages ... and according to the task at hand, i switch.

Living in Italy, i speak and think italian.
In working mode and reading, it is usually English and rarely do i use my native language of German (only when i get on the phone with a german client). The funny thing is, even when meeting Germans living in Italy, we speak Italian ... weird - isn´t it? ... all of that said to exploit the intricacies of context.

When i am in french or spanish mode (which i am not fluent at all) it is a whole different story.

Reality, choice of words and a lot of things are completely different while using any of the above languages ...
Starting with the fact, that English has an overwhelming array of words, followed by German and eventually Italian having only a fraction of those available for verbatim translation. Italian depends a lot on body language and gestures - as we know ... hehe ...


Just adding to your concept, since you have mentioned it in this thread ... probably better to move it in its own thread ... it is an interesting topic to discuss and develop ...

 

[paulherrin]

so... how many frames are in a second?

or, how long is a piece of string...?

link: BBC - How Long is A Piece of String?

watched this via joseph hutson a couple weeks ago. really cool stuff to think about! especially when you apply it to time, and think about overcranking...

 

[Luis de la Cerda]

What's next? We'll discover newscasts are a lot more filmic than we thought?

...If I want fluid movement in 3D I go to the theater.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Why not?

Is Avatar 2 going to be underwater? I remember reading this rumor.

3D Epic 5K at 60fps... Yes!

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.

Agree!

 

[Detlev Eller]

so... how many frames are in a second?

... as many as you put in.

How many strokes make a painting?

Which is not to be confused with the number of hairs in a given brush ...
nor the number of blinking that goes on, when staring at it - the brush or the painting .... ;-)

... nor any other thought or feeling.

hehe

 

[Ken Waller]

The Douglas Trumbull Showscan Film at the Luxor in Vegas was shot at 60 frames in 3D I think. Not sure it is still there as they change out those shows. I think all his test showed 60 frames a good fit so nothing new here.

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

Would be great to see him shoot on Epic

 

[Jim Retar]

Making a 3D film is almost a different artform than a 2D narrative... so to assume the same traditions have to apply (24fps/180 degree etc) seems almost elitist.

Experimentation should be applauded... the guys knows what he is doing and, i'm sure, will be pushing 3D to another level with this film.

 

[Erik Franzén]

4k + 3D + 60FPS. Now that could be killer.
...or the most nauseating puke-inducing experience in the history of cinema. Time will decide which

 

[Peter Moretti]

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.

:hurray:

I wonder if any of the "I hate 3-D" posters even saw Avatar in 3-D at a good theater? B/c I did, and it looked absolutely BRILLIANT once they entered the planet world. Before that, I could care less about the 3-D.

I find that "purists" draw rather funny lines in the sand at times. As if there is anything "pure" about watching a digital color projector displaying a 2K DCP made from a 23.976 demosaiced 4K .R3D file while 5.1 sound mix surrounds you. Yeah, Kurosawa was all about that.

 

[Eric S.]

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?

I'm curious too and not just because of resolution. Cameron has been lobbying for 48fps for as long as 3D, but I wonder if a gander at Magic Motion might influence his attitude towards higher frame rates? Further, he certainly spent quite a bit of time and energy developing the 3D Fusion System, but with all the blockbusters using Epic 3D rigs now, you have to wonder if it might just be enough to change his mind.

 

[Paul Leeming]

"This colour film idea will never take off!" - black & white film aficionado

"I refuse to watch actors TALK on film!" - silent film era aficionado

For all you stereoscopic 3D haters, I have to ask - why?

WE should be the ones helping to take this new way of watching cinema to the professional level it deserves to be.

"Avatar" was a stunning achievement in the S3D art. And it IS art.

I think the biggest issue people seem to take is that the 3D effects aren't done properly, leading to eye strain and a host of other complaints. 2D to 3D post conversions feature heavily in that I'm sure.

It's up to US to show people how GOOD S3D can be, when done RIGHT.

I for one am looking forward to shooting my next film in S3D on Epics. These kinds of early experiments in framerates etc are of great interest to me, so I can do it RIGHT and showcase how beautiful S3D cinema can look.

Cheers,

Paul

 

[Bob Gruen]

I'm no fan of 3D, but I do see the wisdom in higher framerates and I think that Ketch's investigation of 48 FPS is the most interesting as there is no pulldown issue to get to a 24FPS version. Motion blur won't be right, but that is something that the 60FPS version would also have to deal with in addition to pulldown.

Bob

 

[Christian Munoz D]

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?

I'm curious too and not just because of resolution. Cameron has been lobbying for 48fps for as long as 3D, but I wonder if a gander at Magic Motion might influence his attitude towards higher frame rates? Further, he certainly spent quite a bit of time and energy developing the 3D Fusion System, but with all the blockbusters using Epic 3D rigs now, you have to wonder if it might just be enough to change his mind.

Seems like easy to switch his Sony video cameras from his 3D Fusion system for any high resolution Digital Cinema Camera, like the Epic.


http://www.g4tv.com/videos/48219/Avatars-Cameron-Pace-3D-Camera-Rig-Review/


.

 

[Stuart English]

48 fps

48 fps

I'm no fan of 3D, but I do see the wisdom in higher framerates and I think that Ketch's investigation of 48 FPS is the most interesting as there is no pulldown issue to get to a 24FPS version. Motion blur won't be right, but that is something that the 60FPS version would also have to deal with in addition to pulldown.

At 48 fps motion blur can still be the same (i.e 1/48th sec) Just drop every other frame and it should look the same as 24 fps 1/48th shutter

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

Regardless of how or what Cameron shoots on I sure hope he gets the story right first.

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

For all you stereoscopic 3D haters, I have to ask - why?


Paul

Paul,

For me its the glasses. The reason i go see a movie at the cinema is because i hope to get a superior viewing experience to seeing it on dvd, blueray or, dare i say it, on the internet. Paying a premium at the ticket counter to watch something some genius has spend double the amount of money shooting in 3d and then seeing it through a $1 pair of glasses that feel like they are smaller than my eyeballs is to me simply ridiculous.

We spend a lot of time on this forum discussing precision in optical systems and splitting hairs over what 20 thousand dollar lens resolves what imperceivable amount more detail than the other and cinematographers take great pride and care crafting the best looking images they can. Then in 3d the end user is watching it through what is probably the dodgiest piece of plastic rubbish imaginable. On an intellectual level that annoys the hell out of me, almost as much as does having those things sitting on my face for 2 hours annoys me physically.

I have tried really hard to give 3d a chance, i have gone to see a lot of movies, a lot of movies, in 3d. It doesn't give me a headache, i'm amused by the differences in perspective it offers to 2d. But i am completely over it now. To the point that if a movie comes out that i want to see, and its in 3d, i'm finding myself giving it a miss.

This is a forum for creatives who love shooting images and approach that like it is an art, which it is. Technology enables creativity, 3d creates challenges and new possibilities and it is a natural response for us to be excited by that, want to experiment with it, and i guess ultimately for many come to the conclusion that it is a preferable way to tell their story.

A world away from that is the consumer who's $'s are driving the whole industry through attendance. By and large, i don't think many of them give a crap what something is shot on. People love cinema because people are addicted to storytelling. They need it. Its hardwired into our brains. Whether a film is shot 2d or 3d should not be a consideration that is going to make or break the connection to story felt by the audience. A story well told is a transcendent experience, you get lost inside yourself inside of it. At that level of the art, 3d to me just becomes at best an irrelevance, and at worse a distraction.

Creatively, i have no objections to people using it if thats their choice. And no desire to say i disagree with the creative vision of other artists.

Experientially, i think it is damaging the collective brand that is "the movies"
In an age where screen attendance is dwindling, for the sake of the future of the industry i'd like to see a trend emerge where something lures people back to the cinemas. I don't think that is 3d.

Just from personal experience, i think the abundance of films being released in 3d post Avatar could in fact be driving people way. I love going to the movies and will see nearly anything. Back in the good old days i'd go every sunday night without fail, often tuesday nights as well. Now days i'm just finding it harder to get someone to come with if its 3d. I ring and say hey want to come see a movie, they go yeah, i go it's in 3d, they go nah, fuck it. Pretty soon i get sick of trying to convince people it doesn't matter, that it'll be fun anyway. Because its not, its actually usually pretty lame and pretty annoying to watch. And thats why now, as often as not, going to the movies goes in the too hard basket.

I've wanted to go see Tangled for a month, usually when i want to see something i would go the day it comes out or that weekend. I'll probably not see it b4 its run finishes despite thinking it will be good, and the only reason for that is its in 3d. I know its in 2d as well but i don't care. I'm a consumer, consumers are stupid. You play around with a thing they used to depend on being the same and don't make it better and you'll lose them because you've muddied the waters and diminished your brand. Then you have to win them back again and thats easier said than done.

Wow, long post. Sorry bout that I am now quite certain that i have a pathological fear that 3d is going to ruin the industry i've spent my lifetime aspiring to be a part of b4 i even get there.. time for a lie down

 

[Petr Dvorak]

:hurray:

I wonder if any of the "I hate 3-D" posters even saw Avatar in 3-D at a good theater? B/c I did, and it looked absolutely BRILLIANT once they entered the planet world. Before that, I could care less about the 3-D.

I find that "purists" draw rather funny lines in the sand at times. As if there is anything "pure" about watching a digital color projector displaying a 2K DCP made from a 23.976 demosaiced 4K .R3D file while 5.1 sound mix surrounds you. Yeah, Kurosawa was all about that.

Some film dude in radio recomended to see Avatar ONLY in IMAX because at other regular cimnemas their 3D projection was dull due lack of light intensity wich was only half for each eye so film was dark, grey and quite faded without rich colors and contrast. He was absuletely right I really like good IMAX quality. I think they use double projectors or so.
It doesnt matter that it was more like hollywood entertainment than piece of movie art. It was very well done 3D thing and I am waiting for more good movies in 3D - both smart entertainment and also some art cinema pieces.

 

[Michael Olsen]

The idea of screening films at relatively higher framerates is obviously divisive.

But I've never had the opportunity to see something shown at 48fps or 60fps in a proper manner.

...where does this happen? So many people are openly and decidedly against it that I must be missing something...

 

[Benni Diez]

Any word on what actual cameras they'll be using for A2? I know they built their own system, but afaik they used the modified guts of some sony HD cameras. Which was one of the reasons why the live action footage didn't hold up so great and they had a lot of work in post correcting the material. I really hope they go RED next time.
I'm totally game for 4k 3D 60fps. Heck, make it 120 and you can get all sorts of clean frame rates out of it